The Spring Hill Kansas Insider
August 16, 2025
The Spring Hill Recreation Commission recently voted to put into place a Social Media Engagement Policy effective August 13th, 2025.
While it’s isn’t bad to have a few rules on “your own” website, making those rules apply on a social media and social networking service such as Facebook is a whole other story. In short its Facebook’s rules on what is and what isn’t as a whole acceptable.
Is the ability of government-funded social media pages (like a city’s, county or states or any taxpayer supported sites on a Facebook page) to delete comments from the public really legal?
The short answer is No, not generally, if the comments express a viewpoint.
Public Forums and the First Amendment: When a government entity or official uses social media to communicate with the public and allows comments, that platform often becomes a public forum (either a traditional public forum or a designated public forum).
Viewpoint Discrimination Prohibited: The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and this includes the right to criticize government officials and policies. In public forums, government actors cannot block users or delete comments based on the viewpoint expressed, even if they disagree with the content.
Exceptions for Certain Content: There are exceptions for comments that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as remarks that make a true threat of violence, incite others to imminently violate the law, or contain obscene language as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The “Lindke Test”: The Supreme Court case Lindke v. Freed established a test to determine when a public official’s social media activity constitutes “state action” and is therefore subject to the First Amendment. If a public official has the authority to speak on behalf of the government and purports to exercise that authority on social media, then blocking or deleting comments based on viewpoint can be a First Amendment violation.
Content-Neutral Policies are Possible: Government entities can adopt content-neutral social media policies that establish rules for comment sections, such as prohibiting off-topic comments or spam. These policies must be applied consistently and without discriminating against particular viewpoints.
Disabling Comments Entirely: A government agency, tax payer supported or official is not obligated to allow comments on their social media pages and can choose to turn off the comment feature entirely without violating the First Amendment. However, if they allow some comments, they cannot then selectively delete others based on viewpoint.
In summary: While a government-funded Facebook page generally cannot delete comments simply because they express criticism or disagreement, they can delete comments that fall into categories not protected by the First Amendment, such as threats or obscene content. Additionally, they can implement content-neutral policies and, if desired, turn off comments altogether.
I have not seen the whole so called Social Media Engagement Policy as they the SHRC have hidden it behind a “sign into only” Civic Plus site (which can then sell your email address to flood you with spam) instead of making it easy for all to gain access to and read. But in reading what whoever posted on Facebook, it clearly states, in my opinion, they will delete anything they want if they feel it isn’t what they want folks to see.
The SHRC has a long history of not wanting to make public certain things or make in public any comments related to certain posts. They want to have non-public discussions I’m sure, so that at a later date they can deny anything that was said.
That being said, questioning SHRC policy and spending habits isn’t hate speech, it’s the right of the public to know and the right of the public to be told.
Now I would never use the word “FUCK” in asking questions of our leaders or any official with our local government offices or school board, but I clearly could, and there isn’t a thing they can do about it without facing serious backlash for doing so. I can call something fucking stupid and be within my rights to do so. In summary, while the use of the word “fuck” may be offensive or inappropriate in certain situations, it is generally protected under the First Amendment, unless it crosses the line into categories like inciting imminent violence, making credible threats, or harassing individuals.
“Speech” is typically one-way—someone talks, others listen. But forums, discussions, and dialogues are two-way. They’re built on exchange, where people share ideas and respond to each other. That’s why it’s especially important to keep those spaces open, respectful, and free from harassment.
Viewpoint discrimination happens when the government or a public institution tries to control speech based on the specific opinion or belief being expressed. It’s not just about the topic—it’s about targeting one side of the argument. That’s different from general content-based restrictions, which focus on the subject matter without picking sides. Viewpoint discrimination is seen as especially serious and is usually unconstitutional because it undermines free expression.
Content-based restrictions in general should be approached with caution. They can easily become tools for censorship or silencing certain perspectives. That said, some types of speech—like obscenity, defamation, or incitement to violence—aren’t protected. Words like “fuck” or “fucking,” for example, often aren’t used to communicate ideas but to provoke or insult. In many cases, they’re more about causing harm than having a real conversation. That kind of language doesn’t belong in respectful, two-way discussions.