Speaker Bonnen sued in Federal Court for 1st amendment violations, blocking critics on Facebook

[SQLGeek]

Anything that holds the wannabe Napoleon's feet to the fire for the stuff he pulls is a good thing. He needs to learn a lesson on who he is supposed to be working for.

[Deltaboy]

Bonner and his wife are Proven Liars and deserve this Lawsuit!

[C-dub]

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?

[O.F.Fascist]

I’m no fan of Bonnen, but Grisham can’t be serious about this. What a nuisance! And that’s my nice word for him on this forum.

CJ and OCT aren't the ones who sued. I just used his share because his post is public; to view the post on Lone Star Gun Rights' page one has to be logged in.

Why do you think this isn't a serious issue? There have been court rulings on this before. When people with government paychecks work to limit our rights, I support anyone pushing back against them on any front.

That is interesting. I have no idea why I thought something this ridiculous had anything to do with him. Yeah, there's a little sarcasm in there, but mostly a curious mistake on my part.

However, I do fail to understand how being unfriended on FB is lawsuit worthy. The two guys or group are not being fined or jailed or in other way prohibited from spreading their message. They're just not being allowed to do it on this FB page. Just as Bitter Clinger noted, he wasn't even banned by FB. Which, BTW, also would not be an infringement of their First Amendment rights. FB is a private company. They can ban or control whatever they want on their platform. Maybe if Pocahontas Warren gets her way FB will become a public utility or something and then these guys will have a leg to stand on. Personally, I think this lawsuit is ridiculous and childish, but that's just me. Or perhaps not.

Glad to know not everyone was asleep during Civics class!

The part he missed is that in this instance it is a government employee who is silencing speech on a public page, not Facebook. Its one thing if a person keeps a private personal page, but it is another when a government employee is utilizing a public page in which they interact with the public.

Your own title says FACEBOOK. Therefore, I'm assuming this was not a government page with a .gov extension. Do you have any skin in this game? Are you one of the group that was banned?

My title says "blocking critics on Facebook," while Facebook does have its own issues they were not the party in the wrong in this instance. I'm a citizen of the state of Texas so I do have skin in the game when it comes to holding our government accountable.

[O.F.Fascist]

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.

[bblhd672]

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?

[AJSully421]

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.

[eyedoc]

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

[bblhd672]

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.

I stand corrected by case law of Davison v Randall.

[eyedoc]

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)

[Bitter Clinger]

Not impressed by frivilous lawsuits filed by hurt snowflakes and upheld by liberal judges.

Where are the material damages????

Did CJ suffer a hang nail or perhaps an incurable yeast infection?

[AJSully421]

Not impressed by frivilous lawsuits filed by hurt snowflakes and upheld by liberal judges.

Where are the material damages????

Did CJ suffer a hang nail or perhaps an incurable yeast infection?

No one is suing for damages... if you had, you know, actually read the post, you would see that they are suing for all banned individuals to be unbanned, and for court costs.

Don't let your hatred for a guy blind you to what is right in front of you... ok.

[G.A. Heath]

I see a reference to the Davison V. Randall decision which was a fourth circuit case that was never heard by the USSC IIRC, so how does that come into play as case law in the fifth circuit where a Texas citizen is suing a Texas official?

[C-dub]

Let me see if I have this straight.

These folks are relying on a ruling from what might be the most liberal circuit court in the country regarding the use of social media owned by a private company that is possibly ultra liberal themselves? Is that about right?

[O.F.Fascist]

There has been a similar ruling in the 5th circuit.

https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2019/ ... 397-19289/

“Official censorship based on a state actor’s subjective judgment that the content of protected speech is offensive or inappropriate is viewpoint discrimination,” the opinion said, noting the court was assuming in its ruling that the sheriff’s office’s Facebook page was a public forum and subject to First Amendment protection.