Now that the question of whether Donald Trump was violating the First Amendment when he blocked nasty commenters on his tweets (like every other Twitter-user could do) has some distance from the reflex “That asshole! Serves him right that the courts stopped him” response from the Trump Deranged, the issue has sparked some varied and interesting commentary. Yesterday’s EA post sure did; I even managed to trigger a violent argument between two long-time esteemed commenters here.
I remain very ambivalent on the issue. Here is Rich in CT’s Comment of the Day raising a parallel that is one of the reasons.
***
I serve on a local board, and in Connecticut at least, there is no inherit right for the public to speak in any particular forum (during the conduct of official business). If comments are allowed, it is up to the discretion of the board (pursuant to applicable bylaws), and they can be limited to a specific topic to help the board make a lawful and effective public policy decision. Disruptive comments can be barred. My board has never had to remove a disruptive individual, but we have that right if needed as they speak as our guests.
We’ve had heated exchanges, and have had to frequently warn the public that comments must remain on topic and civil. Allowing uncivil comments, in fact, can create a “hostile forum” that can potentially bias the commission again a particular applicant. Courts can vacate decisions made during such conditions, and made adjudicate the application itself, taking the decision completely out of the commission’s control.
As I write, I realize I am deviating far from the prompting topic, that of moderating comments on a pseudo-public Facebook/Twitter profile. However, to pull it full circle, a public servant has an ethical duty to not appear unduly biased. Of course, a public servant will have publicly stated opinions, but must not appear hostile to good-faith opposing opinions.
Based on the law in Connecticut, a public official would have no duty to allow social media comments. If she does choose to allow comments, she cannot ethically appear biased for or against a particular side prior to a fair screening of facts. Keeping only fawning comments (deleting all opposition comments) would create a perception of bias. However, allowing unfiltered comments also creates a perception of hostility. (Removing real abusive language is an ethical duty; selectively removing only abusive language from one side of the political spectrum unethically abuses that prerogative.)
One final aspect that is particular to Connecticut law, not necessarily ethics, is that public officials have a duty to preserve public records. Private communications to a public official do not legally need to be preserved; comments on a social media site, (unless directly collected in response to an official request), would thus generally not need to be legally preserved.
Once an official responds to a comment, however, that communication may meet the definition of a public record. (We were warned to be very careful about preserving private emails for official communications; social media posts tow very closely to that line).
Maintaining public access to records allows accountability. The public has the legal right to request and receive most public records. Public officials face fines or worse for failing to maintain records. If comments and responses are deleted, it would be legally wise to maintain an offline record.
Come to think of it, deleting dialog may create an appearance of bias; the offline record would help mitigate that appears. “Archiving” that must be clicked through to access older content should probably be considered. “Click through” moderation may also be helpful, hiding abusive content, but allowing the public to audit the moderation, and better understand what facts the official is considering.
Ultimately, all public officials have a duty to maintain a professional appearance, allowing the public to be confident they are fairly considering all relevant evidence; this extends to treating comments on social media fairly.
Ethics Alarms 
Thanks Jack, I am honored!
Congrats Rich. Well stated. My only thought is that elected officials running as D or R’s will be assumed to be biased and hardly objective.
I see personal web accounts or social media accounts of lawmakers to be campaign vehicles an not public records. If the official is using government paid staff to manage the account it becomes the official site and subject to all regulations imposed by the Constitution or through legislation. An account manager independently of government is not subject to such requirements.
I’d said to the original post:
““However, to pull it full circle, a public servant has an ethical duty to not appear unduly biased.”
Can you cite that? Because like I’ve said before, “bias” has gotten a bad rap recently. The world requires a certain amount of bias. There are systems that do not function without bias. And then there is earned bias… a jury is supposed to be as unbiased as possible before court proceedings, but by the end of those proceedings, we need them to be biased enough to be able to render a verdict.
I’m not sure exactly what that assertion looks like it real life… But if someone runs on certain platforms and gets elected, I have serious doubts that they are ethically bound to approach those topics neutrally until they hash it out on Twitter.”
I guess the other way to ask the question is “What does ‘due bias’ look like, and where’s the line between it an undue bias?”
Doesn’t he get credit for “unduly”?
Not really… It feels like a truism. What does that actually mean?
Let’s say you have a raving socialist, who has read every screed by his patron saint Karl Marx, and runs on a platform of public healthcare, welfare expansion, the abolition of police and giving everyone a puppy. You can make the argument that there are ethical issues around competence… But is it really undue bias if it’s explicitly what they ran on and what the electorate voted for? What’s the difference between due and undue bias?
Due bias is bias that is reasonable and kept under control. We all have biases, and they often can’t be eliminated, just recognized and regulated. Undue bias is the kind that makes us stupid, bigoted, and blind to both bad and good conduct.
But look at it in context…. Rich followed that up with “Of course, a public servant will have publicly stated opinions, but must not appear hostile to good-faith opposing opinions.”
Why on earth not? I mean… Really, think about what that entails, and not just the feel-good surface decorum arguments – Regardless of how well intentioned or good faith a bill to lower the age of consent to 4 is so that pedophiles feel more accepted, I’m going to be unapologetically overtly hostile towards it, and would judge anyone else that wasn’t.
Jack wrote, “I even managed to trigger a violent argument between two long-time esteemed commenters here.”
I do apologize for loosing my cool in the end.
This is really not the kind of responses I am usually going for…
Unfortunately I have those moments where that Army Sergeant peaks out at the world again.
I know you’ve heard it before but I will try to do better.
Rich in CT,
Congratulation on a well earned “Comment of the Day”.
Your experienced input in that conversation blog was quite valuable. It inspired thought.
I think this statement of yours says it all in a nutshell,
Most anything that public officials can do, within reason, to project this kind of appearance is usually worth the effort in the long run. In my opinion, the story I presented about my sister and her Facebook presence in that comment thread I think meets that goal of projecting the professional appearance while maintaining a clear separation between official presence and personal presence.