I agree that a politician's Facebook Page should be treated as a public forum... but disruptive folks are kicked out of in-person public forums on a regular basis. Seems odd that you wouldn't be able to do the same on the Internet.
Kicking out disruptive people isn't viewpoint discrimination, and, as you note, is already permitted in the law of public fora.
This holding is simply upholding a District Court decision that existing law of public fora (including the prohibition against viewpoint discrimination) apply to the Facebook page at issue.
/that is around small town USA, so hopefully won't apply to this
Anything is, in effect at least, legal if you choose to accept it and not challenge it.
The thing that kills me is that if for official Government purposes a Facebook page qualifies as letters/documents/personal effects/etc in terms of official business, why does it not receive the same treatment for individuals in terms of 4th Amendment protections.
The argument of intent to be public seems rather flimsy to dismantle a central civil right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
The level of double standard is maddening.
Edit: While I am harvesting downvotes, I stand by my assertion.it makes little if any sense that our Government can acknowledge the importance of our Representatives to the public record and compel an open non-discriminatory pipeline of communication, yet cannot be convinced of the right to privacy extending to electronic files and communique for non-officeholding citizens.
We agree that the government, and those elected as part of it, by virtue of their power and position are to be subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny in terms of the public's right to know what they are up to and to be heard.
Note: avalue assignment has been thus made. We acknowledge positive value to a Representative being able to be conferred with.
Yet, the value of not-being heard I.e. not having the government able to slurp up every last bit of meta-information/information about you just because it's been handed off to some third-party, is infrequently acknowledged legally. The tests for coverage generally are concocted around pre-digital notions of privacy, and come with an assertion of non-expectancy of privacy just because the content doesn't involve an envelope/bank deposit box/safe and does involve someone else's machine.
These are two aspects of the same central issue. I.e. the citizens right to be assured an opportunity to be heard when they want to, and not eavesdropped on in the conductance of their everyday lives without due process.
If everyone feels that's off topic, fine. But it stands out like a sore thumb to me.
> Under its policies, Facebook requires a probable cause warrant to “compel the disclosure of the stored contents of any account, which may include messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information” to the government. This is because Facebook, like other large tech companies, has adopted the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation (in United States v. Warshak) of ECPA and the Fourth Amendment as requiring a warrant to obtain emails
- https://www.newsweek.com/what-mueller-looking-facebook-russi...