Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner and America
To all the pro-statehood Puerto Ricans who dream about having 51 stars on the United States flag, we say the following: PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. AND READ THE US CONSTITUTION WHILE YOU ARE IT.
In a bizarre game of political Facebook censorship, the official public Fan Page of Puerto Rican Pedro Pierluisi—a non-voting member of the US House of Representatives—admitted to us that they had indeed blocked us from their page and that they were sorry.
The censorship incident occurred on June 14 around the time that Pierluisi was flying into San Juan on Air Force One with President Barack Obama. Yes, when we went to Pierluisi’s official page to post about the US flag that was burned by a small group of Puerto Rico independence supporters, we quickly found out that we could not post os share any content on Pierluisi’s public page. YES, it was clear that our politics—which do not support statehood at all for Puerto Rico—were not welcome on the page, which has over 9,000 followers (on a side note, Commissioner Pierluisi is about 16,000 fans behind the amazing Fernando Varela, but that is another story for another day).
After 36 hours, and after calls to both Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), we received a statement from Pierluisi’s office. You decide if this makes any sense:
Dear Mr. Varela,
I have been informed that you are concerned about your access to the Resident Commissioner’s congressional page on Facebook. I have been advised that you believe you were removed from the user list after you made a comment on the page.
The standards regarding participation on this page–no different than anywhere else on the social network–are clear and unambiguous. We respect the freedom of expression that this medium provides, while at the same seeking to ensure that posted comments are not disrespectful of the discussion and of other participants.
I am not aware of the substance of the comment that you posted. While we have an excellent relationship with our followers, naturally we do not always agree with the content of every message that is posted. Nevertheless, a simple examination of our page should give you confidence that posted messages remain viewable regardless of their content–again, so long as they adhere to the basic standards of respect and courtesy cited above. Differences in opinion are not merely permitted, they are welcomed.
If your comment met this standard, we apologize and in the next few hours will unblock you if you so desire. We benefit from your participation and hope you will continue to participate.
Thank you for writing.
Dennise Pérez
As you can imagine, this non-answer from Pierluisi’s staff did very little to answer our concerns. At no point could they actually pinpoint what I did (NOTHING) or what I said (NOTHING). So we called them. Here is the audio of the conversation:
In the meantime, we were unblocked from the page and began to post again on June 16. Granted, even though all Facebook Pages according to Facebook are “official public pages,” the paradoxical logic that is Puerto Rico appeared on the pages after we thanked Pierluisi’s staff for admitting its UNAMERICAN error, even though they have no clue who actually blocked us. (NOTE TO THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER: Let’s talk about this.) Here is just one example of what we dealt with:
Um, Pedro, you are wrong there. Facebook Pages ARE PUBLIC. In fact, Facebook themselves calls them “public” and “official.” And then Pedro continued:
And one again, Pedro, YOU DON”T GET IT. The Resident Commissioner’s Facebook page is a PUBLIC PAGE. And Pierluisi is AN ELECTED OFFICIAL in the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Also, Pedro, Pierluisi’s own office admitted to their error! So we decided to let Pedro know a few things. Here are just some of the responses:
One final point about this and I will be quiet: the Resident Commissioner’s staff admitted to blocking me and they have apologized for this oversight. They regret making this error, which goes against the UNAMERICAN principles all pro-statehood proponents so cherish. Practice what you preach, Pedro. Welcome to the United States of America. It is what makes us great!
Totally disagree bro, I never said anything here that was disparaging. You are so off on this it is not even debatable. AMERICA= FREE EXPRESSION. For example, I find it sickening when the American Nazi Party marches in US towns, but guess what? They can. BTW, bro, Pierluisi’s OWN PEOPLE ADMITTED THAT THEY BLOCKED ME AND APOLOGIZED. Welcome to America, mano. Peace out.
To quote Facebook: Facebook pages are “official, public pages” also do your homework. All US CONGRESSMEN have pubic Facebook pages like the RESIDENT COMMISSIONER. When I talke with my own Rep and other Congressmen, they were appalled by Pierluisi’s actions here. Sorry, bro, you are in the minority on this one. Stay free. VIVA LA DEMOCRACIA. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND PUERTO RICO
that would be “public” LOL
So to the Resident Commissioner’s staff, thank you for the apology. However, we will leave you with this advice: IN AMERICA, WE EMBRACE DEMOCRACY. WE DON’T CENSOR IT. Next time, think about it.
We will be watching.
Excellent recap my friend. This is something I live day by day. Happy individuals like you are able to fight along with us for our rights.
I will never stop fighting. See you in July!!!!!!
Greetings Julito. Like Raul posted, excellent recap indeed.
As I’ve discovered since January of 2009, this is pretty much par for the course with the current “cronyist” administration. I was removed AND blocked from the Luis Fortuño and La Fortaleza facebook pages, as were my comments (although I believe one of my threads still exists in the La Fortaleza discussion forum).
Would you allow me to repost this in La Acera?
Yes, please go ahead and post ANYWHERE. I also have the audio file raw that you can share. I will email it to you. THIS WILL STOP RIGHT NOW!!! THANKS!!!!
Great blog, Julio.
It’s unthinkable that anyone would have their freedom of speech censored.
Hopefully, this error has been corrected.
Kudos, my friend.
They did apologize but they won’t say why I was blocked or what the reason was. My take is this: they didn’t want me make comments about Obama visit. Sorry, tough noogies.
I think people are trained to give the run around when providing answers to questions. From the most simple thing like get me your supervisor on the phone when you have a complaint to why did you block me on facebook, the majority of people I have encountered in P.R. give non-answers. Listened to the audio and laughed at how nervous the lady was.
I enjoyed reading this candid article. The majority of people do not know exactly what their rights are when it comes to sites such as facebook, twitter, etc. Everyone dives in to use these platforms but never fully understand issues such as privacy, ownership and freedom of speech.
I am reminded how important it is to share & spread knowledge during a time where the government seeks to save the economy by making budget cuts to our public school system. This is an example of the consequences.
Again, I always enjoy your thought provoking posts.
Thanks, Letty!!!!
Outstanding Julio! This was well deserved on the part of Pierluisi! They were probably under the impression that you could be shut down like his and Fortuno’s attempts to shut down the students of the UPR and the attorneys in P.R. You showed them!
No one will ever shut the truth. Peace, mano!
Julio – Thanks to your Blog, you have corrected a wrong!
Right on!
Proud of you brother!
PaLante!
Thanks, bro, if you could do that Pierluisi vid (1-2 min) I would love u for it.
I just came across this note and I have to add my 2 cents. You would be very hard pressed to find any court that agrees with your contention that blocking an user from a Facebook official page constitutes government restraint of freedom of speech. The fact that Facebook allows politicians to create official pages doesn’t change the private nature of the company. You would have more of an argument if you had been blocked from Pierluisi’s official page on the website for the US Congress, but facebook? Doubd it.
Btw, this has nothing to do with being American. Your “practice what you preach” statement doesn’t really hold water. Go and troll in the facebook official page of any American politician and see how long it will take before they block you. I don’t think you have a point here. Facebook it’s a private company and no politician can change this by simply calling a facebook fan page
“public”.
I disagree. Politicians have a different standard that others. If you are going to be an elected official, you take the good and the bad. And btw, his office understood the point and was actually nice about it when I spoke to them.
For a citizen to be able to claim that his constitutional rights have been violated the law requires that there has to be what its called “state action”. There’s just no way that a court of law would agree with the idea that blocking an user from the facebook page of a politician constitutes “state action”.
Politicians are held to a different standard in fact. This is why I think Pierluisi’s staff even took the time to talk to you and respond to your emails and calls over this issue even though they really didn’t have to. I’ve worked in politics and I too have been nice to people who I knew were completely out of line with the demands they were making.
You can disagree with me but the issue under consideration here is rather simple. Does creating a facebook page for a politician change the nature of the page from private to public? I don’t think you can rationally argue that this is the case.
Great, we have both worked in politics and I believe that if politicians as elected leaders start using social media, it is a public forum, just like a phone call or email. They handled that issue poorly and they even admitted it.
Neither in the statement that they sent you nor in the conversation that you recorded I see them admitting having handled the issue poorly. Either way there is no law or case law on the application of the First Amendment to government social media sites. You can believe that politicians having social media presence creates a public forum but that’s nowhere in the law.
Governments are free to establish parameters delineating the governmental purposes behind these pages and reserving the right to remove posts that are inconsistent with those purposes. Depending upon how these pages are set up, these may not even be considered government forums, even though public officials are using them as is the case with individual politicians who set up their own Facebook pages or Twitter accounts, without governmental sponsorship or funding.
Unless Pierluisi’s page is funded or sponsored by the US Congress then I suspect that not only is it not a public forum but not even a government forum at all.
That is your opinion, and I respectfully do not agree with it. Elected officials who use use social media to communicate to the public are held to a higher standard. You can’t have it both ways in a democracy: use social media to craft your narrative but not have the desire to allow for dissent. That is mediocre politics and we should be demanding that our elected officials do better. Thanks.
That a facebook page created by a politician isn’t a public forum in which the government can’t limit free speech isn’t just my opinion, its what the law says. That has been my argument all along. The law does not support your position.