ACLU of Rhode Island Settles Suit over Facebook Censorship by Woonsocket Mayor
The ACLU of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of a federal lawsuit that challenged, as a violation of the First Amendment, Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt’s banning of some of her critics from her Facebook page. Under a stipulation filed in court, the Mayor agreed to no longer block individuals from her page “based on First Amendment-protected viewpoints expressed.”
The lawsuit was filed in August by ACLU of Rhode Island cooperating attorney David Cass on behalf of two Woonsocket residents, Greg Duhamel and Thomas Dubois. Both of them were blocked from commenting on the Mayor’s Facebook page after they raised questions about her official activities on it. The lawsuit argued that the censorship violated their First Amendment rights “to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Under the joint stipulation dismissing the lawsuit, the City:
- Acknowledges that the two plaintiffs and all other accounts that the Mayor had previously banned from her Facebook page have now been unblocked;
- Agrees that no other users will be blocked from the Mayor’s Facebook page “based on First Amendment-protected viewpoints expressed”; and
- Will pay to the ACLU and its attorneys $7,000 in attorneys’ fees and court costs.
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’s 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.
Emphasizing the importance of citizen access to, and participation in, the Facebook site, the lawsuit noted that Mayor Baldelli-Hunt used her Facebook page
to announce, describe, and defend her official policies and her office’s 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’s 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.
Plaintiff Greg Duhamel said today: “I hope this has demonstrated that public officials should listen to the people no matter what platform they use. Not everyone can make it to town/city meetings, not everyone has the opportunity to be heard, and when it comes to local happenings in communities, I deeply believe our elected officials ought to face the critics in the community. Without them, we wouldn’t see the smaller issues which come up.”
Plaintiff Thomas Dubois added: “The First Amendment wins the day, and the value of being able to question the government through free speech remains strong. I am thankful that this issue of censorship could be resolved. Government leadership can only be effective when it listens to, and values, both supporting and dissenting opinions. I look forward to every citizen feeling comfortable to question elected representatives without fear of being censored for asking questions important to them.”
ACLU of RI cooperating attorney David Cass stated: “The agreement reached recognizes the principle that a government official’s social media account is a public forum on which viewpoint censorship is impermissible. The First Amendment protections and the fundamental principles of speech, protest and redress must be protected as technological platforms for communication advance and change the way we interact as a society. The agreement acknowledges the Mayor’s wrongful conduct in censoring the plaintiffs and others and reopens full access to the public to interact with her in her official capacity.”
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, 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’s 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 “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The 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.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ 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 “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s 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’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ 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,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.