Trace Minavio of Jamestown speaks to the City Council during the council’s 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 blackboard in a local coffee shop to generate ideas for the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning update.

By John Whittaker

jwhittaker@post-journal.com

Two ‘F’ words were prominently featured during public comment in this week’s City Council meeting – Facebook and a word that rhymes with duck.

Earlier this year, officials made the decision to eliminate Facebook comments on the Facebook page, City of Jamestown, NY – Municipal Page, in the wake of a Supreme Court decision clarifying how government bodies can handle public comment on social media pages. There has been a lot of social media complaints about the policy, but Monday’s meeting is the first time someone issued their complaints publicly to members of the City Council.

PUBLIC SQUARE OR FORUM FOR BULLYING

Trace Minavio, a Jamestown resident, spoke during the public comment portion of Monday’s meeting, saying times have changed and that the city should keep up with new ways of public comment, including using the Facebook page as a public square.

“I myself have heard a lot about people who are wondering why there’s no commenting on social media,” Minavio said. “I get it, it’s just social media, but that is an active discussion platform for citizens to be able to come and not have to physically show up somewhere. I mean we’re past that point. This (public meetings) was great for the pre-internet people in 1776. Great, show up and have your voice heard. Now we’ve got the internet. … It isn’t in the name of transparency, it seems it’s more an ethos of opacity.”

Councilman Russ Bonfiglio, R-At Large, asked Minavio what it was he was referring to since Bonfiglio doesn’t have a Facebook page. Minavio clarified for council members he disagreed with the end of public comment on the city’s Facebook page before juxtaposing the change with the installation of a chalkboard in a downtown coffee shop.

The chalkboard, city officials clarified, had no relation to the city’s Facebook page and was instead an initiative of consultants the city has hired to begin work on a new comprehensive plan and zoning code update.

“How would the public know about this?” Minavio asked. “I have no idea about the code thing and I’ve actually been paying attention.”

A kickoff meeting 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 blackboard could be a way for those who were getting coffee downtown to share their thoughts what they would like to see in a new city comprehensive plan. There will also be several public meetings as part of the comprehensive plan’s development.

“Is it fun to make them go to a business for a short time during the day?” Minavio asked. “It’s not fun. … We want a better way to comment. Why should I have to show up in person to go down there and write on a little thing?”

Reaction to the blackboard idea was one of the issues that led to the decision to end Facebook comments on the city’s municipal Facebook pages. Surdyk said Facebook commenters bullied the business owners online, continuing a trend that fed into the city’s decision to end comments.

“So they weren’t happy about it?” Minavio asked.

“There’s no room for bullying,” Surdyk replied. “It’s not OK in any space.”

“It’s still not OK to take comments down and censor people either,” Minavio replied.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

Elliott Raimondo, city corporation counsel, said the city has a choice in how it wants to use its Facebook pages. If the city chooses to operate the page as a bulletin board then it doesn’t have to allow comments. If the page is designated for community discussion, then comments have to be allowed.

“Earlier this year as far as community discussion that did become pretty hostile so the city is using its Facebook page to make announcements about events, activities happening in the city and, as it’s purely an announcement page, it’s like a bulletin board,” Raimondo said. “No comments, but members of the public are welcome to see what’s on there and inquire with the mayor’s office or certain departments for more information.”

The Supreme Court ruled in two cases involving lawsuits filed by people who were blocked after leaving critical comments on social media accounts belonging to school board members in Southern California and a city manager in Port Huron, Mich., earlier this year. They are similar to a case involving former President Donald Trump and his decision to block critics from his personal account on Twitter, now known as X.

Officials must have the authority to speak on behalf of their governments and intend to use it for their posts to be regarded essentially as the government’s, Supreme Court Justice Amy Comey Barrett wrote. In such cases, they have to 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 considered state action. While the cases dealt with public officials’ private social media pages and the ways those private pages interacted with public discussion, they also seemed to indicate that acting as a bulletin board would lessen a city’s ability to be sued for social media content.

Cities are also under no obligation to have Facebook pages at all, since there is no First Amendment right to social media.

Ecklund, Raimondo and council members noted the plethora of ways the public can interact with city officials. While there are no comments on the city’s Facebook page, city residents can send a message to the city’s Facebook page. The city’s website has email addresses for city employees and elected officials as well as, in most cases, elected officials’ phone numbers. Public comment is also allowed at City Council work sessions, voting sessions and committee meetings.

“We haven’t violated anybody’s First Amendment rights,” Mayor Kim Ecklund said. “We made sure we were within the legality of doing so. They still have an avenue to reach out to us.”

A SHIFT IN CONVERSATION

Minavio’s shift of his public comments to the homeless crisis in Jamestown took the public comment discussion into a different direction.

“Also the homeless people in this town – we shove them out,” Minavio said. “OK, perfect, let’s see that happens. Where do they go? 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 coming down to help. That was blasted all over social media. Dude came down to help and you guys kicked him out of the f…..ing space they were in …”

At that point, there was an audible groan from council members, and Councilman Tony Dolce, R-Ward 2 and council president, told Minavio his time was up. Speakers are given five minutes of public comment during a council meeting, and Minavio’s time had been extended to about seven minutes because there was give-and-take between Minavio and city officials.

Social media commenters were quick to seize on the obscenity, saying 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 has held in its decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) that obscenity is protected speech as long as “fighting words” are not used.