Can Your City Block a Commenter? Social Media, the First Amendment, and What Local Governments Need to Know

Your city's Facebook page has a problem. A persistent commenter posts hostile, inflammatory remarks on every city announcement. The comments aren't defamatory, threatening, or obscene — they're just relentlessly critical of city leadership, often veering into personal attacks on the mayor and council members.

Staff ask: Can we block this person? Can we delete their comments? What are we allowed to do?

The answer is not straightforward. Government social media accounts raise constitutional issues that most cities are not prepared to navigate. A decision to block, delete, or moderate comments can trigger First Amendment litigation — and cities are losing these cases.

Here's what every Washington city needs to understand about social media, public forums, and the legal framework governing online speech.

When Does a Government Social Media Account Become a Public Forum?

Not all government social media accounts are treated the same under the First Amendment. The critical question is whether the account constitutes a "public forum" — a space where the government has opened the door to public expression.

Courts consider several factors:

• Is the account used for official city business? If the city uses the platform to announce meetings, share policy updates, or solicit public input, it's likely a public forum.

• Are comments enabled? If the public can respond, the account is interactive — a strong indicator of forum status.

• What does the account say about its purpose? If the city describes the page as a place for "community engagement" or "public discussion," courts will take that at face value.

Once an account is deemed a public forum, the city's ability to control speech is constitutionally constrained. Blocking users or deleting comments based on viewpoint — even critical or hostile viewpoints — is presumptively unconstitutional.

What Courts Have Said: The Emerging Case Law

Federal courts have consistently held that public officials cannot block critics on social media when the account is used for official purposes.

In Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2nd Cir. 2019), the court ruled that President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter. The account was used to conduct official business, and blocking users constituted viewpoint discrimination in a public forum.

Similar rulings have followed at the state and local level. In Davison v. Randall (4th Cir. 2019), a county board chair was found liable for blocking a constituent on Facebook. The court awarded damages and attorney fees.

In Campbell v. Reisch (8th Cir. 2020), a Missouri legislator faced the same result. Blocking a constituent based on viewpoint — even on a personal account used for official purposes — violated the First Amendment.

The pattern is clear: If a government official or agency uses social media for official business and allows public comments, blocking or banning users based on their speech is legally risky.

What About Deleting Comments?

Blocking users isn't the only constitutional problem. Deleting comments can also trigger liability, depending on the basis for removal.

What cities CAN do:

• Remove comments that are obscene, defamatory, or constitute true threats

• Delete spam, commercial solicitation, or off-topic content unrelated to the post

• Enforce a clear, viewpoint-neutral comment policy

What cities CANNOT do:

• Delete comments simply because they are critical of the city or its officials

• Remove comments based on political viewpoint

• Apply moderation standards inconsistently (deleting criticism but allowing praise)

The key is viewpoint neutrality. If your city removes a comment, the reason must be content-neutral and applied consistently. "We don't like what this person is saying" is not a defensible justification.

Can a City Disable Comments Entirely?

Yes — but only if the decision is made upfront and applies across the board.

A city can choose not to create a public forum by:

• Disabling comments on all posts or a category of posts as informational only

• Setting the account to "announcement only" mode

• Clearly stating that the page is for information distribution, not public discussion

Once a forum is established, however, closing it selectively (disabling comments on controversial posts but allowing them on others) raises constitutional concerns. Courts view this as an attempt to suppress unfavorable speech.

Best practice: If your city wants to avoid forum status, disable comments from the outset and communicate clearly that the account is informational only.

What About Employees Using Personal Accounts for City Business?

Here's where things get complicated. If a city employee — including elected officials — uses a personal social media account to conduct city business, that account may be subject to the same constitutional constraints as an official city page.

Courts look at:

• Does the account holder identify themselves by their official title?

• Is the account used to announce city meetings, policies, or decisions?

• Does the account holder engage with constituents in their official capacity?

If the answer is yes, the account is likely considered government speech, and blocking or deleting comments may violate the First Amendment.

What this means for cities: You cannot insulate yourself from liability by saying "that's the council member's personal account." If the account is used for official purposes, it's subject to constitutional scrutiny.

The Records Retention Problem

Even if your city navigates the First Amendment issues successfully, you still face a Public Records Act problem.

Social media content — posts, comments, messages, even deleted content — is subject to public disclosure under Washington's PRA. Cities are required to:

• Preserve social media records in accordance with retention schedules

• Respond to requests for posts, comments, and direct messages

• Maintain records even after they are deleted from the platform

Many cities are not prepared for this. They lack policies for archiving social media content, and staff delete posts or comments without understanding the records retention implications.

The consequence: A PRA request for "all deleted comments on the city Facebook page" can expose a city to penalties if no retention system is in place.

What Cities Should Do Now

If your city operates social media accounts, take these steps to reduce constitutional and compliance risk:

1. Develop a Clear Social Media Policy

Your policy should specify:

• The purpose of each city account (informational vs. interactive)

• Whether comments are enabled or disabled

• Comment moderation standards (viewpoint-neutral)

• Who is authorized to post on behalf of the city

• Records retention obligations

2. Train Staff and Elected Officials

Everyone who posts on behalf of the city — or uses a personal account for city business — must understand:

• First Amendment constraints on blocking and deleting

• The difference between content-based and viewpoint-based moderation

• Public records obligations for social media content

3. Establish a Records Retention System

Work with your city clerk or records officer to ensure:

• Social media posts and comments are archived

• Retention schedules address digital communications

• Deleted content is preserved in accordance with legal requirements

4. Apply Moderation Standards Consistently

If you enforce a comment policy, apply it uniformly. Document why comments are removed, and ensure the basis is viewpoint-neutral (spam, obscenity, threats — not criticism or disagreement).

The Bottom Line

Social media is now a central tool for government communication — but it's also a legal minefield. Cities that block critics, delete unfavorable comments, or fail to preserve records are exposing themselves to constitutional litigation and Public Records Act penalties.

The solution is not to abandon social media. It's to establish clear policies, train staff, and apply constitutional principles consistently.

Need help developing a social media policy or addressing comment moderation issues?

Sound Solutions Law provides government social media policy development, public forum analysis, First Amendment guidance, and records retention consultation for Washington cities and public agencies.

Schedule a policy review consultation to discuss your city's needs.

 Kyla S. Bond is the founder of Sound Solutions Law, PLLC, a Washington municipal law practice serving cities and public agencies. She brings more than a decade of experience advising local governments on public records compliance, governance, and open government law.