Deerfield-News.com- Deerfield Beach,Fl-This piece was written by Equitas Compliance Chaz Stevens.
Why I Sued Representative Chip! LaMarca
The Block Button Is Not a Veto on the First Amendment
Let’s not overcomplicate this.
When an elected official uses social media to announce policy positions,
promote legislative work, and interact with constituents, that account stops
being a private soapbox. It becomes a government-run communications
channel.
And the Constitution applies.
I sued Chip! LaMarca in federal court, pro se, because he used the “block”
button to remove a critic from that channel. Not spam. Not threats. Dissent.
That is viewpoint discrimination. Full stop.
What Happened
Representative LaMarca uses his X (formerly Twitter) account to:
• Discuss legislative issues
• Promote official government activity
Communicate with constituents
After I criticized him, he blocked me.
That block didn’t merely mute noise. It excluded a viewpoint from a forum he
controls as a state actor, cutting off replies, threaded discussion, and
participation in an ongoing public exchange.
Last time I checked, calling Chip! a sniveling thundercunt is still protected
speech.
The Law Is No Longer Ambiguous
The Supreme Court settled this in 2024
Under Lindke v. Freed (and its companion case O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier),
the test is straightforward: when a public official uses social media to exercise
authority derived from their office, constitutional constraints follow.
If an official:
1. Possesses authority derived from public office, and
2. Uses a social media account to exercise that authority
They cannot exclude speakers based on viewpoint.
A politician does not get to convert a public forum into a curated audience
simply because dissent is inconvenient.
The Shield and the Sword
LaMarca insists this was all personal—that his account is private and therefore
immune from constitutional scrutiny.
That claim collapses on contact.
Here, the State of Florida is being used as both shield and sword.
LaMarca invokes the “private account” label as a shield to justify blocking
critics, while simultaneously deploying the sword of state power to defend that
blocking—through the General Counsel of the Florida House of Representatives
and a top-tier First Amendment litigation team from GrayRobinson, all backed
by taxpayer-funded institutional resources.
I have a laptop, a lazy Labrador, and a desire to hold truth to power.
See kids, you don’t get it both ways.
Conduct is not “personal” when it is defended by government lawyers, financed
with public money, and treated as official action for purposes of representation
and response. If the state shows up to defend your conduct, you were acting as
the state.
That is textbook state action.
This Is Not My First Time in Court
This is not my first time representing myself in federal court. Or state court, if
you’re keeping track at home.
I have survived motions to dismiss. I have defeated motions to strike. My cases
have proceeded on the merits.
I have not been sanctioned. I have not been labelled vexatious.
This case is legally cognizable, and it is moving through the system exactly the
way civil-rights cases are supposed to move—tested, briefed, and decided
under governing law.
This Is Not About Hurt Feelings
I don’t sue over vibes. I sue over system failures.
Blocking critics online is the digital equivalent of:
• Ejecting someone from a town hall
• Cutting the microphone during public comment
• Locking the door to dissent
It chills speech, distorts public debate, and teaches officials that power means
insulation. That is precisely what the First Amendment exists to prevent.
Most people who get blocked by politicians shrug and move on. That’s the bet
officials are making.
My role—whether anyone likes it or not—is to stress-test that bet.
Why I’m Suing for One Dollar
This case is not about money.
I don’t sue over vibes. I sue over system failures.
Blocking critics online is the digital equivalent of:
• Ejecting someone from a town hall
• Cutting the microphone during public comment
• Locking the door to dissent
It chills speech, distorts public debate, and teaches officials that power means
insulation. That is precisely what the First Amendment exists to prevent.
Most people who get blocked by politicians shrug and move on. That’s the bet
officials are making.
My role—whether anyone likes it or not—is to stress-test that bet.
Why I’m Suing for One Dollar
This case is not about money.
Can the government silence a critic online and then call it “personal” while using
the state as both shield and sword?
The answer should not depend on how much money the plaintiff has left.
The Bottom Line
If you want the benefits of public office—visibility, amplification, authority—you
also inherit the constraints: neutral access, equal treatment, and constitutional
limits.
The block button is not a shield against the Bill of Rights.
And if an eight-year legislative career can be summarized as encyclopedic
familiarity with the Governor’s taint and a fixation on selling wine in containers better suited for janitorial closets, blocking critics online starts to look less like
moderation and more like brand management.
If public officials don’t like that bargain, they are free to log off.
Chaz Stevens, M.S., CLE Faculty
Founder, REVOLT Training
Member ABA, APA, NASW, NFHI
954-901-0971 (cell/Signal)
chazstevens@gmail.com
Case Information
• Case: Stevens v. LaMarca
• Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
• Case No.: 0:2024-cv-60623
• Status: Pro se plaintiff; in forma pauperis
• Relief Sought: Declaratory and injunctive relief; $1 nominal damages under
42 U.S.C. § 1983
