Animal Advocates Say a Florida Sheriff’s Office Blocked Them Online. Free Speech Lawyers Are Fighting Back.

Free speech advocates are calling on a Florida sheriff’s office to change its social media policies after users claimed it unconstitutionally blocked them online.

On Wednesday, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech organization, sent a letter to the Polk County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO), urging it to refrain from hiding comments or blocking users based on “constitutionally protected speech.” FIRE is also calling on the office to bring its social media policies into compliance with the First Amendment.

Critics of the Polk County Animal Control shelter, which is part of the sheriff’s office, brought the PCSO’s social media policy to the organization’s attention, according to FIRE Program Counsel Brennen VanderVeen. One of the animal advocates, Vicky Quintanilla, tells Reason she was blocked from the social media pages two years ago after she posted about the Polk shelter’s high euthanasia rate and alleged animal neglect. She says she was unblocked from the PCSO’s page as of Thursday, but not the animal control page.

As FIRE notes, the PCSO calls its social media accounts “limited public forums,” meaning government officials can require that comments relate to a certain topic, but 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 applies to its Facebook, Instagram, X, Nextdoor, YouTube, and LinkedIn pages, raises significant free speech concerns.

The policy forbids comments and posts that are “inappropriate, offensive, or sexually explicit” or that include “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 come under scrutiny for First Amendment violations before. The Lakeland Ledger, which first reported on FIRE’s letter on Thursday, has also noted that the sheriff’s office had been previously accused of filtering out 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, appears to have no issue criticizing or offending others. In 2015, when the Polk County police arrested dozens of people on prostitution charges, Judd posted pictures of the suspects and mocked them on the local news. He joked about “everything from their appearances to their parenting skills,” Reason‘s Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote at the time.

The PCSO is not the only law enforcement office that has attempted to block “hatred” from its social media pages. In June, the Columbia Police Department (CPD) in South Carolina posted an image on Facebook with text that says, “WE HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR HATE SPEECH.” The post, along with the department’s restrictive social media policies, prompted FIRE to send a letter to the sheriff, warning that the department was violating the First Amendment. As of Tuesday, it appears that its social media policy has not changed.

Ideally, the CPD and PCSO would ensure their social media policies allow for open criticism and debate online without needing a warning from legal groups. Just as law enforcement must respect due process and privacy, it must respect the First Amendment too.