ACLU of Rhode Island Sues over Facebook Censorship by Woonsocket Mayor
In a major First Amendment case, ACLU of Rhode Island cooperating attorneys David Cass and Lynette Labinger today filed a federal lawsuit challenging Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt’s actions in banning some of her critics from her Facebook page.
The lawsuit is on behalf of two Woonsocket residents, Greg Duhamel and Thomas Dubois, both of whom found themselves blocked from commenting on the Mayor’s Facebook page after they raised questions about her official activities on it. The lawsuit, arguing that the censorship violates their First Amendment rights “to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances,” states: “Just as public officials may not preclude persons from participating in the public-comment portion of a town hall meeting based on their viewpoints, Mayor Baldelli-Hunt cannot ban users from [her] Facebook page because she dislikes their opinions.”
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.
The suit notes that Mayor Baldelli-Hunt uses the @LISABALDELLIHUNT 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.
The lawsuit argues that “Mayor Baldelli-Hunt, in addition to using the @LISABALDELLIHUNT Facebook page as a tool of governance, clothed it in the trappings of her public office,” and that her “persistent invocation of her position as an elected official overwhelms any implicit references one might perceive to any personal use.” Among other indicia of its official imprimatur, the account is under the name “Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt” and lists her status as “government official.”
The suit asks the court to declare the Mayor’s “viewpoint-based banning” of the plaintiffs and others from her Facebook page to be unconstitutional, and to issue an injunction prohibiting her from banning anybody from her page “on the basis of viewpoint.” The suit also seeks an award of nominal damages and attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiff Greg Duhamel said today: “All I did was express concerns about something that Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt posted on her Mayoral Facebook page. In response she blocked me from commenting and she also deleted my comments. She should not be censoring me and others for commenting on items she posts depending on whether she agrees with them or not. I believe in free speech, and what I wrote was protected by the First Amendment.”
Plaintiff Thomas Dubois added: “The questions I asked on the Mayor’s Facebook page were relevant to her post, but I noticed they got deleted. I see many other comments that are complimentary to her that are left up and interacted with by the mayor on a regular basis. My questions were reasonable, and if they were never answered, I wouldn’t have minded, but instead I was promptly blocked from ever interacting with the page. I am concerned about the capacity of an elected official to censor the ability of the public who elects them and to deny them the right to even ask a question publicly. I hope this lawsuit can prevent any further limitations on the right of citizens to address the government.”
ACLU of RI cooperating attorney Lynette Labinger stated: “Facebook and other social media have become powerful tools to allow public officials to get their message out to the general public. But once those officials open up the platform for public discussion and commentary, they don’t get to limit the comments they will accept to only those who voice support. The First Amendment simply does not allow public officials to exclude people from these forums because they disagree with what they have to say.”
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.