{"id":1119616,"date":"2023-11-28T12:43:01","date_gmt":"2023-11-28T17:43:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/uncategorized\/arkansas-ags-opinion-on-government-entities-moderation-of-their-reason\/"},"modified":"2023-11-28T12:43:01","modified_gmt":"2023-11-28T17:43:01","slug":"arkansas-ags-opinion-on-government-entities-moderation-of-their-reason","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/arkansas-ags-opinion-on-government-entities-moderation-of-their-reason\/","title":{"rendered":"Arkansas AG&#8217;s Opinion on Government Entities&#8217; Moderation of their &#8230; &#8211; Reason"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    From Arkansas    AG opinion 2023-034, issued two weeks ago:  <\/p>\n<p>      [T]he content-moderation policies for the Arkansas Department      of Transportation's \"official social media account(s) (such      as Twitter, IDRIVE, Arkansas Instagram, Facebook, etc.)\" ,      which describe the Department's social-media accounts as      \"limited public forums,\" authorize the Department to \"remove      or reject\" \"user generated posts  when the content:    <\/p>\n<p>      The question presented here is not whether a personal social      media account operated by an elected official constitutes      government action under the First Amendment. Rather, the      question here is what First Amendment limitations apply to      comment moderation on an official government run social-media      account.    <\/p>\n<p>    The AG notes that constitutionally unprotected \"obscenity\" and    \"incitement\" can be removed, but as to other matters concludes:  <\/p>\n<p>      [T]he Department's interactive social media pages are best      classified as limited public forums  [and thus] the      Department's regulation of the comment sections in its      social-media platforms \"must be reasonable and viewpoint      neutral.\"     <\/p>\n<p>      Because some speech may be disruptive or even discourage      civic participation, the limits and restrictions contained in      the Department's policy likely are reasonable to limit that      disruption. Further, numerous alternative channels, such as      other social-media platforms, are available for anyone in the      public to express his or her off-topic views.    <\/p>\n<p>      [But v]iewpoint neutral implementation or enforcement of      broad or vague terms such as \"promotes or endorses social      causes,\" \"harassing,\" or \"offensive terms\" may prove      difficult. Further, the policy provides that the \"Department      reserves the right to remove, and if needed block, anyone who      posts inappropriate material.\" The phrase \"inappropriate      material,\" to the extent that phrase is not limited to the      aforementioned five speech-areas subject to removal under the      policy, is so broad that the Department risks discriminating      based on viewpoint.    <\/p>\n<p>    The opinion also notes that, \"In addition to moderating users'    posts, the policy also authorizes the Department 'to remove,    and if needed block, anyone who posts inappropriate material,'\"    and notes:  <\/p>\n<p>      [S]ome courts have held that indefinitely suspending a      disruptive person from attending future public forumsa city      hall and a state Capitol buildingbecause of past acts is      unconstitutional, particularly when no threat to public      safety exists. But this is a highly factual question.      Therefore, I cannot definitively opine on whether blocking a      user permanently or banning a user indefinitely from a public      forum is constitutional.    <\/p>\n<p>    Note that the Supreme Court is currently considering when    individual officeholders' moderation of the comments    on their accounts is government action (and is therefore    constrained by the First Amendment) and when it's private    action (and therefore not constrained by the First Amendment).    But those cases take for granted that moderation decisions by    government bodiesdepartments of transportation,    school boards, city councils, and the likeare government    action, and thus subject to the First Amendment.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the article here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/reason.com\/volokh\/2023\/11\/27\/arkansas-ags-opinion-on-government-entities-moderation-of-their-social-media-comments\/\" title=\"Arkansas AG's Opinion on Government Entities' Moderation of their ... - Reason\" rel=\"noopener\">Arkansas AG's Opinion on Government Entities' Moderation of their ... - Reason<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> From Arkansas AG opinion 2023-034, issued two weeks ago: [T]he content-moderation policies for the Arkansas Department of Transportation's \"official social media account(s) (such as Twitter, IDRIVE, Arkansas Instagram, Facebook, etc.)\" , which describe the Department's social-media accounts as \"limited public forums,\" authorize the Department to \"remove or reject\" \"user generated posts when the content: The question presented here is not whether a personal social media account operated by an elected official constitutes government action under the First Amendment. Rather, the question here is what First Amendment limitations apply to comment moderation on an official government run social-media account <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/arkansas-ags-opinion-on-government-entities-moderation-of-their-reason\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94877],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1119616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-amendment-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1119616"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1119616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1119616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1119616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1119616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1119616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}