GEORGIA — Elected officials have been using social media to expand their reach to constituents for almost two decades.

But not everybody’s getting through.

Some elected officials block individuals from their social media accounts, a practice that raises ethical issues on voters’ rights to access their government.

Since social media’s premiere on the political scene, the guidelines governing ethical practices remain unclear. Few laws address the issue.

Blocking is one way account owners can shut out people from viewing their posts or account.

Local politicians do it.

President Trump has done it, and it sparked a recent lawsuit.

Earlier this year, Columbia University filed suit against the administration for the president’s practice of blocking Twitter users. The university argued that American citizens have the right to be free to express their views to elected officials. Blocking users on a social media website simply because their views run counter to the president’s is undemocratic, the suit argued.

U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald confronted Trump’s attorney, Michael Baer, telling him that “once it is a public forum, you can’t shut somebody up because you don’t like what they’re saying.”

Baer countered that blocking on social media amounts to the same thing as the president walking away from a hostile crowd at a town hall meeting.

Trouble on the home front

The conflict between politicians and constituents on social media extends to North Georgia.

State Sen. John Albers, who represents portions of North Fulton and Cherokee County, says he does not believe he is violating his constituents’ First Amendment rights by blocking them when he deems it appropriate.

In an emailed statement, Albers said his official information and press releases can be found on the Georgia General Assembly website or on his campaign website at

Social media, however, is personal, Albers said. He took to his Facebook and Twitter pages recently and updated the information sections to reflect that his pages are “personal and occasionally (have) campaign messages.”

For Sean J. Young, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, that’s not a good enough justification.

“In general, you don’t get to exempt yourself from the First Amendment’s requirements by saying, ‘oh wait, this now is a personal page,’” Young said. “If any elected official has a town hall and says they want to hear what the people are concerned about as their senator, but they only want people to come who like them and will say good things. That’s the kind of scenario that would not cut it in the court.”

The courts, Young said, generally don’t allow people to evade the Constitution by attaching provisos such as: “this is personal.”

“They look at what’s actually happening,” he said. “If it quacks and walks like a duck, you can call it an elephant, but it’s a duck.”

The ACLU of Georgia sent Albers a letter April 11 after being contacted by nine Georgia residents, most of whom reside in Albers’ Senate district, who have been blocked from posting on, or even viewing, Albers’ official government Facebook and Twitter pages. Those pages are otherwise open for public comment to preselected “Facebook friends.”

Young stated that Albers previously had a separate Facebook page titled “Senator Albers” that was once used for digital town hall meetings. However, that page was deleted, and it appears Albers uses his secondary Facebook page to conduct government business.

“Thus, whether you intended to or not, your Facebook default account page now functions practically as an official government page,” Young wrote in the letter to Albers. “And because your government Facebook and Twitter pages have been opened for some members of the public to post comments, it is considered a ‘limited public forum.’”

On a personal page, Young said the user has the right, even the First Amendment right probably, to design and make the page as he or she pleases.

“The problem we’re seeing recently is a lot of politicians and elected officials treating their government social media pages as they treat their personal pages,” Young said. “So they’re creating a separate government site to publicize the great work they’re doing. Government transparency is great… but when constituents post comments that they don’t like, or say they need to be voted out of office, we’ve seen elected officials delete those comments and block people who post comments the elected officials don’t like.”

Constituent says she was shut out

One Albers constituent, Daryl O’Hare, objected to the senator’s “consistent practice of censorship and discrimination in communications related to his office, particularly in several avenues.”

O’Hare wrote to the Ethics Committee of the Georgia State Senate last year to complain of his activity.

“I believe it is in the state’s interest when a representative of the Georgia General Assembly fails to pass a full transparency test, especially in the area of equal access to his/her constituency, and particularly with regards to discrimination,” O’Hare said.

She listed the several ways Albers interacts with constituents and argued that all of these avenues should, given proper oversight by Albers, make constituents feel they are able to correspond with him in a way that is open and traceable should there ever be a need to recover communications.

On the surface, she said, this would appear to be the case with Albers.

“However, what happens when a constituent contacts the elected official through one of the avenues the legislator invited him/her to and the legislator proceeds to block the constituent without any known cause to the constituent?” O’Hare asked. “I am one of those constituents, and while I have contacted the senator numerous times to ask why, I have not been given a response or a report with any evidence to explain the action.”

Since last year, the ACLU of Georgia has sent letters to other elected officials to notify them of a similar situation -- to three sheriffs, a police department, the secretary of state, a U.S. Senator and three members of Congress demanding that they stop censoring their critics who post on official government social media accounts.

But Albers said the ACLU letter is “mostly out of date and (the ACLU of Georgia) should update their research.”

“Unfortunately, social media has devolved in many ways and everyone should remember 13-year-olds have access,” Albers wrote in an emailed statement. “Sadly, and based on unfortunate negative behavior, I do not use social media for official communication. Social media is just what the name says, ‘social.’ My office is always available to schedule a call or meeting to work with people in a positive and professional manner.”

But Young has countered that criticism of elected officials is the cornerstone of American democracy.

“We can’t let that be eroded,” Young said. “Social media is a relatively new phenomenon, but the First Amendment principals of our country are timeless and have been around for centuries. A basic First Amendment principal set out by the United States Supreme Court is that when the government creates a public forum, it cannot then discriminate or censor people based on their viewpoint.”

Young cited one federal lawsuit in Maryland which was settled when Gov. Larry Hogan agreed to pay $65,000 to the plaintiffs and to rewrite his social media policies to conform to the Constitution.

In the case with President Trump, both sides agreed to a compromise whereby the president could “mute” users, rather than blocking them. In this way, the president wouldn’t have to see the comments, which can get malicious, but the voter can continue to read what Trump posts. Some public officials are unapologetic about blocking constituents on social media.

Other officials take different tack

Forsyth County Commissioner Cindy Jones Mills uses her Facebook page to communicate, but said she has reduced her activity because of cyberbullying.

“I love talking to people and explaining things and getting their input and feedback but I don’t like the attacks or the twisting of your words,” Mills said. “The other huge factor is the time it takes. When you post anything, you get asked 100 questions that usually don’t even relate to what you’ve posted about. I don’t mind answering questions and honestly, I like giving out correct information. But working 10 to 12 hour days really limits how much time you have to give to social media.”

While Mills said communication with all county residents is important, she still has to block some people.

“I have found that some folks on social media want to make any and everything about themselves and they will use a person, like me, to draw attention to themselves,” Mills said.

The commissioner said she resents being used to feed these people’s agendas which, she added, provide no benefit to the county but only serve to tear her down personally.

“I don’t want to give them too much priority in my life when I already have so many beneficial things to work on,” she said.

Milton Councilman Matt Kunz posts a short video after every City Council meeting or important event to give his thoughts.

“Communication is very important,” Kunz said. “Often I’ll get comments on those posts, and I’ll respond. Social media is a little like the Wild West. If you don’t come into it with a set of principles to guide you, you can find yourself in a lot of trouble.”

When he encounters someone he thinks is being deceitful, he said he just moves on.

“There are plenty of other people, good people, who are out there and that I can help, and it’s best to just focus on them,” he said.

Albers was given 30 days to respond to the ACLU of Georgia’s requests that he restore the posting privileges of individuals identified in the letter, or provide a legal justification for why they have been blocked.

“The others we’ve contacted have been pretty cooperative,” Young said. “The ACLU of Georgia isn’t out to demonize anyone here. We understand in many ways this is a brave new world. We’re all trying to figure this out together. We’re always happy to work with any elected officials on a social media policy that complies with the Constitution.”

If you’ve ever been blocked by an elected official, contact Kathleen Sturgeon at

Recommended for you

(2) comments


Thank you for shedding light on this important issue. The right of the American people to directly petition their elected officials, to hold them accountable to the truth and to publicly discuss issues of local and national importance is one of the bedrock American values. When an elected official becomes so arrogant and contemptuous of his/her constituents that they believe they are not beholden to these values, its time for them to leave office. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Pride and arrogance often cause a person to paint themselves into a corner they ultimately regret being in. It certainly seems that we are watching that happen here.


It seems our elected officials have become emboldened to block any constituents who disagree with them. Therefore they end up in an echo chamber of their own making. This is NOT what representation is about. Senator Albers seems to have forgotten that he works for ALL of his constituents, not just the ones who praise him.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.