>This controversy isn't so much a "worry" as a "certainty". For instance, the ruling explicitly leaves open the possibility that if we were talking about the County Supervisor's personal Facebook Profile, rather than a "Page" she set up for her office, that she'd have been free to moderate it as she saw fit. There will almost certainly be a back and forth on this.
I take issue with this type of ruling.
It's one thing to say you can't block a constituent from replying to you, but a comments page is different.
HN respects free speech, but there are some modes of speech they would remove from the comments.
Likewise I'm not sure I agree the FB page of a govt official needs to be a free for all.
I take issue with this type of ruling.
It's one thing to say you can't block a constituent from replying to you, but a comments page is different.
HN respects free speech, but there are some modes of speech they would remove from the comments.
Likewise I'm not sure I agree the FB page of a govt official needs to be a free for all.