Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Lacius]

In all fairness, users are not allowed to comment on any White House videos anymore, which is curious to me. Why disable the comments? I was under the impression what interacting with the administration was a First Amendment right - it was certainly cause enough for multiple lawsuits when the Trump admin started blocking users spamming the POTUS account on Twitter. At that time the courts have decided that the right to comment on official government accounts is constitutionally protected, so why is the White House so afraid of detractors? That comment box should be permanently open. If the American right-wing had any sense at all, the matter would already be in court once more. Sadly, it's too busy being offended by "satanic shoes" to do anything effective or worthwhile.

There is a difference, legally, between turning off all comments and blocking individual users. In other words, the White House has the legal right to turn off all comments, but if the comments are on, everyone has a constitutional right to view and comment (edit: if they're Americans).

 

[tabzer]

People participating on the internet, saying that capitalism is bad and that departure from it is impossible are simply not trying. It's possible. You might have an enemy chasing you for taxes and payment, but you can lead the good fight if you truly felt like it was an ideal and not just you simply blowing smoke or trying to be edgy. @monkeyman4412 @Xzi

There is a difference, legally, between turning off all comments and blocking individual users. In other words, the White House has the legal right to turn off all comments, but if the comments are on, everyone has a constitutional right to view and comment (edit: if they're Americans).

Seems like you decide what is legal.

 

[Lacius]

People participating on the internet, saying that capitalism is bad and that departure from it is impossible are simply not trying. It's possible. You might have an enemy chasing you for taxes and payment, but you can lead the good fight if you truly felt like it was an ideal and not you simply blowing smoke. @monkeyman4412 @Xzi


Seems like you decide what is legal.

I don't decide what's legal. I'm telling you though that the law is clear about statements made by POTUS to the public having to be available to the public. The problem with Trump blocking people on Twitter is it made it so users couldn't even see what Trump was posting, which is arguably illegal. There is nothing in the constitution nor statute that says everything the White House posts must come with a comments section. As long was what's posted to the public is viewable by the public, there's no issue. Feel free to point out where I got anything wrong.

 

[Foxi4]

There is a difference, legally, between turning off all comments and blocking individual users. In other words, the White House has the legal right to turn off all comments, but if the comments are on, everyone has a constitutional right to view and comment (edit: if they're Americans).

The only difference between prohibiting one person from exercising their constitutional rights and prohibiting everyone from doing so is that the latter is more egregious than the former. To use the same phrasing as Judge Buchwald, much like the POTUS Twitter account, the White House YouTube account serves as "a designated public forum" by the virtue of the platform it operates on. The moment comments were disabled is precisely the moment the rights of citizens have been violated. The same first amendment protections apply, whether they're violated selectively or unilaterally is irrelevant. I am of the opinion that people are entitled to comment on this public forum in response to "official statements" made by the POTUS. I also reiterate that it would be politically expedient for the GOP to hold the Biden administration to the same standard the Trump admin was held to and push for transparency that was promised by Biden himself. YouTube is not the National Archive, users should have the ability to have discussions regarding any and all content posted on official government accounts.

 

[tabzer]

The problem with Trump blocking people on Twitter is it made it so users couldn't even see what Trump was posting, which is arguably illegal. There is nothing in the constitution nor statute that says everything the White House posts must come with a comments section. As long was what's posted to the public is viewable by the public, there's no issue. Feel free to point out where I got anything wrong.

The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response, where it would be, and is generally assumed to be available.

Also (to play devil's advocate), if POTUS, a person, makes comments to his followers and non-blocked social media peers, it's not a statement to the public.

You saying that turning off comments is legal is the same kind of legal it is for me to kill someone. At least up to the point I am charged for it.

 

[Valwinz]

YouTube regularly removes spam likes and spam dislikes from videos.

The defense force is here

 

[Lacius]

The only difference between prohibiting one person from exercising their constitutional rights and prohibiting everyone from doing so is that the latter is more egregious than the former. To use the same phrasing as Judge Buchwald, much like the POTUS Twitter account, the White House YouTube account serves as "a designated public forum" by the virtue of the platform it operates on. The moment comments were disabled is precisely the moment the rights of citizens have been violated. The same first amendment protections apply, whether they're violated selectively or unilaterally is irrelevant. I am of the opinion that people are entitled to comment on this public forum in response to "official statements" made by the POTUS. I also reiterate that it would be politically expedient for the GOP to hold the Biden administration to the same standard the Trump admin was held to and push for transparency that was promised by Biden himself. YouTube is not the National Archive, users should have the ability to have discussions regarding any and all content posted on official government accounts.

Like I said, there is no right to a comments section on the videos the White House posts. It is not a designated public forum in the same way Trump's Twitter account was, and there is no requirement for the White House's videos to be a public forum. The White House videos are viewable by the whole public, and that's all that matters.

The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response, where it would be, and is generally assumed to be available.

The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response. The public can respond all it wants. There is no law, however, that says the Biden administration must allow that public response to appear directly below their videos.

Also (to play devil's advocate), if POTUS, a person, makes comments to his followers and non-blocked social media peers, it's not a statement to the public.

If the public can view Trump's Tweets, whether or not they are literal or figurative followers of Trump, then it's a statement made to the public. To block specific people from being able to view POTUS' statements to the public is unlawful.

You saying that turning off comments is legal is the same kind of legal it is for me to kill someone. At least up to the point I am charged for it.

It is legal for the White House to not include a comments section on its videos. It is, generally, illegal for you to kill someone.

 

[tabzer]

The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response. The public can respond all it wants. There is no law, however, that says the Biden administration must allow that public response to appear directly below their videos.

I said,"The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response". You said, "The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response." It did, and not fully.

If the public can view Trump's Tweets, whether or not they are literal or figurative followers of Trump, then it's a statement made to the public. To block specific people from being able to view POTUS' statements to the public is unlawful.

So right. People who log out of their account can then see those statements. Sounds like inconsistency on Twitter's part.

It is legal for the White House to not include a comments section on its videos. It is, generally, illegal for you to kill someone.

It is wholly legal for me to kill someone and get away with it as long as their isn't enough evidence to incriminate me. It's also totally legal for the "White House" to censor people as long as they aren't challenged.

 

[Lacius]

I said,"The Biden administration is taking steps towards the silencing of public response". You said, "The Biden administration hasn't silenced public response." It did, and not fully.

The public can respond all it wants.

So right. People who log out of their account can then see those statements. Sounds like inconsistency on Twitter's part.

Whether or not a blocked user could log out to view Trump's tweets is irrelevant to whether or not what Trump did was unlawful; it was.

It is wholly legal for me to kill someone and get away with it as long as their isn't enough evidence to incriminate me. It's also totally legal for the "White House" to censor people as long as they aren't challenged.

Getting away with a crime is not the same thing as it not being a crime.

Whether or not the White House is challenged on this comments section thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's legal; it's legal.

 

[osaka35]

As a rule of thumb, your speech cannot be impeded by the government. However, the government is not required to provide any particular platform for your speech.

For instance, the press briefing room is where the white house conveys its message, and reporters are allowed to ask questions. but they're called on, and it's somewhat arbitrary.
-Would you consider a press member not being called on a restriction of speech?

Let's say a particular group of folks were not allowed into the press room because of personal or arbitrary reasons.
-is this a restriction of speech? under what circumstance would it not be?

Are these two scenarios different, and how are they different?

Do not confuse not guaranteeing a platform with guarantee of not being restricted. It can be semantically confusing sometime, but they are clearly different.

 

[tabzer]

The public can respond all it wants.

No, it can't. It's been cut off from doing so, so now it has to resort to other means.

Whether or not a blocked user could log out to view Trump's tweets is irrelevant to whether or not what Trump did was unlawful; it was.

Right. That's a past tense decree after the fact. Before the courts said so, you would have been able to say the same thing.

Getting away with a crime is not the same thing as it not being a crime.

Whether or not the White House is challenged on this comments section thing is irrelevant to whether or not it's legal; it's legal.

It's not a crime if criminal law doesn't acknowledge it, in the same way that your "opinion" that the Biden administration's actions were lawful (until they aren't).

 

[Foxi4]

It's legal until it is challenged and ruled against, and in my opinion it should be. The idea that you have freedom of speech because you're welcome to go outside and shout about a YouTube video to strangers like a madman has been challenged in the past - if your means of expressing an opinion in a manner that has adequate reach is restricted, it's violation enough, and there's no better place to comment on a video than directly under it. The actions of the administration could easily be construed as a limitation of freedom of speech and expression. That being said, someone would have to pose the legal question in an official capacity first in order to determine whether it should be permissable or not. Regardless of the legality, it sets a very poor precedent for the administration and is the antithesis of the transparency it promised. I don't think any previous administration has gone to such extreme lengths in order to avoid listening to criticism online. It's jarring and unacceptable.

 

[Lacius]

No, it can't. It's been cut off from doing so, so now it has to resort to other means.



Right. That's a past tense decree after the fact. Before the courts said so, you would have been able to say the same thing.



It's not a crime if criminal law doesn't acknowledge it, in the same way that your "opinion" that the Biden administration's actions were lawful (until they aren't).

@osaka35 put it well in the post above yours: Your speech cannot be impeded by the government, but the government is not required to provide any particular platform for your speech.

 

[tabzer]

@osaka35 put it well in the post above yours: Your speech cannot be impeded by the government, but the government is not required to provide any particular platform for your speech.

The government is not Youtube. Putting pressure on Youtube...

 

[Lacius]

It's legal until it is challenged and ruled against, and in my opinion it should be. The idea that you have freedom of speech because you're welcome to go outside and shout about a YouTube video to strangers like a madman has been challenged in the past - if your means of expressing an opinion in a manner that has adequate reach is restricted, it's violation enough, and there's no better place to comment on a video than directly under it. The actions of the administration could easily be construed as a limitation of freedom of speech and expression. That being said, someone would have to pose the legal question in an official capacity first in order to determine whether it should be permissable or not. Regardless of the legality, it sets a very poor precedent for the administration and is the antithesis of the transparency it promised. I don't think any previous administration has gone to such extreme lengths in order to avoid listening to criticism online. It's jarring and unacceptable.

There's nothing untransparent about not providing a comments section. Anyone can view the White House videos. Examples of untransparency would be blocking users from being able to see your Tweets, no longer holding press briefings, and other things the Trump administration did.

The government is not Youtube. Putting pressure on Youtube...

We are talking about the actions of the White House, not the actions of YouTube.

 

[tabzer]

We are talking about the actions of the White House, not the actions of YouTube.

You are right. But I wasn't talking about the action of Youtube--as you seem to be implying...

Nothing against @osaka35 , but he/she didn't provide any clarity, unless the clarity is about how arbitrary and grey the terms of the definition are.

But the Biden administration took steps.

 

[Lacius]

You are right. But I wasn't talking about the action of Youtube--as you seem to be implying...

Nothing against @osaka35 , but he/she didn't provide any clarity, unless the clarity is about how arbitrary and grey the terms of the definition are.

The government (in this case, the Biden White House) generally cannot impede one's right to free speech. However, that does not mean the government (the White House) must provide a platform (YouTube comments section under a particular video) for one's speech (YouTube comments).

I have a right to free speech as an American, but that does not give me the right to go on CNN and spew whatever nonsense I want on live TV. CNN, like the government, doesn't have to provide me a platform for my speech.

 

[tabzer]

However, that does not mean the government (the White House) must provide a platform (YouTube comments section under a particular video) for one's speech (YouTube comments).

Okay. let's pretend that the default for Youtube videos are with the comments section off. I could agree with you if that was the case. But the situation is that the Biden group elected for no comments. That's an action.

Also, the platform is Youtube, not the White House. Telling Youtube what to do, in terms of allowing comments or not, is a proactive decision--similar to Trump wanting to block people from his person account?

This is already perceivably bad, and we aren't even touching the issue that the Biden administration asked Youtube to redesign itself to further conform with its censorship of "spam"--which is a voice of the public.

 

[Foxi4]

The matter is far more complicated than you are trying to portray it. The White House YouTube account was a public forum as it is understood under U.S. law prior to the comment box being locked out. The ruling in Davison v. Randall explores and specifies what that kind of forum constitutes - an "interactive space - for ANY user to post on ANY issues". This ability has been restricted after the fact on a pre-existing account that belongs to the U.S.Government, not the Biden administration specifically. It functioned before Biden's inauguration and will continue to function after Biden leaves office. The same ruling also suggests that the matter of official government bodies running online accounts should be addressed by the Supreme Court to better specify how they should be ran in order to avoid future legal conundrums. The issue is anything but crystal clear, and I'm personally of the opinion that all government accounts on social media platforms should have their comment sections open without any exceptions and should not have the ability to selectively or unilaterally remove or restrict comments. Since those accounts are ran on private media platforms, this imposition on the account holders should not (and at present does not) limit the platform owners from removing commentary that violates community standards, which technically allows account holders to report content for third-party review. That's a sensible and transparent way to run things, anything short of that is thinly-veiled shielding from criticism on an otherwise open platform. The government should not have the power to remove your ability to directly critique it - by opening a public social media account the respective public official has accepted both the benefits and the drawbacks of running one, if they can't take the heat, they should close it entirely. You don't get the honey if you're not keen on getting stung by bees from time to time. I have zero doubt that if the Trump administration did the same thing, there would be no end to criticism over it.

 

[Lacius]

Okay. let's pretend that the default for Youtube videos are with the comments section off. I could agree with you if that was the case. But the situation is that the Biden group elected for no comments. That's an action.

Also, the platform is Youtube, not the White House. Telling Youtube what to do, in terms of allowing comments or not, is a proactive decision--similar to Trump wanting to block people from his person account?

This is already perceivably bad, and we aren't even touching the issue that the Biden administration asked Youtube to redesign itself to further conform with its censorship of "spam"--which is a voice of the public.

Nobody is telling YouTube or Twitter what to do. The White House elected to not have comments on a video, and they are within their legal right to do so. They are not required to provide a place to speech with their videos. Trump elected to block people from viewing and commenting on his tweets, but he was not within his legal right to do so since he was a public official making comments to the public.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The matter is far more complicated than you are trying to portray it. The White House YouTube account was a public forum as it is understood under U.S. law prior to the comment box being locked out. The ruling in Davison v. Randall explores and specifies what that kind of forum constitutes - an "interactive space - for ANY user to post on ANY issues". This ability has been restricted after the fact on a pre-existing account that belongs to the U.S.Government, not the Biden administration specifically. It functioned before Biden's inauguration and will continue to function after Biden leaves office. The same ruling also suggests that the matter of official government bodies running online accounts should be addressed by the Supreme Court to better specify how they should be ran in order to avoid future legal conundrums. The issue is anything but crystal clear, and I'm personally of the opinion that all government accounts on social media platforms should have their comment sections open without any exceptions and should not have the ability to selectively or unilaterally remove or restrict comments. Since those accounts are ran on private media platforms, this imposition on the account holders should not (and at present does not) limit the platform owners from removing commentary that violates community standards, which technically allows account holders to report content for third-party review. That's a sensible and transparent way to run things, anything short of that is thinly-veiled shielding from criticism on an otherwise open platform. The government should not have the power to remove your ability to directly critique it - by opening a public social media account the respective public official has accepted both the benefits and the drawbacks of running one, if they can't take the heat, they should close it entirely. You don't get the honey if you're not keen on getting stung by bees from time to time. I have zero doubt that if the Trump administration did the same thing, there would be no end to criticism over it.

A couple of issues: the accounts themselves weren't considered public forums; the comments sections were. Allowing public discourse on the comments section without blocking users and impeding on free speech is different that just opting out of a comments section. That's what the case was about. There's no law nor legal precedent for having to have a comments section.

You cannot make an argument for requiring a comments section be enabled on YouTube any more than you can make the argument that a government must use YouTube vs. a different video hosting site that doesn't have comments sections.