Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘Twitter’

State of the Union address 2018 live-tweets

I live-tweeted President Trump’s address last night (text) and here are some highlights:

More on family leave here.

Filed under: , , ,

German social media law: early takedowns spur outcry

“A new law meant to curtail hate speech on social media in Germany is stifling free speech and making martyrs out of anti-immigrant politicians whose posts are deleted, the top-selling Bild newspaper said on Thursday” under the headline “Please spare us the thought police!” [Michelle Martin, Thomson Reuters] In one probably intended effect of the draconian law — drafted by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats — Twitter moved to take down some pronouncements by politicians from the nationalist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. But the NetzDG enactment, as it is known, has quickly had a number of less expected applications, including the blockage of a satirical publication that had mimicked the tone of an AfD leader, and even the deletion of a years-earlier tweet by Justice Minister Heiko Maas, a champion of the law, in which he had called an author an “idiot.” [Reuters; AFP/The National; DW; Tim Cushing/TechDirt; earlier here, here, here, here, and here]

Filed under: , , , ,

Free speech roundup

  • “I believe in the First Amendment” and FCC has no authority to revoke licenses over newscast content, says commission chairman Ajit Pai [Jacob Sullum/Reason, earlier]
  • She stoops to censor: British Crown and her Wiltshire police are not amused by your tweets [Andrew Stuttaford, BBC via Helen Pluckrose on Twitter; earlier here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.] Hate speech laws will in practice be used by the politically powerful against dissenters and radicals, part 761 [Guardian on case of woman questioned by detectives over banner denouncing conservative ruling party in Northern Ireland]
  • “Congress members threaten Twitter with regulation if it doesn’t suppress ‘racially divisive communications’ and ‘anti-American sentiments” [Eugene Volokh on bill introduced by Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) and Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)]
  • On the old “shouting fire in a crowded theater” trope, read this whole thread and then you won’t have to catch up later [Popehat on Twitter] Neither “extremist” speech nor “fake news” can be defined and identified closely enough for regulation to work [Cato Daily Podcast with Flemming Rose and Caleb Brown]
  • Encyclopedia of Libertarianism article on freedom of speech is by Alan Charles Kors;
  • “Screen Actors Guild Tells Court There’s Nothing Unconstitutional About Curbing IMDB’s Publication Of Facts” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt; earlier here and here]

Filed under: , , , , ,

Must officials keep religion out of their social media feeds?

The Freedom from Religion Foundation claims that it’s unconstitutional for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to tweet Bible verses, as he often does [complaint letter] The question of when officials’ social media feeds should be deemed governmental in nature as distinct from personal sidelines, and what exactly that should mean in practice, has been much in the news, especially since a federal court ruled that a county supervisor in Virginia acted improperly by banning some constituents from her Facebook page. Critics have similarly sued on the theory that President Trump’s @realdonaldtrump Twitter account is a government forum that may not block viewers based on the viewpoint of their likely responses. Eugene Volokh sorts out some of the issues and notes that the Supreme Court, including some of the most liberal members, have taken the view that elected officials are free to voice religious convictions in public speeches without fear of violating the Establishment Clause. Earlier here and here.

Filed under: , , , ,

“Do You Have a Constitutional Right to Follow the President on Twitter?”

Probably not, says John Samples: “the fact that designated public forums may be non-physical, coupled with Trump’s status as President of the United States, is probably not a sufficient basis to deem his Twitter account a designated public forum. The courts have generally determined that designated public forums must be owned by the government in an official capacity, or used for official government communication….In effect, Trump’s becoming president does not nationalize the private Twitter account that he used before ascending to the nation’s highest office, and will likely continue to use when his tenure in the White House ends.” [Cato] More: Eugene Volokh (citing ruling on challenge about social media accounts used by officials in Fairfax County, Va.)

Filed under: , ,

“Families of San Bernardino Shooting Sue Facebook, Google, Twitter”

“Family members of three victims of the December 2015 shooting rampage in San Bernardino, California, have sued Facebook, Google and Twitter, claiming … that by allowing Islamic State militants to spread propaganda freely on social media, the three companies provided ‘material support’ to the group and enabled attacks.” [Reuters, ABA Journal]

Filed under: , , , ,

Omaha restaurateur on trial for tweet

Omaha restaurateur John Horavatinovich tweeted a security cam picture of two 17-year-olds turned away trying to buy beer at his establishment with an accompanying comment that included the word “sting.” Now he’s on trial on misdemeanor charges of obstructing a government operation. His lawyers argue that he had no way of knowing whether the teenagers were working with authorities, since they did not declare themselves. The case is now in the hands of jurors. [WOWT]

P.S.: Compare this 2012 post, “Judge: flashing headlights to warn of speed trap is protected speech [under First Amendment].”

Follow-up: verdict Not Guilty.

Filed under: , , , , ,

“[Recent law grad] sues Twitter for fake account in her name”

A recent graduate of the University of San Diego’s law school is “fairly upset that someone set up a parody Twitter account pretending to be her that portrayed her in an unflattering light. So she has sued. For $100 million. And she’s not just suing the ‘John Doe’ behind the account… but also Twitter. Oh, and also the University of San Diego.” Section 230 generally immunizes online providers like Twitter from liability for material posted by users. [complaint with handwritten details via Eric Goldman; Mike Masnick, TechDirt]

Filed under: