I feel like you're identifying two distinct issues here - preventing you from commenting on posts, and preventing you from seeing them at all. It depends on the platform whether you can actually separate the two though (regardless of whether either should be legal).
Not sure why there should be a legal distinction between the two. There are many possible ways to interact with stuff online (view it, "like" it, comment on it, save it, share it etc.), and if it is government-sponsored content then no one should be barred from doing any of this.
Well let’s say someone just spams a prominent account with bot accounts, such that any and all discussion beneath their posts is ruined. Or fills the mentions with slander, hateful comments etc.
twitter is the Wild West right now, full of bots and comments that violate rules but take a while to get enforced.
Blocks solve that. But also deprive people of being able to hear announcements.
Splitting the ability to listen to a broadcast and the ability to broadcast on a broadcast seems sensible. You could, after all, be removed from a courtroom or government press conference for being disruptive.
They can't just block speech using bots as the excuse. It's up to the government officials to provide a channel that allows free speech as the law defines.
I imagine this will more likely raise issue with the use of private social platforms for public statements rather than whether they can block comments.
It's perfectly legal for the government or government officials to post on government sites without comment sections. I'm happy of they disable replies altogether. I'm fine if they only show moderated replies.
The problem is that Twitter won't even let you link to a tweet by a user you've been blocked by. That's definitely not okay.
Politicians are going to start creating their own Safe Spaces so they don’t have to read any discontent or criticism. Maybe we can get Butters to do the moderation?
They already do, most politicians refuse to be seen outside of rallies. It is not necessary to mock them to their face to mock them. And mock them you should.
I would somewhat disagree with this and say that if someone is to be barred from doing any of this, there needs to be some semblance of due process in the form of clearly defined circumstances when that can happen, for how long, etc.
y'guys need Natuonal Twitteritics and Spaces Administration. Or strict openness requirements for social media like telcos. Twitter as for-profit infinigrowth company don't make a huge sense just like wholly private buses and water supply don't work.
> I feel like you're identifying two distinct issues here - preventing you from commenting on posts, and preventing you from seeing them at all.
The second issue you mentioned is part of a broader legal issue about the degree to which the government burdens access to the government's speech. The question is not just "can you still access the speech through legal means?" but also "how difficult did the government make it for you to access the speech?"
If you get blocked then you don't see the posts unless you're logged out. This is due to the platform's implementation of blocking, but there it doesn't eliminate the First Amendment question about whether you can see the post. In order to know that a government official made a particular post you would have to periodically visit the government official's account page while logged out. If you weren't blocked you could have gotten notifications sent to wherever, or you could've watched your own feed at your leisure without having to check the official's account page like a hawk. By blocking you under these conditions, the government official would place a significant burden on your access to the speech (a First Amendment violation), even if the prohibition on access is not a complete block.
