The day before she was sworn in to public office, Phyllis J. Randall created a new Facebook page and encouraged residents to share criticism and compliments. A month later, Randall deleted what she deemed a "slanderous" accusation delivered anonymously and aimed at someone other than her.
She blocked the commenter from her page.
The ban was brief, no more than 12 hours. But the fallout sparked a federal case that has implications for how President Donald Trump manages his active Twitter account and for his millions of followers.
Randall, a Democrat and the first black woman elected to lead a county board of supervisors in Virginia, has little in common with the president. But both elected officials have been sued for silencing critics on social media. In separate court filings, they contend their accounts on digital platforms are personal and that they can restrict who gets a chance to speak there.
Government officials throughout the country are learning to navigate what free-speech advocates describe as the digital equivalent of traditional town-hall meetings.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, reached a settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union after he blocked hundreds of people from his Facebook page. Washington, D.C., Police Chief Peter Newsham appeared to run afoul of the city's social media policy when he blocked followers from his personal Twitter account for what he called "cruel and nasty" posts.
In Virginia, the Richmond-based federal appeals court is on track to become the first to answer the question of whether First Amendment protections prevent public officials from closing off their social media feeds.
The case against Trump is in the early stages at the federal appeals court in New York, where he is represented by the Justice Department. "The realDonaldTrump account is neither owned nor controlled by the federal government; it belongs to Donald Trump in his personal capacity," agency lawyers said in court filings. The president's use of the "block function" is "merely an exercise of his personal, not governmental, authority to exclude individuals from that private account."
But free-speech advocates behind the lawsuits against Trump and Randall say blocking comments or followers is the equivalent of an elected official closing the door on constituents at a public meeting.
"You don't want public officials picking and choosing who is allowed to speak," said attorney Katherine Fallow of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, who is handling the cases in Virginia and New York. "You want to make sure all voices are heard in that forum so you see a fair and true representation of what people think, rather than an echo chamber."
District judges in Virginia and New York ruled against Randall and the president, saying their actions violated the First Amendment.
A judge in a similar case in Kentucky sided with Republican Gov. Matt Bevin, who has blocked Twitter and Facebook followers.
The Supreme Court has yet to take the issue head-on.
Randall's Facebook page is separate from the county-run account governed by a county social media policy.
She wants the latitude to control what is said on her own unofficial page. Wishing people a Happy Easter, for instance, or saying, "God bless you," without running afoul of the First Amendment. "I created it, I run it. It's completely at my discretion what goes on there, and I post what's important to me. It's my page," she said.
VIRGINIA DISPUTE
The events leading to the lawsuit filed by local activist Brian Davison were laid out during a one-day trial last spring before U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris.
When Randall joined the board, she invited Loudoun County residents to share their views on her "Chair Phyllis J. Randall" page. She encouraged constituents to use her page and county email address for back-and-forth conversations.
Soon after, in February 2016, Randall posted about a public meeting she attended with school officials. That prompted the problematic comment: allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest involving school board members and their relatives. The comment was from a user identified in the post only as "Virginia SGP."
Randall said she accepts that criticism directed at her is part of the job. But, she said, disparaging other officials' families anonymously went too far. That evening, she took down the entire thread -- and blocked "Virginia SGP."
Randall reconsidered and unblocked the user the next day, she said, because she had campaigned to improve government transparency.
Davison is the only person Randall has ever blocked, she said.
"I believe in the First Amendment," Randall said. "I want to fix potholes and decide where to build schools."
But Randall said she felt she had to appeal. "I'm fair game, but is everyone in the elected official's life fair game? Where is the line?" she said.
Davison is a software consultant and activist with two children in Loudoun County schools. He has tangled in court with other officials with mixed results. Another federal judge in Virginia dismissed one of his lawsuits last year, and school board members continue to block him from their Facebook pages.
The comment Randall blocked came from the account Davison uses to advocate on school policies. His allegations, he said, pointed to what he deemed conflicts of interest and were not "slanderous."
"Most people in power want to control the communication channels," he said. "That's what this is about. You have people on both sides of the political spectrum protecting their power."
On the night he was blocked, Davison emailed the Loudoun County supervisors and the county attorney, claiming the block was unconstitutional.
He also tagged Randall in a Facebook post, writing that she had "earned yourself a trip to the federal court in Alexandria to explain why you discriminate based on feedback."
Clear rules are needed, Davison said, to protect speech and prevent elected officials throughout the country from shutting out critics.
'A BLOCKBUSTER CASE'
On appeal at the 4th Circuit this fall, the judges considered whether a social media account maintained by a public official is akin to an official government forum and subject to constitutional protections.
Leo Rogers, the county's attorney who is representing Randall, told the three-judge appeals panel that the government does not control Randall's page.
Through Facebook, she was acting in her personal capacity, he said, just as politicians throughout history have given campaign speeches from their front porches or at private fundraisers.
But Judges Pamela Harris, Barbara Milano Keenan and James A. Wynn Jr. explored whether there is a distinction between the "Chair Phyllis J. Randall" page for Randall's county-related activities and two others Randall maintains -- one personal and the other for politicking.
No matter the outcome, the court recognized its significant role in taking the first crack at resolving the issue.
"You've got to me, wow, a blockbuster case right in front of you," Wynn said during oral arguments. "This thing reverberates."
SundayMonday on 11/11/2018