This lawsuit raises the question of whether government such as the Lehigh Fire District is obligated to respect the rights of speech on social media when the speech is critical of the government or if it can simply delete comments that paint the fire district in a bad light.
Scott has filed a federal lawsuit against the Fire Dist Case # 2:20-CV-26FTM-29NPM Click here to read it.
In July of 2019, a New York Federal appeals court upheld a lower court decision from 2018, which disallowed President Trump to block his critics and naysayers from his personal Twitter account. This decision set a first-time precedent stipulating that “the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” wrote Judge Parker, who was nominated to the appeals court by President George W. Bush.
Randy Scott and his lawsuit against the Fire District also adds that there are broader implications, “It’s not just Facebook. Think YouTube and Twitter comments.” Scott’s lawsuit alleges “Defendants, by denying Plaintiff’s political speech, caused Plaintiff to lose a critical opportunity to communicate on topics of importance to society.”
We reached out to the Fire District for comment. Katie Heck PIO for the district sent this by email, “As it appears Mr. Scott intends to file a lawsuit, I am unable to provide you a comment at this time outside of directing you to our Standard Operating Guideline for our District Social Media Platforms. It is posted on our website as well as on our Facebook page.”
Will Scott be asking the Court for punitive damages for the clear reckless and callous indifference to his First Amendment rights. See Smith v. Wade. 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75L.Ed.2nd 632 (1983) (Punitive damages are available “when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.”).
Did Katie Heck the PIO of the Fire District show evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to Mr. Scott’s posts that are federally protected? This could be grounds for Heck’s removal.