TexasCHLforum.com

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 48006/132/

Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors et al, No. 1:2016cv00932 - Document 132 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 07/25/2017. (mpha)

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:05 pm

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:51 pm

O.F.Fascist wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:02 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:52 pm

Deltaboy wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 1:43 pm Bonner and his wife are Proven Liars and deserve this Lawsuit!

I agree that they are liars, but what does that have to do with this lawsuit?

By picking and choosing which members of the public are heard from on a public page they continue to lie by controlling the narrative.

But it's not a government website and subject to the 1st Amendment. Now if he had a "Speaker of the House" page on a texas.gov website and was blocking/deleting those who disagree I think this would be a worthy suit.

As far a CJG - his Fakebook page is a treasure trove of immature postings...who would take him seriously as a elected official in Texas?

In Davison V. Randall, the 4th decided that an elected official's social media, if it is used for ANY public purposes, and even a single post qualifies, then it is treated the same as a .gov website, and banning even one individual is a violation.

A person can be awake in civics class all that they want... but if you do not keep up with case law, then you are going to be left sounding unintelligent and uninformed.

Public Officials and Government Facebook Pages: Don’t Block Me, Bro!
PRINT PDF EMAIL PAGE
OCTOBER 11, 2017
LEGAL UPDATE
With the rise of social media as the modern public forum for speech and debate, a veritable legal minefield has been created for elected officials who run social media accounts.

Elected officials may believe their personal social media pages have little to do with their governmental roles, but more and more constituents are posting comments to these pages to voice concerns on public issues. Once an elected official’s social media page is opened for political discussion, it is transformed into a public forum for speech and debate, instantly granting every user a First Amendment right to speak his mind in the comment section.

It may have been okay to delete a profane comment or to block a rude Facebook friend before, but now that same act could be a constitutional violation. Highlighting the urgency of this issue is a complaint filed last month in a federal court in Ohio, alleging that a Hamilton Township trustee violated the First Amendment rights of several constituents by banning them from his Facebook page.

Although the Ohio federal case is still in the early stages of litigation, a Virginia district court was faced with a similar complaint in July of this year. In Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 227 F. Supp. 3d 605 (E.D. Va.),

https://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resource ... e-bro.html