Mediaboss Marketing

What do a local government contractor, a conservative activist in Sterling, gay rights leaders in Lovettsville, a Purcellville politician and members of a left-leaning political action group have in common?

All have been blocked from an elected officials social media account for challenging their policy positions.

Following a federal court ruling last month that said Chairwoman Phyllis (D-At Large) violated Lansdowne resident Brian Davisons First Amendment rights by blocking him temporarily from her Facebook page, residents from Loudoun and around the country have come forward with more stories about how they were censored from the social media pages of their elected officials.

For a politician to just say outright you're no longer allowed to post in this public forum that I've created, I think that does definitely cross a boundary, said conservative activist Rick Canton of Sterling.

Canton says he was blocked from Del. Kathleen Murphys (D) Twitter account in 2013 after he challenged her position on gun rights. He also says he was initially blocked from State Sen. Jennifer Wextons (D) Twitter account but later reinstated after challenging her on the same issue.

Jonathan and David Weintraub LGBTQ activists from Lovettsville -- claim they were preemptively blocked from Del. Dave LaRocks (R) Facebook page before they could even interact with him on the page. They believe LaRock banned them because of their liberal reputation on equal rights issues.

When it comes to being criticized and disagreed with and presented with information that might be inconvenient for [politicians], they should not be able to block that from happening in a public forum, David Weintraub said. And when they put up an official Facebook page that says, I am the delegate of the 33rd District, that's a public forum, its not a personal page.

Purcellville Town Councilwoman Karen Jimmerson says she has been blocked from State Sen. Dick Blacks (R) Twitter and Facebook accounts, as well as LaRocks Twitter page, though the delegate later reinstated her.

But Jimmerson finds herself in a unique and some would say hypocritical spot. She admitted she has blocked people from her social media page, which she maintains is a campaign page. Jimmerson said the users were banned because their comments were extremely vile postings that were personal in nature as opposed to focused on the subject being debated.

In addition to Jimmerson, Chairwoman Randall, Sens. Wexton and Black and Del. Murphy, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R) and state Del. Tag Greason (R) have also blocked citizens from social media pages.

A tide-turning decision, but confusion ensues

U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris decision in Davisons case against Chairwoman Randall and the Board of Supervisors has already shown regional and national implications.

Lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which recently filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his social media team, say the president suppressed dissent by blocking critics from his Twitter account. They said they plan to point to the Davison decision to help their case.

Some elected officials, like State Sen. Wexton and Del. LaRock, also appear to be taking steps to unblock constituents from their social media pages.

But mixed rulings on the issue from different judges from the same federal court has caused some confusion, as has debate over what are personal, campaign and official social media accounts.

A separate ruling on a free speech suit Davison brought against members of the Loudoun County School Board from a different judge in the same federal court said members of the School Board did not violate Davisons right to free speech for blocking him from their pages.

In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga noted the issue was not clear as a legal matter whether the Facebook pages in question were limited or public forums.

Senator Wextons office said after the court clarified that public officials cannot block constituents, she unblocked accounts regardless of how they previously behaved.

Wexton's office said its social media policy has been to not block constituents as long as their messages did not become threatening or unnecessarily aggressive.

Delegate LaRock said that in the last few days he and his office have published a disclaimer on his Facebook page reserving their right to delete user comments that include profanity, name-calling, threats, personal attacks, or other inappropriate comments or material.

LaRock said members of the GOP caucus have also met to discuss the Davison decision, but they do not think the ruling will affect their social media accounts that are considered personal and treated as personal.

The western Loudoun delegate maintains his social media accounts are campaign accounts and not official government business. Altogether, he thinks he has banned roughly a half dozen people over the last six months, though he says he is open to unblocking them.

The only time I would delete a comment is if it is something that's out of context, or is just an unfounded accusation that is not really in any way connected with an inquiry for information, which I generally consider to be intentionally disruptive, LaRock said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia this week sent a letter to all members of the states congressional delegation asking them to stop blocking people from their official and unofficial social media accounts used for official purposes simply because they oppose what they are saying.

The ACLU said many of the complaints they received from constituents around the commonwealth did not distinguish the elected officials accounts between official and political.

But with the rulings coming out of federal court in Alexandria, Alan Gernhardt, head of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, said they plan to talk about the recent decisions at a meeting later this month.

Were trying to stay aware of it, and were trying to watch things. I think we will try to address it sometime in the future, but we dont really have specific guidelines on social media right now, Gernhardt said.

Related coverage:

-"Loudoun resident files civil rights suits against county officials over social media censorship" -"Federal judge sides with Loudoun commonwealths attorney in First Amendment suit" -"Loudoun County chairwoman, Lansdowne resident meet in federal court" -"U.S. District judge rules Randall violated Lansdowne residents First Amendment right" -"Federal court dismisses Lansdowne residents free speech suit against Loudoun County School Board" -"Loudoun County residents First Amendment case may benefit free-speech groups suit against Trump"

Contact the writer at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or on Twitter at @SydneyKashiwagi.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [emailprotected].

Read this article:
After landmark First Amendment ruling, more Loudouners share their stories of social media censoring - Loudoun Times-Mirror