Representative Chad Christensens platform says that he believes in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. There are no exceptions. But his behavior belies this belief when he violates the First Amendment rights of people by blocking them from commenting on his official Facebook page. Crusading for his own rights while denying other peoples is a hallmark of Representative Chad Christensens tenure in our state legislature.

In Randall v. Davison, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled early last year that a public official cannot block an individual from commenting on the officials Facebook page. The court held that blocking would be viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. In a similar decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled later last year in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump that President Trump could not block an individual from his Twitter account. A quote from that case says it all: While [the public official] is certainly not required to listen, once he opens up the interactive features of his account to the public at large he is not entitled to censor selected users because they express views with which he disagrees.

The Facebook page Chad Christensen for Idaho is described on the page as a political organization, not Rep. Christensens personal page. He regularly uses it to discuss legislative matters. He regularly allows comments by non-constituents, so long as the comments support him and his positions.

One of us, Maggie, was blocked on April 17 from Representative Christensens public Facebook page. I was highly critical of his protest in Boise. I had requested that he remain away from Teton County for 14 days post protest. He was venturing to a higher COVID transmission area and could be exposed. He said that he would come to Teton County if he wanted but in a responsible manner. He would don a mask. I watched the protest online. He was behaving in a foolhardy manner no mask, too close to others. I told him so. I also requested that instead of protesting, he work on supply chain issues for more testing or harvesting issues for farmers. No one wants this shut down. It is a horrendous hardship for all. I explained to Representative Christensen that the shutdown protected healthcare workers and the most vulnerable members of society. I explained that his actions would endanger others. I was blocked. My voice was silenced.

One of us, Carolyn, was blocked twice. The first time was for simply asking how Representative Christensen interpreted some language in the Second Amendment. He did not reply, merely blocked me. After I made some public comments on another page, he unblocked me. The second time was for asking whether mocking people who created a safe space in the Idaho Capitol building comported with the Christian values that Rep. Christensen claims to follow.

Rep. Christensen has said that he blocks people for harassment. Nothing that either of us have said amounts to harassment. Criticism of positions, however harsh, doesnt rise to that level. He also claims to block people for name-calling. We have never called names. We have been called names many times by Rep. Christensen and others on the page, none of whom ever appeared to be blocked.

We expect that we will always differ in opinion from the District 32B representative on any number of issues. As grown-ups, we understand that reasonable minds can differ, and others dont have to agree with us. But a public official has the obligation to listen respectfully to differing views. Holding office requires the ability to listen and govern people who possess varying political ideas. While in office a great many individuals will disagree with you. Representative Christensen has shown repeatedly he is incapable of tolerating criticism.

Further, a public official has the obligation not to violate the First Amendment rights of others. Representative Christensen will champion his own rights and those of his loyalists, but he infringes on the rights of others. This is all accomplished while he touts his love of the Constitution. Individuals who understand and respect the Constitution do not deny others their First Amendment rights. The people of his district deserve better.

Carolyn Dessin and Maggie Shaw, Driggs

View post:

First amendment and Facebook | Opinion - Teton Valley News