In an ongoing legal battle over whether Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, violated the First Amendment when he blocked atheists from his social media page, a national atheist group publicly blasted Rapert on Thursday for claiming his Facebook and Twitter accounts are private.
Attorneys for the senator, who is being sued by four people whose social media posts he blocked, said in court filings late last week that he silenced them not because of their views, as they claim, but because they violated rules he requires all posters on his accounts to follow. They also said the accounts are strictly personal and not affiliated with his government job.
The filings were in response to a lawsuit filed Jan. 8 by the four Arkansans and American Atheists Inc., a New Jersey-based organization that for 56 years has fought for the civil liberties of atheists and the separation of government and religion. The group first sued in October, but later dropped that lawsuit and filed a new one.
In documents filed this week in support of their request for a preliminary injunction that would require Rapert to un-block them immediately, and in opposition to Rapert's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs challenge the senator's contention that his accounts are private. They say Rapert's status as an elected official and the topics he comments on make his Facebook page and Twitter feed public forums, which are protected by the First Amendment.
A federal appeals court in Virginia ruled in January, like a district judge in New York did a year ago, that politicians violate the First Amendment when they ban their constituents from "official" social media pages, making the question of whether the accounts are personal or official a major issue.
In a news release issued Thursday, American Atheists quoted its attorney, Geoffrey Blackwell, as saying that if Rapert "believes his accounts are personal, he must be defining the words 'official' and 'personal' in a manner with which I am unfamiliar."
The release notes that Rapert uses his "Sen. Jason Rapert" Facebook page to discuss important policy matters with constituents and seek their input. They noted that until Jan. 4, the page said, "This page is for communication with constituents and citizens."
Rapert similarly uses his Twitter account, which links to his official profile on the Arkansas State Senate's website, to communicate with constituents and to seek their input on legislation, the group noted. His Twitter account, according to plaintiffs' attorneys, identifies him as a state senator and even contains an image of a gavel on which the words "Arkansas Senate" are printed.
"Rapert has streamed at least 29 videos from Arkansas State Capitol facilities to which he has special access due to his elected position," the news release said. "This includes at least 28 videos from his own Senate office and at least one video from the Arkansas Governor's Office during a bill signing."
"Like digital town hall meetings, these accounts serve as instruments of his Arkansas Senate office," Blackwell said, noting that Rapert "performs duties intrinsic to his role as a state legislator. By shutting out his atheist constituents, he is preventing them from engaging in forums for discussion and debate, from being active citizens."
"Rapert is either incredibly incompetent or intentionally misleading the court when he claims he's using social media for personal use only," said the group's president, Nick Fish.
In a filing arguing against dismissing the lawsuit, attorneys Phil Kaplan and Bonnie Johnson of Little Rock, along with Blackwell, wrote, "A very highly publicized and growing body of law specifically finds that social media accounts can be considered designated public forums and that public officials who use such accounts in conjunction with their work are acting under color of law."
Rapert's Facebook page says any user who engages in "bullying, intimidation, personal attacks, uses profanity or attempts to mislead others with false information" will be blocked. Yet, the atheists say, "Rapert regularly blocks users who have not violated these rules. ... However, the Senator has not blocked people who agree with his views, even when they use profanity, disparage others, including the religious beliefs of others, accuse others of crimes, or encourage people to commit criminal acts."
U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker heard arguments Jan. 15 on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would hold until the larger constitutional issues are decided. She said she will issue a written ruling after the parties had a chance to add to their arguments in court documents.
Metro on 02/01/2019