Limiting Access to Individuals to post on social media pages has Become the Main stay of Village of Ridgewood Politics
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide when, or whether, public officials who have accounts in social media can legally deny access to individuals who want to post comments. It’s also the issue in a pending suit in San Francisco by a journalist who was blocked from Supervisor Dean Preston’s Twitter account, and similar to suits against then-President Donald Trump for excluding critics from his Twitter platform.
At issue in each case is whether an office-holder who uses an online account to communicate with the public is acting as a government official, bound by constitutional guarantees of free speech, and, if so, how far the office-holder can go in excluding private citizens.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case is significant because it will determine whether public officials have the right to block individuals from their social media accounts. The case is likely to address the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and whether it applies to social media platforms, particularly when public officials are using them to communicate with their constituents.
In the past, courts have generally ruled that social media accounts used by public officials to communicate with the public are considered public forums, and therefore subject to First Amendment protections. However, some public officials have argued that they have the right to control the content on their social media accounts and can block individuals who post comments they don’t like.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this case will have significant implications for how public officials can use social media to communicate with their constituents, as well as for the rights of individuals to express their views on these platforms. It is important to note that the case has not yet been heard by the Court, and it may be some time before a decision is reached.
In Ridgewood it was discovered that selected comments submitted for posting to the Mayor’s official Facebook page were deliberately hidden, which was in violation of NJ Open Public Records Act.
As a result of complaints made to Village Attorney Matthew S. Rogers and to the ACLU – New Jersey, the issue has now been corrected, said Attorney Rogers during a public meeting of the Village Council on Wednesday night. All comments sent for inclusion on the Mayor’s official Facebook page should now be visible.
Allegations also surfaced at last Wednesday night’s Council meeting that Councilperson Winograd has been conducting discussions about Village business on a heavily censored & somewhat membership restricted Facebook page.
Tell your story #TheRidgewoodblog , #Indpendentnews #information #advertise #guestpost #affiliatemarketing ,#NorthJersey #NJ , #News #localnews #bergencounty #nj #sponsoredpost #SponsoredContent #contentplacement #guestposts #linkplacement Email: Onlyonesmallvoice@
Well Vaggg and Whinog will love it if they can legally start blocking. They are absolutely hoping to control and squash dialogue. They are already doing so
Vagianos and winograd are running loose
I think that if comments are not derogatory, then they should be part of the mix along with the comments that the government officials wants as they want to be viewed in the best possible light. Controlling the narrative is definitely not something that they should be doing, however this is the worst bunch of bad actors and they have lied and probably done way worse things and then they will look at you in the face with a smile. Lorraine is the only saving grace and although people try to put blame on her, she is the only one who legitimately stands firm ground on what she believes. The rest of them are posers. I hope they do “Recall Paul” and while they are at it, get rid of the other 4 who will ruin this Village if they have not already.
Ridgewood synonymous with NJ corruption
Prove it!
As one of the 3-Amigos once said, it doesn’t pass the smell test.