Do you use Twitter? Do you like free speech? Then this article is a must read. Ajit Pai, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, just wrote an eye-opening op-ed on how the government is supporting a study of your tweet content. This time the agency of interest is not the NSA, it’s the National Science Foundation (NSF) — an institution that was founded to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense.” According to Pai, the NSF has already spent $1 million to fund a project to collect and analyze your Twitter data — including (and perhaps focusing on) political data.

As Commissioner Pai warns:

Focusing in particular on political speech, [the project named] Truthy keeps track of which Twitter accounts are using hashtags such as #teaparty and #dems. It estimates users’ “partisanship.” It invites feedback on whether specific Twitter users, such as the Drudge Report, are “truthy” or “spamming.”

The pros and cons of the study are already causing a ruckus on — where else — Twitter. There is much hyperbole and name calling on both sides of the discussion.  But the focus of the debate goes a bit far afield. The real issue is not whether this project is using data “illegally”; it appears to gather non-copyrighted, public data. Neither is there an issue of whether the project is “good,” “important,” or “worthwhile.” The sole issue at stake here is whether it is appropriate for the government to fund Truthy — no matter how worthwhile it may be.

It is not ‘hysteria’ or ‘paranoia,’ but rather respect for free speech that raises the very narrow question of whether or not the Constitution would be better served if these researchers found financial support from sources other than the American taxpayer.

Briefly stated, the controversy arose because Truthy’s researchers identify particular types of content (a subjective process by definition) and then track how that content is disseminated. As citizens, it is reasonable that we pause whenever “speech content” and “government sponsorship” are even plausibly linked. After all, the “free” in free speech means “free from government.” This point is important to keep clear. The First Amendment is specific as to government intervention into the world of speech; permitted intervention (i) is extremely limited and (ii) broadly speaking, should be content-neutral. This particular study appears to raise issues in both categories.

Remember when Facebook intervened in selected users’ discourse by changing their particular Facebook news feed to highlight negative or positive messaging? Ostensibly, Facebook wanted to track whether such changes increased the studied users’ own negative or positive posts and updates. When the study was revealed (it was not publicized while it was underway), there was a vocal outcry from users who did not appreciate being Facebook’s unknowing guinea pigs. It was perhaps a foolish corporate decision, it may or may not have violated Facebook’s private privacy contracts, and it drew social censure that led to corporate changes. But it did not implicate the First Amendment because Facebook is a private actor, unlike the government.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an academic researcher and I use public data. I understand the fascination of these academics with the world of tweeting — there is a wealth data to be mined, analyzed, used, and even sold. It is clear that many of us have decided that some loss of privacy is acceptable in exchange for the ability to engage in the community of ideas that moves quickly and freely over the Internet.

But such freedom of public discourse is exactly what has historically threatened many political incumbents; incumbents and political elites (regardless of party affiliation) are drawn to control over the flow of information as moths are drawn to flames. It is in part because of the founders’ profound historic understanding of government’s desire and, more importantly, government’s unique ability to control the flow of ideas (unlike the second-hand influence of private groups or lobbyists) that they enacted the First Amendment — to ensure that citizen speech be untainted by even the threat of government repercussion.

The study that Pai describes — even assuming that it is meant to be neutral and innocuous — is problematic because it plausibly crosses the proper confines of government involvement with public discourse. It is not “hysteria” or “paranoia,” but rather respect for free speech that raises the very narrow question of whether or not the Constitution would be better served if these researchers found financial support from sources other than the American taxpayer. If the Twitter community finds this study useful or distasteful after it is completely in the private domain, then let the Twitter community voice its support or disdain — on equal footing with the researchers, private citizen to private citizen.

Babette Boliek is a visiting fellow with AEI's Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy. She is an associate professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law where she teaches a variety of courses including communications law, antitrust, contracts, and corporations.

This article was originally published at TechPolicyDaily.com.

FURTHER READING: Boliek also writes "FCC finally discards the Sports Black Rule," "A communications tribute," and "Understanding Title II: What the New York Times can learn from the 'Princess Bride.'"

Image by Dianna Ingram/ Bergman Group