Arkansas State Police Filtering Out of "Pig," "Copper," "Jerk" in Facebook Posts = Unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination

So holds Tanner v. Ziegenhorn, decided Thursday by Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. (E.D. Ark.):

[T]here is no plausible explanation for the words "pig", "pigs"," copper", and "jerk" being on the State Police's list of additional bad words [that are filtered out from Facebook comments on the State Police page] other than impermissible viewpoint discrimination…. [T]he additional words chosen by the State Police when it set up the page stopped some of [plaintiff's] comments from being posted publicly due to their anti-police connotations….

The slang terms "pig", "pigs", and "copper" can have an anti-police bent, but people are free to say those words. The First Amendment protects disrespectful language. And "jerk" has no place on any prohibited-words list, given the context of this page, the agency's justification for having a filter, and the harmlessness of that word. Though some amount of filtering is fine in these circumstances, the State Police's current list of specific words violates the First Amendment.

The court had earlier concluded that the commenting space on a government agency's Facebook page is a sort of designated public forum, where First Amendment rules constrain the government's ability to block comments.

Comments

[M L]

A police department can't block or select speech on their local Facebook page.

But the national political establishment can have their corporate wing (even by public threats and demands from the President) 1) ban President Trump and any other politician from all social media platforms, 2) ban all speech and information skeptical of the FDA, CDC or vaccines, even true speech, factual scientific information and the like, 3) ban all speech and information skeptical of election processes and officials, etc. Really just ban whoever and whatever they want.

[Gandydancer]

The "by public threats and demands from the President" bit is wrong, at least as regards to legality, though enforcement may or may not happen.

Now, if mere communication will do, to eager-to-cooperate corporate allies, then I cannot say that I believe that they ought be viewed as proxy government actors.

[M L]

Democrats have continually threatened social media companies, demanding that they engage in specific types of censorship of speech that Democrats disagree with.

And social media companies have done just what they asked with sweeping bans of individuals and content. Even after all of that, President Biden got up and accused Facebook of killing people, and remarkably called for the banning of 12 specific individuals. Social media companies promptly responded with more and stricter censorship and I'd assume the 12 individuals were banned as well.

My analysis here is not a legal one. I'm just observing facts and current circumstances. I agree that the sweeping private censorship happening across the internet generally, social media, search engines and media hosting sites, is not government action and generally is within legal rights.

[Greg J]

"Do this" (or we'll regulate the hell out of you)

Exactly how explicit does the part in parens have to be before it's "threats and demands"?

Now, if the Courts want any "respect from the public", how explicit do the threats have to be?

I'd say anyone with a functioning brain who's paying the least bit of attention knows that the threats are going on, and that they're working.

And is now waiting to see if the Courts are still worthy of any respect

[Gandydancer]

There's a recent post here where a certain Maine PD is attempting to block the qualification as a PI of what appears to be the one person who might be able and motivated to look, at an affordable rate to their heirs, more closely -- including using discovery -- into the death at police hands of two perps. This instance of police self-protectiveness seems hardly a good use of the court's time to defeat but it's maybe a good idea to draw the line as far away from that impulse as possible.

[Longtobefree]

Blocking 'pigs', well maybe; as long as no one can block bacon.