CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

- Colección
- Registrarse

ordenado por

Fecha de creación

59 relaciones, 59 Entidades

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

Uwazi es desarrollado por
CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law
Colección
Acceder

Información
59relaciones

Davison v. Rose

Case Law

Consejos de búsqueda

Buscar texto

Type something in the search box to get some results.

Tabla de Contenidos

Sin Tabla de Contenidos

Sin descripción de Tabla de Contenidos

Davison v. Rose

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitud: 39.778231903243785

Longitud: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 28 jul 2017

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Dismissed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Blocking or Filtering of Information

Keywords

Political Expression
Public Officials
Social Media

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Case Number: 1:16cv0540

Case Summary: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights against the Defendant school board members who had banned the Plaintiff from posting on its official Facebook pages and even went to far as to delete comments that were overly critical of the Defendants. The Court reasoned that the Defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity in their official capacity and qualified immunity in their individual capacity because whether or not Facebook constituted a public forum was not a clearly established right they could have reasonably known about. Whether Facebook, or other social media pages, can be considered a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment is a rapidly emerging area of the law that is currently unsettled. The outcome of these legal issues will be especially important for the newly filed lawsuit against President Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users. This is an issue that has yet to be addressed by most jurisdictions and Virginia breaks new ground with this decision and its contradictory finding in Davison v Loudon County Board of Supervisors. Some jurisdictions have discussed the issue of whether the city's official website can be considered a public forum an have found that it is not. See Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tenn., 221 F.3d 834, 841 (6th Cir.2000). However, a Facebook or Twitter page presents an entirely different issue when these pages are generally created for the purpose of permitting public discourse and the public has the ability to post comments and discussions directly on the page. Historically, a public forum is a place that the government has expressly left open for public discourse. However, it is important to note, “[t]he government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1984). The government can create two main types of public forums: traditional public forums and limited public forums. A traditional public forum encompasses parks, sidewalks, and streets – property owned by the government that has been held out by the government as a public forum. A limited public forum is a forum that the government provides but limits to specific groups, provided the limitation is both viewpoint neutral and reasonable. An example would be a school room open to only school groups for meetings. The definition of a public forum is malleable, and something that changes as society evolves. This presents increasingly difficult issues with the public forum in internet cases. Does the government create a public forum when it creates a webpage? What requirements have to be met in order for the webpage to be considered a public forum or a limited public forum?

Case Significance: The decision does not establish a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Documentos primarios

Davison v Rose.pdf
English
Descargar Ver

Sin referencias

References are parts of this document related with other documents and entities.

Country1
- Country1
No existe etiqueta1
- Analysis1
Related Case Law57
- Case Law57

Crear Referencia

Seleccionar tipo de relación

Original Law Cited
Related Translation
Related Media Source
Country
Related Law
Related Regulations
Related Secondary Law
Related Amendments
Related Draft Amendments
Related Case Law
Related Analysis

Consejos de búsqueda

Añadir entidades / documentos

Consejos de búsqueda

Notificaciones

Estás al día

La actividad nueva se mostrará aquí.