A new policy under consideration by the Pasco County School Board could significantly change how the public interacts with its officials. The board is debating whether to disable public comments on its social media pages, citing concerns about harassment and disruptive behavior. While the school board may claim this move is about maintaining civility, it raises an important constitutional question: Does a government entity have the right to silence public discussion simply because it does not like the criticism it receives?

This decision strikes at the heart of First Amendment protections and raises concerns about government transparency, accountability, and the right of citizens to petition their leaders.

Government Social Media and the First Amendment

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

While this explicitly applies to government restrictions on speech, legal precedents have expanded these protections to government-run social media accounts that function as public forums.

A public forum is any space the government opens for discussion, whether physical or digital. Once established, the government cannot arbitrarily restrict speech within it. The Pasco County School Board’s social media pages serve as an official communication channel where constituents can ask questions, provide feedback, and express concerns. By disabling public comments, the school board may be engaging in unconstitutional censorship.

Assistant Superintendent Kevin Shibley defended the proposed policy, stating, “Our social media is really going to be one-way posts. We are an education institution. We are not in the business, nor do we have the resources, to be social media content moderators.” While the school board may lack resources for moderation, completely shutting down public discussion raises concerns about transparency and accountability.

The school board has been blocking comments on social media for some time, citing harassment and disruptive behavior as the reason. However, this practice began under former Superintendent Kurt Browning, who also faced criticism for limiting public discourse on school-related matters. Now, rather than revising its approach to better balance free speech with moderation, the board is seeking to formalize a policy to justify what they have already been doing.

Legal Precedents: The Trump Twitter Case

This issue is not new. In Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019), a federal court ruled that then-President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking critics from commenting on his Twitter account. The court determined that because he used his account for official government communications, it became a public forum, and he could not exclude people based on their viewpoints.

The ruling stated:

"The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagreed."

This ruling suggests that if a government entity, such as the Pasco County School Board, is using social media to engage with the public, it cannot simply eliminate public interaction because it finds certain comments inconvenient or critical. The broader legal consensus indicates that public officials must uphold the constitutional rights of their constituents, even in digital spaces.

Board member Beaudoin acknowledged the potential conflict, stating, “The practice and the policy do need to align. We’ll probably have a discussion about that.” This raises the question of whether the school board truly believes in an open, transparent process or if it is seeking to avoid uncomfortable discussions from the public.

What Would the Founding Fathers Think?

The Founding Fathers placed immense value on free speech and public discourse. James Madison, often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution," stated:

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."

The ability to criticize government actions without fear of reprisal was a core principle of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once said:

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would likely be alarmed at any attempt by government officials to shut down public discourse in a forum designed for engagement. They recognized that government accountability relies on the public’s ability to voice concerns, whether in town halls or modern digital spaces.

Yet, the school board argues that this is not about silencing voices. One official stated, “We’re not limiting their ability to speak,” he said. “What we’re not doing is allowing people to use our audience to amplify their message.” However, if the school board maintains an official communication channel and restricts responses, it raises the question of whether government officials should be able to dictate the boundaries of public discourse.

Conclusion: Why This Matters

The Pasco County School Board’s decision to disable public comments raises fundamental questions about government accountability and the role of social media in modern democracy. If government entities are allowed to shut down public interaction whenever criticism arises, it sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and reduced transparency.

Public officials must understand that social media is not just a one-way communication tool; it is a public space where citizens have the right to voice their opinions, ask questions, and challenge decisions. Instead of silencing discussion, the school board should explore moderation policies that allow open but respectful discourse, ensuring that public dialogue remains protected.

This is not just a local issue—it is a First Amendment battle that could have broader implications nationwide. If government agencies can shut down public discourse online, what stops them from further restricting speech elsewhere?

The people of Pasco County deserve answers—and more importantly, they deserve a voice.

References

• Tampa Bay Times. (2025). No comments: Pasco School Board considering new social media rules.

• Tampa Bay Times. (2023). Pasco School Board’s evolving stance on public engagement.

• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2019).

• Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 10: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.

• Jefferson, T. (1787). Letter to Edward Carrington on the necessity of a free press.

HOME

Watch my Podcast: