老澳门开奖结果 of Rhode Island Sues over Facebook Censorship by Woonsocket Mayor
In a major First Amendment case, 老澳门开奖结果 of Rhode Island cooperating attorneys David Cass and Lynette Labinger today filed a federal lawsuit challenging Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt鈥檚 actions in banning some of her critics from her Facebook page.
The lawsuit is on behalf of two Woonsocket residents, Greg Duhamel and Thomas Dubois, both of whom found themselves blocked from commenting on the Mayor鈥檚 Facebook page after they raised questions about her official activities on it. The lawsuit, arguing that the censorship violates their First Amendment rights 鈥渢o speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances,鈥� states: 鈥淛ust as public officials may not preclude persons from participating in the public-comment portion of a town hall meeting based on their viewpoints, Mayor Baldelli-Hunt cannot ban users from [her] Facebook page because she dislikes their opinions.鈥�
Mayor Baldelli-Hunt banned Duhamel from her Facebook page last November, after he challenged a post from the Mayor in which she attempted to claim credit for the building of a local skate park. Last month, Dubois, who had many previous interactions with the Mayor鈥檚 Facebook page, commented on a post from the Mayor to ask about construction taking place at a local park. His question was quickly deleted, and he, like Duhamel, found himself banned from the page.
The suit notes that Mayor Baldelli-Hunt uses the @LISABALDELLIHUNT Facebook Page to announce, describe, and defend her official policies and her office鈥檚 operations; to comment on local issues; to share content produced for the City of Woonsocket; and to communicate with her constituents including responding to their comments. Because of the way she uses this account, Mayor Baldelli-Hunt鈥檚 posts have become an important source of news and information about her work. Further, the interactions associated with the posts have become important forums for speech by, to, and about Mayor Baldelli-Hunt.
The lawsuit argues that 鈥淢ayor Baldelli-Hunt, in addition to using the @LISABALDELLIHUNT Facebook page as a tool of governance, clothed it in the trappings of her public office,鈥� and that her 鈥減ersistent invocation of her position as an elected official overwhelms any implicit references one might perceive to any personal use.鈥� Among other indicia of its official imprimatur, the account is under the name 鈥淢ayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt鈥� and lists her status as 鈥済overnment official.鈥�
The suit asks the court to declare the Mayor鈥檚 鈥渧iewpoint-based banning鈥� of the plaintiffs and others from her Facebook page to be unconstitutional, and to issue an injunction prohibiting her from banning anybody from her page 鈥渙n the basis of viewpoint.鈥� The suit also seeks an award of nominal damages and attorneys鈥� fees.
Plaintiff Greg Duhamel said today: 鈥淎ll I did was express concerns about something that Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt posted on her Mayoral Facebook page. In response she blocked me from commenting and she also deleted my comments. She should not be censoring me and others for commenting on items she posts depending on whether she agrees with them or not. I believe in free speech, and what I wrote was protected by the First Amendment.鈥�
Plaintiff Thomas Dubois added: 鈥淭he questions I asked on the Mayor鈥檚 Facebook page were relevant to her post, but I noticed they got deleted. I see many other comments that are complimentary to her that are left up and interacted with by the mayor on a regular basis. My questions were reasonable, and if they were never answered, I wouldn鈥檛 have minded, but instead I was promptly blocked from ever interacting with the page. I am concerned about the capacity of an elected official to censor the ability of the public who elects them and to deny them the right to even ask a question publicly. I hope this lawsuit can prevent any further limitations on the right of citizens to address the government.鈥�
老澳门开奖结果 of RI cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger stated: 鈥淔acebook and other social media have become powerful tools to allow public officials to get their message out to the general public. But once those officials open up the platform for public discussion and commentary, they don鈥檛 get to limit the comments they will accept to only those who voice support. The First Amendment simply does not allow public officials to exclude people from these forums because they disagree with what they have to say.鈥�
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.