Jamestown resident Trace Minavio addresses the City Council during the City Council work session. Minavio questioned city officials about the decision to remove Facebook comments from the city’s Facebook page, as well as the use of a board at a local coffee shop to gather ideas for the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning updates.
By John Whittaker
Two words starting with “F” were featured prominently during public comment at this week’s City Council meeting – Facebook and a word that rhymes with “duck.”
Earlier this year, officials decided to eliminate Facebook comments on the “City of Jamestown, NY – Municipal Page” Facebook page. This came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that clarified how government entities can handle public comments on social media pages. There have been many complaints on social media about this policy, but Monday’s meeting was the first time anyone has publicly voiced their complaints to City Council members.
PUBLIC PLACE OR FORUM FOR BULLYING
Jamestown resident Trace Minavio said during Monday’s public comment session that times have changed and the city should embrace new ways of public comment, including using the Facebook page as a public square.
“I myself have heard a lot from people wondering why there are no comments on social media,” Minavio said. “I understand it’s just social media, but this is an active discussion platform where citizens can participate and don’t have to physically show up somewhere. I mean, we’re past that point. That (public meetings) was great for people before the internet in 1776. Great, come and let your voice be heard. Now we have the internet. … It’s not in the name of transparency, it seems more like an ethos of opacity.”
Councilman Russ Bonfiglio, R-At Large, asked Minavio what he was referring to, since Bonfiglio does not have a Facebook page. Minavio clarified to council members that he did not agree with ending the public comment feature on the city’s Facebook page before comparing the change to installing a sign at a downtown cafe.
City officials clarified that the plaque had nothing to do with the city’s Facebook page, but was an initiative of consultants hired by the city to begin work on a new master plan and zoning ordinance update.
“How would the public know about this?” Minavio asked. “I have no idea about the code thing and I was actually paying attention.”
A kickoff event for the comprehensive plan is scheduled for Sept. 10 at Wicked Warren’s, but Crystal Surdyk, city development director, told Minavio the consultant thought the board could be a way for those who drink coffee downtown to share their thoughts on what they would like to see in a new city comprehensive plan. There will also be several public meetings as part of the development of the comprehensive plan.
“Is it fun to send them to a company for a short time during the day?” Minavio asked. “It’s not fun. … We want a better way to comment. Why do I have to show up in person to go down there and write a little something?”
The reaction to the chalkboard idea was one of the reasons for the decision to end comments on the city’s Facebook pages. Surdyk said Facebook commenters were bullying business owners online, continuing a trend that led to the city’s decision to end comments.
“So you weren’t happy about it?” asked Minavio.
“There is no place for bullying,” Surdyk replied. “It is not okay anywhere.”
“It’s still not okay to delete comments and censor people,” Minavio replied.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
Elliott Raimondo, legal counsel for the city, said the city has a choice about how it wants to use its Facebook pages. If the city chooses to operate the page as a bulletin board, comments would not have to be allowed. If the page is for community discussion, comments would have to be allowed.
“There was some pretty hostile discussion in the community earlier this year, so the city uses its Facebook page to make announcements about events and activities in the city. Since it’s an announcements-only page, it’s like a bulletin board,” Raimondo said. “No comments, but the public is welcome to look at what’s there and contact the mayor’s office or specific departments for more information.”
The Supreme Court has ruled on two cases involving lawsuits brought by people who were blocked earlier this year after leaving critical comments on social media accounts of school board members in Southern California and a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan. They are similar to a case involving former President Donald Trump and his decision to block critics from his personal Twitter account, now known as X.
Officials must have the authority to speak on behalf of their government and be willing to use it for their offices to be viewed as government offices, Supreme Court Justice Amy Comey Barrett wrote. In such cases, they must allow criticism or risk being sued, she wrote.
If the official is sharing information that is otherwise publicly available, it is less likely to be viewed as government action. While the cases were about officials’ private social media pages and the way those private pages interacted with public discussions, they also seemed to suggest that serving as a bulletin board would reduce a city’s ability to be sued over social media content.
Cities are also not required to have a Facebook page at all because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not provide a right to social media.
Ecklund, Raimondo and the council members pointed out the variety of ways the public can interact with city officials. While comments are not available on the city’s Facebook page, city residents can send a message to the city’s Facebook page. The city’s website contains email addresses for city employees and elected officials and, in most cases, phone numbers for elected officials. Public comments are also allowed at City Council work sessions, voting sessions and committee meetings.
“We did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights,” said Mayor Kim Ecklund. “We made sure we were within the legal framework. They still have a way to reach us.”
A change in conversation
Minavio’s shift in his public comments on the homeless crisis in Jamestown has taken the discussion about public comments in a different direction.
“Even the homeless in this city – we’re pushing them out,” Minavio said. “OK, perfect, let’s see what happens. Where are they going? They’re somebody else’s problem. I know I’ve asked it. I know other people have asked it. What do we do? There were people down there. There was a guy who came to help. This was all over social media. The guy came to help and you kicked him out of the damn room they were in…”
At that point, there was an audible groan from council members, and Councilman Tony Dolce, Republican of Ward 2 and council president, told Minavio that his time was up. During a council meeting, speakers are allowed five minutes for public comment, and Minavio’s time had been extended to about seven minutes because of a disagreement between Minavio and city officials.
Commentators on social media immediately seized on the profanity, saying that Minavio should have been allowed to continue speaking because the mere utterance of an obscenity is still protected free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), held that obscenity is protected free speech as long as no “fighting words” are used.
