Yes. The court found that Randall's Facebook page wasn't just personal. Because she used it for her government job and it looked official, she was acting as a government official, not a private citizen, when she banned Davison. The comments section was like a public meeting place (a 'public forum') she opened for everyone. Banning Davison just for his critical opinion is called 'viewpoint discrimination,' which is not allowed under the First Amendment.

Yes. This judge agreed with the decision but added that courts will need to figure out some tricky new problems. For example, should every single government worker be able to create a public forum online? He also pointed out that things get confusing because private companies like Facebook have their own rules, which might clash with free speech rights on government pages.

Yes, Randall violated Davison's constitutional right to free speech. Her Facebook page was like a digital public meeting space, and she let everyone comment on the page about any topic. By blocking Davison for criticizing school officials, Randall discriminated against him because she didn't like his opinion. The Constitution says government officials can't do that in public spaces, even if the space is online. Randall was acting as a government leader on the page, so she broke the law by censoring Davison based on his views.

I agree with the decision because when a government official makes a Facebook page that looks like a public meeting place, everyone should be allowed to speak their mind. Banning someone for their opinion is wrong because it stops important discussions. I’m also saying that we need to take a closer look at how officials run these social media pages, because mixing personal choices with official duties can be really tricky.

Yes, a public official's temporary ban of a constituent from her official Facebook page based on critical comments violates the First Amendment. Randall acted under 'color of state law' because she clothed the page in the trappings of her office and used it as a tool of governance. The interactive component of the page was a public forum, as she intentionally opened it for public discourse, and social media is a modern space for the exchange of views. The court rejected the argument that forum analysis cannot apply to privately owned platforms like Facebook, reasoning that government control over the space is the key factor. Banning Davison for his comments alleging corruption was 'black-letter viewpoint discrimination,' which is unconstitutional in any public forum. While Randall's own posts constitute government speech, the interactive space she opened for public comment does not.

Yes. The concurring opinion joins the majority in full but writes separately to highlight two issues for future Supreme Court consideration. First, it questions whether any individual public official, particularly one in a legislative role without unilateral policymaking power, should be able to create a public forum, as opposed to a government 'entity.' Second, it notes the complexity of applying First Amendment principles to social media platforms, where private companies like Facebook have their own content moderation policies that could potentially circumvent constitutional protections if a government official reports speech instead of directly censoring it.

Yes, Randall violated Davison's First Amendment rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination when she banned him from the Chair's Facebook page. The interactive component of the page, where the public could post comments, constituted a public forum because Randall intentionally opened it for public discourse on ANY issues. Randall engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by banning Davison because she was offended by his criticism of School Board members' alleged conflicts of interest, which is an issue of public concern. Government officials who use social media pages as public forums cannot constitutionally ban users based on their views, even if the official finds the views slanderous or distasteful. Randall's actions meet the 'under color of state law' requirement because the page bore the trappings of her office, she used it to perform actual and apparent duties as a municipal official, and the ban was linked to events arising out of her official status. Therefore, Randall's viewpoint discriminatory ban violated the First Amendment.

I join the majority in holding that the interactive portion of the Chair’s Facebook Page functions as a public forum because the page’s design and conduct clearly invite open discourse. I concur that banning Davison’s page on the basis of its content amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because it suppresses speech that is at the very heart of First Amendment protections. However, I differ from the majority by emphasizing that the unique context of social media introduces additional complexities. I caution that when an individual public official uses a digital platform imbued with government attributes, the blending of personal discretion with public duty raises unresolved issues regarding the appropriate scope of governmental control. I therefore concur with the judgment but stress that future cases should more carefully delineate the boundaries between official administrative authority and the broader expectations of public expression.

Brian Davison v. Phyllis Randall

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot