Lawsuit Could Commence Against Lagrange Councilman Leon Child’s

The people elect officials to carry out duties and responsibilities. These same elected officials also take an oath to support not only the U.S. Constitution but the Constitution of the state of Georgia. Lagrange Councilman Leon Child’s could believe is exempt from such oath. On Child’s Facebook Page he has blocked and deleted comments that criticize him.

Another article was published about Child’s and can be found HERE.

Childs continues his behavior by blocking and deleting comments from those that criticize him as an elected official. We found some posts that people can comment that agree with Child’s. To include that Child’s comment bar is open.  

Whereas Georgia Transparency (GT & GT News Now) is prevented from commenting on this elected official page.

A final intent file suit against Child’s has been served to Child’s. A suit could be filed if he fails to correct his actions.

Supreme Court rulings have previously ruled on this sort of behavior. As a general matter, the Supreme Court has previously held that social media, and the internet in general, is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as physical locations. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997); See Packingham v. North Carolina, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct 1730, 1737 (characterizing the internet as “the modern public square”). The Supreme Court has explained that while streets and parks have historically been the quintessential forums for the exercise of free speech, in modern times “the vast democratic forums of the internet … and social media in general” have become the most important places for the exchange of views. – U.S. –, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 1735.

In determining whether a public forum has been created, courts look “to the policy and practice of the government” and “the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity to discern the government’s intent.” See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985). At least two Federal Courts of Appeal have already determined that government operated social media accounts qualify as public forums. Knight First Amendment Institute at Colombia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F.Supp.3d 541, 565-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) affirmed by Knight First Amendment Institute at Colombia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2nd Cir. 2019) cert granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Colombia Univ, 141 S.Ct. 1220, 209 L.Ed.2d 519 (2021); Davidson v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, (4th Cir. 2019) (Holding that the interactive component of a government official’s Facebook page constitutes a public forum).