It is important to remember that people who hold public office can wear two hats: Sometimes, they act as private individuals, and other times they are government actors.

We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Davison, arguing that officials cannot prevent people from joining in a public conversation because of their viewpoints, and the three-judge appeals court panel agreed. (President Trump has used some of the same arguments in a lawsuit against him for blocking people on Twitter.) Randall countered that she has the authority to control the pageР Р†Р вЂљРІвЂћСћs content - including the comments. The critic, Brian Davison, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, filed a lawsuit arguing that Randall had violated his First Amendment rights by removing him from a public forum - space the government makes available for peopleР Р†Р вЂљРІвЂћСћs expressive activity - because she disagreed with his views. The case arose after the chair of a local board of supervisors in Virginia, Phyllis Randall, briefly blocked a critic from her official Facebook page and deleted a comment he made about her colleaguesР Р†Р вЂљРІвЂћСћ management of public funds. On Monday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the interactive portion of a public officialР Р†Р вЂљРІвЂћСћs Facebook page is a Р Р†Р вЂљРЎС™public forum,Р Р†Р вЂљРЎСљ so an official cannot block people from it because of the opinions they hold. So, if your elected representative has an official Facebook page where she invites comments, can she block you from commenting because you criticize her work?Р вЂќР вЂћccording to a federal appeals court, the answer is a resounding no.

One of the core purposes of the First Amendment is to allow people, regardless of their views, to hold the government accountable through expression.

Her interactive facebook