Deerfield-News.com-DeerfieldBeach, Fl-Just a couple of weeks ago I posted on Mayors Facebook and he responded. I was surprised as previously it seemed I was deleted or blocked. That said I tried again recently and my post did not get posted. Seems the Mayor has gone back to not allowing posts to post immediately.
Deerfield-News.com has posted that Deerfield Beach is violating it’s residents Constitutional Rights if they do not allow residents to post on social media. The Mayor and or any official have no constitutional rights to censor who and what is posted on his Facebook page, contrary to Deerfield Beaches Social Media Policy which is posted here below. The city would be wise and prudent to have Mr. Maurodis read the case below and amend the cities “Social Media Policy” to comply with the law.
Deerfield Beach is blatantly violating its residents Constitutional Rights if they do not allow residents to post on social media unblocked and uncensored. The Mayor and or any official has no rights to censor who and what is posted on his Facebook page, contrary to Deerfield Beaches Social Media Policy which is posted here below.
City of Deerfield Beach Social Media Policy
Deerfield Beach is at peril to its citizens for a Constitutional Challenge, of course in a city that likes to be sued I guess this is the standard operating procedure. When the government wants to use the media to get its point out it must expect citizens to have differing or even the same opinions and allow those points to be heard unfettered. Below is a recent Federal Court case demonstrating the point we have raised on multiple occasions, citizens points of view cannot be censored if government officials including the President want to use Social Media.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, REBECCA BUCKWALTER,
PHILIP COHEN, HOLLY FIGUEROA, EUGENE GU,
BRANDON NEELY, JOSEPH PAPP, and
– against –
DONALD J. TRUMP, HOPE HICKS, SARAH
HUCKABEE SANDERS, and DANIEL SCAVINO,
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
17 Civ. 5205 (NRB)
This case requires us to consider whether a public official
may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from
his Twitter account in response to the political views that person
has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public
official is the President of the United States. The answer to
both questions is no.
Our analysis proceeds as follows…………………………….
We conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain this
dispute. Plaintiffs have established legal injuries that are
traceable to the conduct of the President and Daniel Scavino and,
despite defendants’ suggestions to the contrary, their injuries
are redressable by a favorable judicial declaration. Plaintiffs
lack standing, however, to sue Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is
dismissed as a defendant. Hope Hicks is also dismissed as a
defendant, in light of her resignation as White House
Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim,
we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected
by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert
governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump
account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from
the account. That i~teractive space is susceptible to analysis
under the Supreme Court’s forum doctrines, and is properly
characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based
exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public
forum 1s proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified
by the President’s personal First Amendment interests.
In sum, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in
part and denied 1n part, and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary
judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docketentries 34 and 42.
Dated: New York, New York
May 23, 2018