Thread by @AriCohn

1/ Do you *want* First Amendment lawsuits, @AustinISD?

Because this is how you get First Amendment lawsuits, @Geronimo4AISD @yasminwagneratx @aratisingh @ofeliaforaisd @FosterintheAtx @KristinAshy @LYNNforAISD @Noelita4AISD

So many problems here: A thread.

https://twitter.com/KXAN_News/status/1433585549420515332

Teachers, like other government employees, retain a First Amendment right to speak as private citizens (i.e., not in their official capacity) on matters of public concern.

Teachers *cannot* be forced to only speak as if they are in the classroom with students 24/7/365.

3/ The list of things that social media accounts will be screened for is broad, vague, subjective, and viewpoint-based.

Many things that could be deemed as one of these things are nevertheless constitutionally protected and protected from retaliation from @AustinISD.

4/ People can and do subjectively consider arguments on both sides of many issues of great public concern to be "racist, bigoted, or discriminatory." Just look at Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter.

5/ Some even directly to curricular choices, such as the CRT debate.

Those are things that teachers are *especially* likely to have particularly informed opinions on, and First Amendment jurisprudence places emphasis on protecting that expression. casetext.com/case/san-diego…

6/ Of course, the public employee speech doctrine does permit government to protect its interests as an employer, and where the govt employer can show that particular expression actually impedes the effective and efficient provision of services, the First Amendment gives way.

7/ But this isn't that.

For all of the times I poke fun at Cancel Culture Warriors, this is actually a government body suggesting that holding the wrong views disqualifies someone from being a teacher, without any connection to how they actually carry out their job duties.

8/ That is hugely problematic, and some of the @AustinISD board members probably lived through times when teachers were fired for even being suspected of being gay, or having communist sympathies.

They should damn well know better.

9/ But in addition to all the ways in which the categories of "problematic" expression being searched for have a tenuous relation to the efficient provision of public education, there are other ways that this plan shows it bears little relation to legitimate government interests.

10/ First, this policy doesn't just cover teachers, it covers district employees. But why does a custodian, or an administrative assistant, have to "set an example for students" every second of every day of their life? There's even less justification for that than with teachers.

11/ Honestly, does it really matter if the guy who changes the lightbulbs posts that he agrees with Trump that Haiti is a "shithole country?"

It might be stupid or distasteful, but there is no reason for the school district to need to know, or care, about it.

12/ Also, this new social media witch hunt will look for accounts using things like addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

13/ So a teacher who runs an account that doesn't use their name or identify them as a teacher might still be searched because it's tied to some personal info.

14/ But if that account is facially anonymous, why does the school district think it has any impact on job performance?

15/ If the concern was truly about "setting an example," then they would only be searching for accounts clearly identifiable as from district personnel (and that would still be wrong). If you have to dig that deep, you're not winning the balancing test of Pickering-Connick.

16/ Even worse, they aren't just looking for things you posted. If it shows up on your profile because a friend or family member tagged you in it, you're still getting hauled in to answer for it.

It's difficult to put into words how maliciously stupid this is, @AustinISD

17/ Speaking of maliciously stupid, here's @stephens_leslie saying that it's no big deal because we're not going to immediately discipline you. We, the government, will simply ask you to remove the speech we don't like (and *then* discipline you if you don't).

18/ Newsflash, @stephens_leslie, government demanding that you stop saying certain things that it doesn't like is still a pretty big First Amendment problem.

19/ And here's Leslie again, telling everyone that policing social media is a valid "student safety" defense, which is just laughably ridiculous.

It's very obvious that the point of all of this is to exert control over district employees' speech at all times and in all places.

20/ As much as @AustinISD wishes that it had that power, the First Amendment deprives them of it. They simply do not have the authority to demand that employees be on duty with respect to their constitutionally protected expression at all times.

21/ School boards have a reputation for self-answering the question of why public education is in the shitter and passing really stupid, poorly considered policies. @AustinISD is clearly no exception.

But let's not forget the other culprit here.

22/ Because @socialintelco and its founder @BiancaLager border way too close to "maybe that dystopian social credit thing isn't so bad after all."

It's a profoundly creepy product, and on principle I wouldn't want to work anywhere that hires them. They should go out of business.

23/ Anyway, this is a really bad and stupid idea that's going to wind up with hefty legal bills, @AustinISD.

I submit that there are better things to do with taxpayer money than being creepy First Amendment violators.

Do better. This aint it.

lol imagine that, the person who built a company around stalking social media accounts to find undesirable expression is a self-described "insufferable know it all."

If you were kidding, @BiancaLager, it's too on the nose. If not, well I guess you have SOME self-awareness.

But hey, if we're deeming people unfit, sure would be a shame if someone did a deep dig into the lives of the @AustinISD board members or @BiancaLager to see if there's any part of their lives that would disqualify them from service as an elected official or govt contractor 🤷‍♂️

Also remember that @nytimes exposé about the scams that are online reputation management companies? Gotta wonder if @BiancaLager has another company that helps job candidates sanitize or repair their online reputations. 🤔

Also JFC this claim from @BiancaLager about @socialintelco.

Finding (for ~$2 million) facially anonymous accounts because of an address/email/phone number tied to report their expression out of context to govt is "actionable conclusions without invading someone's personal life?"

In several replies, this AustinISD board member asserts that "context and background" (which he won't provide) justifies the search for wrongthink appearing near any employee's social media presence.

Because we should, like, take the govt's word for it.

https://twitter.com/FosterintheAtx/status/1434535184792109064?s=19

Going to offer @AustinISD a great deal: For only *half* of the $1.8 million they want to pay for someone to find any account, named or anonymous, and search it for Bad Posts made by them or anyone they know, I'll teach the whole district about the First Amendment twice a year.