The free speech organization, FIRE, contends that the Polk County Sheriff’s Office’s prohibitions on its social media channels infringe the First Amendment.
Free speech advocates are pressing a Florida sheriff’s department to revise its social media policies after users claim they were unconstitutionally blocked online.
Midweek, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech group, delivered a letter to the Polk County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO), urging officials not to conceal comments or block users for constitutionally protected speech, and to align the office’s social media guidelines with the First Amendment.
Critics of the Polk County Animal Control shelter, which operates under the sheriff’s office, brought the PCSO’s social media policy to FIRE’s attention, according to FIRE Program Counsel Brennen VanderVeen. One animal advocate, Vicky Quintanilla, told _Reason_ she was blocked from the social media pages two years ago after she posted about the shelter’s high euthanasia rate and alleged neglect. She says she was unblocked from the PCSO’s page as of Thursday, but not from the animal control page.
As FIRE notes, the PCSO describes its social media accounts as “limited public forums,” meaning government officials can require comments to be on a certain topic while moderators cannot “discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint.”
VanderVeen says the “types of comments that were actually getting blocked in a lot of cases were effectively policy complaints.” And even if users were not unconstitutionally restricted, FIRE’s letter argues that the sheriff’s office’s social media policy, which covers its Facebook, Instagram, X, Nextdoor, YouTube, and LinkedIn pages, raises substantial free speech concerns.
The policy bans comments and posts that are “inappropriate, offensive, or sexually explicit” or that contain “racism, hatred, slander, threats, obscenity, violence,” and “vulgarity.” It also prohibits “trolling,” defined as “deliberately provoking others or maliciously harassing, attacking, or cyberbullying others.” In its letter to the PCSO, FIRE warns that “the bans on ‘[i]nappropriate’ or ‘offensive’ comments, comments that ‘abuse’ or ‘[i]nclude racism, hatred,’ or ‘vulgarity,’ comments that ‘[c]onstitute trolling,’ and ‘personal attacks’ are all unconstitutionally viewpoint discriminatory.”
In an email to _Reason_ on Friday, the sheriff’s office said it had received FIRE’s letter but had not yet reviewed it. Communications Director Scott Wilder wrote that the PCSO does “not engage in viewpoint or content discrimination.”
The PCSO has faced prior scrutiny over First Amendment issues. The Lakeland Ledger, which first reported on FIRE’s letter on Thursday, has also noted that the sheriff’s office had previously been accused of filtering comments about the PCSO’s handling of a high-profile rape case.
And while the PCSO forbids offensive comments on its social media pages, the PCSO, led by Sheriff Grady Judd, seems unconcerned about criticizing or offending others. In 2015, when Polk County police arrested dozens of people on prostitution charges, Judd posted pictures of the suspects and mocked them on local television. He joked about “everything from their appearances to their parenting skills,” Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown reported at the time.
The PCSO is not alone among law enforcement agencies attempting to block “hatred” from its social media pages. In June, the Columbia Police Department (CPD) in South Carolina posted on Facebook an image stating, “WE HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR HATE SPEECH.” The post, along with the department’s restrictive social media policies, prompted FIRE to send a letter warning that the department was violating the First Amendment. As of Tuesday, it appears the department’s social media policy has not changed.
Ideally, the CPD and PCSO would ensure their social media policies permit open criticism and online debate without needing a warning from legal groups. Just as law enforcement must uphold due process and privacy, it must also honor the First Amendment.