WEBVTT - Social Media and the First Amendment 0:00:04.240 --> 0:00:07.240 Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production of I Heart Radios, 0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:13.760 How Stuff Works. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. 0:00:13.800 --> 0:00:17.480 I am your host, executive producer Jonathan Strickland. I'm with 0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:19.360 How Stuff Works and iHeart Radio and a lot of 0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:23.000 all things tech, and boy, how they we have a 0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:26.120 story to talk about today. So in the United States, 0:00:26.600 --> 0:00:30.040 a Court of Appeals upheld a ruling from two thousand 0:00:30.160 --> 0:00:33.040 eighteen that stated that it was a violation of the 0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:36.960 First Amendment for Donald Trump, the President of the United States, 0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:40.440 to block users on Twitter. So in this episode, I'm 0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:44.120 going to tackle the very complicated issue of social media, 0:00:44.600 --> 0:00:48.560 free speech, government communication, and more. And this is not 0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:51.760 going to be a political episode in the sense that 0:00:51.840 --> 0:00:55.800 I am going to espouse a particular political philosophy. So 0:00:55.840 --> 0:00:58.160 in other words, I'm not going to use this episode 0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:02.120 to argue that one political outlook is better than any 0:01:02.160 --> 0:01:05.680 other political outlook. That's I'm not interested in doing that 0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:08.640 on this show ever. So Rather, this is about the 0:01:08.640 --> 0:01:11.679 concept of free speech and why the digital age has 0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:14.640 made it an even more complicated subject than it was before. 0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:17.840 And it was already pretty thorny, So this is sort 0:01:17.840 --> 0:01:20.200 of an unbiased approach to it. Now I'm going to 0:01:20.319 --> 0:01:24.440 start off with the actual news story that prompted this episode, 0:01:24.520 --> 0:01:27.040 and then we'll dive into a deeper look into the 0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:30.759 First Amendment before he transitioned to the complications of applying 0:01:30.800 --> 0:01:35.280 that concept to social media networks. It all stems from 0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:38.759 a lawsuit that was first filed on July eleven, two 0:01:38.840 --> 0:01:42.280 thousand seventeen, in the United States District Court for the 0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:46.480 Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs were Twitter users 0:01:46.520 --> 0:01:49.480 who had been blocked by Donald Trump on Twitter after 0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:52.520 he had taken the position of President of the United States, 0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:55.200 and it meant that they could no longer see what 0:01:55.400 --> 0:01:59.000 he posted, nor would their messages be visible to him. 0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:04.600 The Night Institute at Columbia University would represent this group 0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:07.640 and argue that this amounted to a violation of the 0:02:07.640 --> 0:02:11.359 First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The judge in that 0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:15.080 case found in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that yes, 0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:18.679 this is a violation of their First Amendment, and then 0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:22.560 the government filed an appeal and this case then went 0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.840 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 0:02:26.320 --> 0:02:31.040 and that court upheld the earlier ruling. Now, at this stage, 0:02:31.320 --> 0:02:35.720 the government may either drop the matter and presumably obey 0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:39.600 the court, or it may appeal to the Supreme Court, 0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.000 which would be the final arbiter in matters of justice 0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:45.720 in the United States. But the Supreme Court in the 0:02:45.800 --> 0:02:49.120 United States here's only a small percentage of all the 0:02:49.200 --> 0:02:52.960 cases that are submitted to it. It's submitted thousands of 0:02:52.960 --> 0:02:56.880 cases each year, and it will hear something like less 0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.320 than three percent of all the cases that have been 0:02:59.320 --> 0:03:02.720 submitted to it. So there's no guarantee that the Supreme 0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:05.799 Court would choose to hear this case, and if it did, 0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:08.840 there's no guarantee that it would find any differently than 0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:12.880 the earlier courts had. So the ruling says the president 0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:17.760 and presumably any elected official cannot use social media to 0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:21.960 communicate matters relating to government activities in any sort of 0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:26.480 official way and still block citizens because that infringes on 0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:29.880 the First Amendment rights of those citizens. So now let's 0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:32.120 start breaking down what all this means before we get 0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:35.840 into how it's really complicated in the digital age. First, 0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:39.000 for those not versed in the Constitution of the United 0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:44.000 States of America, let's have a quick civics lesson the constitution. 0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:47.560 Is the basic foundation of law in the United States. 0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:51.320 It is the bedrock upon which all other law is built. 0:03:51.720 --> 0:03:55.760 Should a law be challenged in court to violate the Constitution, 0:03:56.280 --> 0:04:00.120 the court is to strike down that law. The body 0:04:00.160 --> 0:04:03.280 of the Constitution includes seven articles that lay out the 0:04:03.320 --> 0:04:06.600 basic structure of the American government, and they cover such 0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:09.520 things as the three branches of government. That includes the 0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:12.440 legislative branch that makes the laws. That would be the 0:04:12.520 --> 0:04:15.080 Senate and the House of Representatives. Then you have the 0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:19.000 executive branch that executes the laws and access commander of 0:04:19.080 --> 0:04:22.040 chief in chief of the Armed forces that would be 0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:25.680 the president, vice president that group. Then you have the 0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:30.400 judicial branch that well judges, and they're the ones who 0:04:30.440 --> 0:04:35.360 actually decide if laws are constitutional or not, as well 0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:39.480 as decide the individual cases federal cases that come up 0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:42.760 in courts. And the other articles lay out the basic 0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:46.679 rules that bind states together and establish where the federal 0:04:46.680 --> 0:04:49.720 system fits in with the state system, as well as 0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:52.680 the procedures for the government has to follow to amend 0:04:52.839 --> 0:04:57.919 the Constitution and to ratify it. So that's the basic document. 0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:00.600 Then you have the first ten amendments to the Institution, 0:05:00.680 --> 0:05:03.159 also known as the Bill of Rights, and we're only 0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:07.120 concerned with the First Amendment, which reads as follows. This 0:05:07.200 --> 0:05:11.839 is the actual wording on the Constitution. Congress shall make 0:05:12.000 --> 0:05:15.599 no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:20.279 free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or 0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:23.359 of the press, or the right of the people peaceably 0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.520 to a symbol and the and to petition the Government 0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:29.640 for a redress of grievances. Now we need to get 0:05:29.680 --> 0:05:31.360 a few other things out of the way. The First 0:05:31.400 --> 0:05:35.400 Amendment only applies to the public sector and the government's 0:05:35.520 --> 0:05:39.200 role in those matters. So, according to the U. S Constitution, 0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.039 no government in the States may restrict or deny a 0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:47.840 citizens speech or right to redress grievances. Now that's not 0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:51.400 to say a private sector company couldn't do the same. 0:05:51.720 --> 0:05:54.760 So if I have a business and own some land, 0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:58.880 and I create a whole corporation, I can to some 0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:02.960 extent tell my employees or even customers that certain types 0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:06.840 of expression are not tolerated. This is what allows social 0:06:06.880 --> 0:06:10.720 media platforms to take action and ban users. The First 0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:14.719 Amendment protects against the government violating freedom of speech, but 0:06:14.760 --> 0:06:18.320 it doesn't protect against Facebook or Twitter taking away your 0:06:18.480 --> 0:06:23.560 ability to post on those platforms. Now, this too has limitations, 0:06:23.600 --> 0:06:27.719 since there are other laws, such as anti discrimination laws, 0:06:27.760 --> 0:06:31.120 to make it illegal to act in a discriminatory manner, 0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:34.760 even in the private sector. So if I said, people 0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:38.040 of a certain religion, we're not allowed in my space, 0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:42.600 I'd be violating anti discrimination laws, even though the First 0:06:42.640 --> 0:06:45.279 Amendment itself wouldn't be a factor because I'm not a 0:06:45.320 --> 0:06:49.680 government agent. I'm a representative of the private sector. But 0:06:49.720 --> 0:06:55.159 the anti discrimination laws still cover that particular UH arena. 0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:59.719 So further, in court cases, judges have determined that the 0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:03.680 free him of speech in itself has limitations. It is 0:07:04.320 --> 0:07:09.159 not without its own restrictions, which sounds like a contradiction 0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:12.640 right freedom of speech with restrictions. Well, you have to 0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:15.200 think about the specific cases. So, for one thing, you 0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:18.960 could use your own freedom of expression to restrict someone 0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:24.200 else's same freedoms, such as by intimidating them into silence 0:07:24.760 --> 0:07:28.559 or otherwise harassing them or being a problem. So things 0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:31.720 like threats are not protected by the First Amendment. You 0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:35.920 cannot make threats to people and claim First Amendment protection. UH. 0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:40.120 That is not protected free speech in general. You're not 0:07:40.160 --> 0:07:43.560 allowed to use freedom of speech to harm others. In 0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.080 order to get whatever it is that you want. They're 0:07:46.080 --> 0:07:48.360 also not allowed to make claims that you know to 0:07:48.440 --> 0:07:53.000 be false, because that's fraud. Uh. Similarly, you can't make 0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:57.200 claims about people like in libel or slander. It's where 0:07:57.240 --> 0:08:02.559 you defame someone using untrue or uns stantiated information. That's 0:08:02.600 --> 0:08:05.320 not protected by free speech either. Now that's not the 0:08:05.360 --> 0:08:08.040 same thing as saying that it will always be punished. 0:08:08.480 --> 0:08:11.640 It could be punished, but it isn't necessarily going to 0:08:11.680 --> 0:08:14.760 be punished. Really, it's just saying that if you were 0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.680 found guilty of acting in that way, you could not 0:08:18.840 --> 0:08:22.240 claim the First Amendment for protection. You couldn't say it's 0:08:22.280 --> 0:08:24.840 my freedom of speech to say these things if in 0:08:24.880 --> 0:08:30.840 fact you were found guilty of committing libel or slander, or, 0:08:30.880 --> 0:08:35.760 as a well known and frequently erroneously attributed phrase goes, 0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:39.160 the right to swing your arm ends at the other 0:08:39.280 --> 0:08:43.120 man's nose. The rights of one person cannot be interpreted 0:08:43.240 --> 0:08:47.200 as such that they infringe upon the rights of another person. 0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:50.960 So you do have rights up to the point where 0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:54.959 you could, uh, you know, act in such a way 0:08:54.960 --> 0:08:57.000 that you're not causing harm to other people. But if 0:08:57.000 --> 0:08:59.600 you start causing harm to other people that's not within 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.320 your because that would be a violation of their rights. Okay, 0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:06.120 So the First Amendment states that the government shall not 0:09:06.240 --> 0:09:09.680 restrict expression, and it further states that Congress cannot restrict 0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:12.520 the rights of citizens to quote petition the government for 0:09:12.559 --> 0:09:16.559 a redress of grievances end quote. These are important concepts 0:09:16.559 --> 0:09:19.800 that come into play with the legal rulings around Twitter 0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:23.959 and other social media platforms. The next complication we need 0:09:24.000 --> 0:09:27.280 to look at is the nature of social media accounts. 0:09:28.000 --> 0:09:31.400 So Donald Trump has had his Twitter account since March 0:09:31.520 --> 0:09:35.280 two thousand nine, which was many years before he became 0:09:35.360 --> 0:09:38.640 president of the United States. So when he established his 0:09:38.640 --> 0:09:41.800 Twitter account, he was a private citizen. He wasn't a 0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:45.679 member of the public sector, and as such, as a 0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:50.360 private citizen, he could block anyone he chose, just as 0:09:50.400 --> 0:09:54.240 any other user can for any reason he or she likes. 0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:57.640 This is not a violation of the First Amendment. As 0:09:57.679 --> 0:10:00.600 a private user, just because people have the right to 0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:03.400 say stuff doesn't mean you're obligated to listen to it. 0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:06.480 At least if you're a private citizen, you're not you 0:10:06.480 --> 0:10:09.640 can ignore it. And we all know how communication on 0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:13.760 the Internet can quickly become little more than a flame 0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:17.360 war or worse. I'm sure many of you out there have, 0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:21.280 at some point or another blocked someone in an effort 0:10:21.280 --> 0:10:25.080 to preserve at least some sense of sanity at one 0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:28.760 time or another. I know that I have. Now, if 0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:32.800 Trump had refrained from using his Twitter account to communicate 0:10:32.880 --> 0:10:37.920 matters of official government business, perhaps this ruling would have 0:10:37.960 --> 0:10:43.120 gone another way. Now, it's impossible to say for certain 0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:46.040 it would have gone another way. It requires a what 0:10:46.200 --> 0:10:49.920 if scenario, and that what if scenario did not happen. 0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:54.600 If Trump as president had operated his Twitter account as 0:10:54.640 --> 0:11:00.280 a private citizen and not included anything that remotely lated 0:11:00.280 --> 0:11:03.319 to his official capacity as president, it would be hard 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:07.280 to argue that he violated anyone's First Amendment rights by 0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:11.679 blocking them. This would assume a total separation of Trump 0:11:11.840 --> 0:11:15.080 the person and Trump the president, which I think would 0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:18.600 be challenging to argue, but I am no expert on 0:11:18.679 --> 0:11:22.560 that matter. However, the courts have stated that the way 0:11:22.559 --> 0:11:26.480 Trump has used his Twitter account since becoming president has 0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:30.680 an overwhelming amount of evidence that it counts as presidential 0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:35.400 communication to the public. As such, he cannot block members 0:11:35.520 --> 0:11:38.720 of that public from being able to see or respond 0:11:38.880 --> 0:11:42.280 to his messaging. As the First Amendment states, he can't 0:11:42.320 --> 0:11:47.079 prevent citizens from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. 0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:51.360 Since he uses Twitter to communicate government activities, including such 0:11:51.400 --> 0:11:55.199 stuff as hiring or firing members of his staff, intended 0:11:55.320 --> 0:12:00.000 changes to policies, or announcing executive orders, he has constant 0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:05.520 atitutionally obligated to keep those channels open. Now, this is 0:12:05.559 --> 0:12:09.160 an issue that goes beyond Trump. People from both the 0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:15.400 Republican and Democrat parties have had similar cases brought against them. 0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:19.000 The Secretary of State for Alabama, guy named John Merrill, 0:12:19.280 --> 0:12:22.160 had a lawsuit against him still does have a lawsuit 0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:25.680 against him from plaintiffs who argue that his blocking them 0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:29.760 on Twitter constitutes much the same matter as Trump's case, 0:12:30.320 --> 0:12:33.680 though Merrill disputes this, and that lawsuit has seen no 0:12:33.800 --> 0:12:37.240 resolution as of the recording of this podcast. In two 0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:42.040 thousands seventeen, a Virginia District Court judge ruled against chairwoman 0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:46.640 of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors, h Phyllis Randall 0:12:46.760 --> 0:12:49.880 is her name. She had banned a man named Brian 0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:53.840 Davison from her Facebook page after Davison had left critical 0:12:53.880 --> 0:12:58.040 comments in the messages when she was talking to voters. 0:12:58.559 --> 0:13:01.880 Randall had argued that this was her personal Facebook page, 0:13:01.880 --> 0:13:05.480 it wasn't the official page for her as in her 0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:08.959 role as chairwoman, but the judge stated that she clearly 0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:12.040 was using it in an official capacity because she would 0:13:12.040 --> 0:13:15.560 solicit comment from the voting public in her posts, and 0:13:15.600 --> 0:13:19.440 therefore she could not exclude members of the public from 0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:25.679 that activity. Very recently, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasia Cortez has been 0:13:25.720 --> 0:13:29.520 sued for blocking Joseph Saladino, a YouTube personality who is 0:13:29.559 --> 0:13:33.120 currently seeking office in the United States, and she blocked 0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.240 him on Twitter. Saladino's argument is that the same rules 0:13:36.280 --> 0:13:41.000 that apply to Trump have to apply to all elected officials. Now, 0:13:41.080 --> 0:13:43.680 when we come back, we'll look at some of these 0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:46.480 issues a little more closely and talk about the difficult 0:13:46.559 --> 0:13:49.960 landscape we now find ourselves in. But first I'm going 0:13:50.000 --> 0:13:59.760 to take a quick break. I'm going to guess that 0:14:00.000 --> 0:14:03.400 most of you listening to this podcast have spent a 0:14:03.520 --> 0:14:07.280 decent amount of time on the Internet. You've probably all 0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:12.200 heard the common wisdom, never read the comments. You know 0:14:12.240 --> 0:14:16.160 that the Internet, while it can give us access to entertainment, information, 0:14:16.480 --> 0:14:22.000 channels of communication also facilitates trolling, hate speech, harassment, all 0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:26.960 sorts of unpleasantness. The old adage of ignore them and 0:14:27.000 --> 0:14:31.120 they'll go away hasn't proven to be very effective, particularly 0:14:31.480 --> 0:14:33.800 in an age where some people will go to such 0:14:33.920 --> 0:14:37.040 lengths as do sing, digging up and then sharing private 0:14:37.080 --> 0:14:40.960 information about people, or swatting in which a malicious person 0:14:41.040 --> 0:14:44.440 would give false information to law enforcement officials to initiate 0:14:44.480 --> 0:14:47.720 what amounts to an attack on a person's home or office. 0:14:48.520 --> 0:14:51.200 It can be an ugly world out there, and there 0:14:51.240 --> 0:14:54.080 are lots of different reasons why these things happen, and 0:14:54.120 --> 0:14:57.200 I'll have to have a more in depth discussion about 0:14:57.240 --> 0:15:00.240 that at some point, about the psychology of trolling and 0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:02.720 the culture of trolling and what enables it and what 0:15:02.960 --> 0:15:05.600 feeds it. But that's a matter for a different episode. 0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:08.120 The reason I bring it up here is that the 0:15:08.160 --> 0:15:11.280 ability to block or ban people is for some of 0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:15.280 us what makes it bearable to even use the platforms 0:15:15.280 --> 0:15:17.880 available on the Internet in the first place. And the 0:15:17.920 --> 0:15:21.600 courts recognized this as well. And here's where we encounter 0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:24.680 one of the many sticky points that are hard to resolve. 0:15:25.400 --> 0:15:28.440 Before the break, I mentioned the case of Phyllis Randall, 0:15:28.600 --> 0:15:31.920 the politician in Virginia who was reprimanded for blocking a 0:15:32.040 --> 0:15:34.800 voter on her Facebook page. Now, I should point out 0:15:35.040 --> 0:15:38.760 she only instituted a twelve hour ban, and the judge 0:15:38.840 --> 0:15:42.240 in the case took that into account. And the judge 0:15:42.280 --> 0:15:46.000 also stated that quote government officials have at least a 0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:50.880 reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages 0:15:51.320 --> 0:15:55.640 in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly 0:15:55.800 --> 0:15:59.920 post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government of 0:16:00.000 --> 0:16:03.080 official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for 0:16:03.200 --> 0:16:06.960 its intended purpose end quote. So, in other words, a 0:16:07.040 --> 0:16:12.840 politician has the right and arguably the responsibility to at 0:16:12.880 --> 0:16:16.480 least block or delete certain comments that pop up because 0:16:16.520 --> 0:16:19.160 they may not be germane to the matter at hand, 0:16:19.800 --> 0:16:22.480 or they may be meant to derail the discussion or 0:16:22.520 --> 0:16:27.040 even attack other people involved in that discussion. These actions 0:16:27.040 --> 0:16:31.160 would quote impinge on the First Amendment rights end quote 0:16:31.600 --> 0:16:34.640 of the other folks who are using that forum. So 0:16:34.680 --> 0:16:38.800 now we're talking about a case by case basis issue, 0:16:39.080 --> 0:16:42.760 and elected official can't ban a voter from participating in 0:16:42.760 --> 0:16:45.840 a public forum, even if that public forum is the 0:16:45.880 --> 0:16:49.840 officials own social media account page, whether it's on Twitter 0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:52.400 or Facebook or whatever, So you can think of that 0:16:52.440 --> 0:16:55.160 as a private platform, but a public forum. This is 0:16:55.200 --> 0:16:59.120 another issue that is a problem here. But the official 0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:02.840 is allowed to moderate comments, but that means the official 0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:05.119 has to be able to determine whether or not a 0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:10.840 comment counts as being relative or being disruptive. Now, we 0:17:10.880 --> 0:17:16.080 need to remember that elected officials, despite occasional evidence to 0:17:16.119 --> 0:17:20.920 the contrary, are human beings. Some of them are awful people. Sure, 0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:24.400 some of them are wonderful people. Some of them may 0:17:24.440 --> 0:17:28.200 not show their awfulness or wonderfulness in their capacity as 0:17:28.240 --> 0:17:32.840 an elected official. But people, as a general rule are 0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:36.879 not super happy when other people disagree with them. Some 0:17:37.040 --> 0:17:41.000 of us, and I'm including myself in this particular category, 0:17:42.119 --> 0:17:45.000 I can get a bit huffy about it. Now, later on, 0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:51.400 when the initial and often irrational reaction has settled, I 0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:56.600 will find myself acknowledging them maybe, just maybe I was wrong. 0:17:57.720 --> 0:18:00.600 That's not a fun realization, But I wish it were 0:18:00.640 --> 0:18:03.359 one that would occur to me earlier in the process, 0:18:03.440 --> 0:18:06.840 because it could have saved me from some nasty exchanges 0:18:06.960 --> 0:18:10.320 that I otherwise could have avoided. I would have ruffled 0:18:10.359 --> 0:18:13.679 fewer feathers, and I would have strained fewer friendships. But 0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:16.720 what I'm really getting at is I could easily imagine 0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:19.879 myself being in one of these situations in which I 0:18:19.920 --> 0:18:23.120 post something as an elected official, and then I see 0:18:23.160 --> 0:18:26.639 a dissenting opinion worded in such a way that I 0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.480 consider it an attack or an insult, and so boop, 0:18:29.720 --> 0:18:33.199 I delete the comment. But I can also imagine that 0:18:33.359 --> 0:18:35.679 later on I might cool down and realize, you know, 0:18:35.800 --> 0:18:39.080 maybe the comment was worded in a confrontational way, but 0:18:39.200 --> 0:18:42.280 ultimately that was a voter expressing a point of view 0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:45.360 that's different from my own, but it's no less valid 0:18:45.640 --> 0:18:48.760 than my own. So I imagine that for at least 0:18:48.840 --> 0:18:52.439 some people, being able to be objective and separate the 0:18:52.440 --> 0:18:57.520 critical comments that have validity from the disruptive or insulting 0:18:57.680 --> 0:19:01.639 or irrelevant comments can sometimes be a challenge, And to 0:19:01.760 --> 0:19:04.640 those people, I suggest you get a social media manager 0:19:04.840 --> 0:19:08.160 who isn't the person directly making the statements, but rather 0:19:08.200 --> 0:19:12.000 connect as a more objective judge on the matter. Goodness knows, 0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:15.960 I wouldn't be able to do this for myself, and 0:19:16.040 --> 0:19:18.439 this is one of many reasons why everyone should be 0:19:18.480 --> 0:19:22.080 glad I am not a politician. I also want to 0:19:22.080 --> 0:19:25.960 acknowledge there are plenty of remarkably cool headed people in 0:19:26.080 --> 0:19:28.840 politics who can handle this sort of stuff a billion 0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:33.040 times better than I can. So if an elected official 0:19:33.280 --> 0:19:36.679 in the United States uses a social media platform in 0:19:36.720 --> 0:19:41.040 any capacity related to their office, they should, in theory 0:19:41.400 --> 0:19:45.600 obey these rules. On Twitter that can get a little tricky. 0:19:45.640 --> 0:19:48.840 There are verified accounts, which are great because you know 0:19:48.880 --> 0:19:51.600 for a fact who you're dealing with, since Twitter has 0:19:51.680 --> 0:19:54.479 verified that the account belongs to a particular person, and 0:19:54.520 --> 0:19:57.480 you could say, oh, this is actually a citizen, this 0:19:57.520 --> 0:19:59.920 is someone I cannot block. This person they are sit 0:20:00.080 --> 0:20:03.280 is in. I'm elected official, this person represents one of 0:20:03.280 --> 0:20:06.760 my constituents. Uh, they either are voting for me or 0:20:06.760 --> 0:20:09.600 against me, so they need to have this channel. But 0:20:09.640 --> 0:20:11.280 there are a lot of accounts that could be dummy 0:20:11.320 --> 0:20:15.560 accounts or bots, or even foreign agents attempting to sow 0:20:15.720 --> 0:20:19.919 discord and chaos and more. There are troublemakers who just 0:20:20.000 --> 0:20:22.399 want to stir stuff up, either because they have a 0:20:22.400 --> 0:20:26.679 specific agenda that involves derailing a politician, or because they 0:20:26.720 --> 0:20:29.240 just get a kick out of being a nuisance. And 0:20:29.280 --> 0:20:32.320 then you've got the truly toxic stuff out there. People 0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:38.520 who threaten, intimidate, insult, and harass mercilessly. These are behaviors 0:20:38.560 --> 0:20:42.040 that wouldn't be tolerated in public spaces in the real world, 0:20:42.480 --> 0:20:45.960 So how do you handle it in the online world. Well, 0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:49.200 one thing that could happen is the platforms themselves could 0:20:49.240 --> 0:20:51.960 step up and enforce some of the rules they've said 0:20:52.080 --> 0:20:56.760 are in place. Twitter representatives occasionally talk about forming new rules, 0:20:57.040 --> 0:20:59.479 while several critics have in the past pointed out that 0:20:59.560 --> 0:21:03.199 new rules weren't necessarily needed. Rather, what was needed was 0:21:03.400 --> 0:21:07.119 enforcement of the rules that were already in place. But 0:21:07.200 --> 0:21:09.199 I do want to be fair to Twitter. One of 0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:12.080 the issues the service has had is that it's hate 0:21:12.119 --> 0:21:16.400 speech policy was previously only applied at the individual level, 0:21:16.760 --> 0:21:20.200 So if someone were to direct hate speech at me personally, 0:21:20.640 --> 0:21:23.160 Twitter then could step in and intervene because that would 0:21:23.160 --> 0:21:26.880 be a violation of Twitter's policy. However, if someone were 0:21:26.920 --> 0:21:30.320 to attack a general group of people, like a specific 0:21:30.480 --> 0:21:34.240 race or a religious group, but was not targeting a 0:21:34.320 --> 0:21:39.280 specific individual that was not covered by Twitter's policies, it 0:21:39.359 --> 0:21:43.480 wasn't explicitly against the rules. So the company has since 0:21:43.560 --> 0:21:46.840 revised those rules so that the hate speech rules have 0:21:46.920 --> 0:21:51.760 a more broad application. The platforms, being the private sector 0:21:51.760 --> 0:21:55.600 and offering a service, aren't bound by the same restrictions 0:21:55.640 --> 0:21:59.320 that the elected officials have to comply with. I've used 0:21:59.320 --> 0:22:02.679 this analogy conversations with friends. So imagine for a moment, then, 0:22:02.720 --> 0:22:06.200 an official government facility. Let's say it's a state legislature 0:22:06.240 --> 0:22:09.800 building is actually built on private land, and you are 0:22:09.840 --> 0:22:12.840 the landowner, and you've drawn up in an agreement that 0:22:12.880 --> 0:22:14.919 gives you the right to close that land off to 0:22:15.000 --> 0:22:18.159 anyone you like at any time, and somehow no one 0:22:18.200 --> 0:22:20.879 really noticed or objected to that clause, and it was 0:22:20.920 --> 0:22:23.760 all signed in the agreement, and then one day you 0:22:23.800 --> 0:22:27.240 just arbitrarily decided to shut off access to the legislature building, 0:22:27.480 --> 0:22:30.399 and you prevent lawmakers from going to work. It's a 0:22:30.480 --> 0:22:33.080 rather implausible example, but it's kind of similar to what 0:22:33.119 --> 0:22:36.400 we have with these social platforms, and that raises some 0:22:36.560 --> 0:22:39.440 alarm flags or red warning flags. I guess I should 0:22:39.440 --> 0:22:43.800 say not alarms flags can't alarm very much, but red 0:22:43.840 --> 0:22:47.000 warning flags to the minds of people who see potential 0:22:47.119 --> 0:22:49.960 for problems in the future. With this, now, I can't 0:22:49.960 --> 0:22:53.439 imagine any reality in which Facebook or Twitter makes a 0:22:53.480 --> 0:22:56.920 move to completely remove a government account or the account 0:22:56.920 --> 0:22:59.480 of an elected official. You could make the argument that 0:22:59.560 --> 0:23:03.080 the elected officials themselves wouldn't be allowed to do that either, 0:23:03.440 --> 0:23:06.000 because it would be equivalent to destroying the records of 0:23:06.040 --> 0:23:10.480 public discourse on official matters. So if you happen to 0:23:10.480 --> 0:23:13.080 be an elected official and you've created a Twitter account, 0:23:13.160 --> 0:23:16.320 deleting that Twitter account could be a big problem because 0:23:16.840 --> 0:23:20.080 there's going to be records of communication with actual constituents 0:23:20.119 --> 0:23:23.399 in that account. But the social media networks are in 0:23:23.440 --> 0:23:26.399 the private sector, so they're not bound by the rules 0:23:26.640 --> 0:23:30.879 that the government is. They're not likely to act in 0:23:30.920 --> 0:23:34.600 this way because, for one thing, these are companies operating 0:23:34.600 --> 0:23:37.840 and headquartered in the United States. Both Facebook and Twitter 0:23:37.960 --> 0:23:40.959 and others have been active with lobbyists to try and 0:23:41.040 --> 0:23:44.399 shape policy that favors these companies. It would be a 0:23:44.440 --> 0:23:48.560 bit counterproductive to take such an antagonistic stance against the 0:23:48.600 --> 0:23:53.359 government of their home country. Banning individual users who aren't 0:23:53.560 --> 0:23:57.639 government officials is a little less controversial, though most social 0:23:57.640 --> 0:24:01.159 platforms aren't keen to do that very frequently either. If 0:24:01.200 --> 0:24:04.119 Twitter figures out an account is a duplicate and is 0:24:04.160 --> 0:24:08.120 spreading disinformation or being used to attack people. It can 0:24:08.200 --> 0:24:11.359 ban those accounts, and it certainly has banned plenty of 0:24:11.480 --> 0:24:14.479 empty shell accounts that were created simply for the purpose 0:24:14.560 --> 0:24:17.800 of boosting follower accounts. But in the case of those 0:24:17.880 --> 0:24:20.680 empty accounts, this was an easy call because they didn't 0:24:20.720 --> 0:24:24.479 represent real people and they were creating a fake sense 0:24:24.520 --> 0:24:28.280 of influence. Celebrities who had millions of followers saw those 0:24:28.359 --> 0:24:33.359 numbers reduced dramatically in the wake of these bands, and 0:24:33.400 --> 0:24:35.879 that suggested that a large number of those followers weren't 0:24:35.960 --> 0:24:39.120 real people. But making that call was easy. Going after 0:24:39.160 --> 0:24:42.160 troublemakers appears to be more difficult, or at the very least, 0:24:42.320 --> 0:24:45.920