First Amendment violations have been corrected. Policies have been changed so that Jefferson County’s on-line public forum complies with Constitutional protections of freedom of expression.

Last year I sued Jefferson County for violating my First Amendment rights by censoring my comments and blocking me entirely from its Facebook page. This is the county’s on-line public forum, a digital town hall. In a time when government officials were not meeting in person with constituents and conducting much of their public communications via the Internet, I felt it especially critical that the same constitutional protections that govern live, in-person, three dimensional public forums should be defended in the face of on-line censorship by the government.

Unlike a private Facebook page, the government’s page is a pubic forum. The actions of its administrator in censoring a comment, or blocking a citizen from participating, are “state actions” that must comply with the Bill of Rights.

I believe strongly in civil liberties and restraints on government power. In my final act as an active trial attorney I was named the New Mexico ACLU Lawyer of the Year. Now, instead of standing up for someone whose rights need vindication, I was that person needing a lawyer. I wanted to stop Jefferson County from making its on-line public forum a place where dissenting views and inconvenient facts where suppressed.

So I got me a lawyer. I engaged the services of Greg Overstreet. He has plenty of experience suing Jefferson County. He’s Joe D’Amico’s lawyer. He’s very good and brings to the fight a long career of pushing back against government abuses of power. He’s also a great guy to work with. We drafted a short complaint and filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington.

We thought we had a pretty clear-cut case and that the county would quickly rectify the situation, change its policies and practices and settle before we ran up significant attorney’s fees. (Under federal law, a prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights case is entitled to an award of attorney fees).

But there’s always a dance at the start of just about every case, particularly when its a government being sued by a citizen. Jefferson County demanded a jury trial and sought to have me pay its attorney fees and costs. That basically said they considered my case frivolous and sanctionable. So we got to work.

Ironically, their answer clarified what was going on. We learned they had a practice of “hiding” comments that they claimed violated one of their rules, such as a comment being “off topic.” That is not an exception to the First Amendment and was used to “hide” my comment linking to a video that pleaded with Americans to never forget 9/11. By “hiding” a comment, only people who are FB friends with the sanctioned commenter could see the comment. The commenter himself would have no idea he had been censored as he could still see his comment. No notice is provided that state action had been taken to censor him. This adds a due process violation on top of a First Amendment violation. Only by sitting down with someone not a FB friend and comparing screens would he learn that his comment had been censored by the practice of “hiding.”

A comment I made about our county’s terrible meth problem, chronic poverty and shrinking job base was also censored.

I was completely blocked at one point from expressing approval or disapproval to any statements made by the county in its on-line public forum. That was done without any notice, statement of justification or ability to appeal–another due process violation.

I heard from another man that he had also been censored and blocked. I set aside a day and read every single post and looked at all the comments on the Jeffco FB page from the time it was launched. I found all sorts of evidence that would help us in the jury trial the county had requested. I found other people who likely also were being subjected to censorship. An enterprising attorney could make a nice piece of change off this situation by bringing a claim for every person and every instance of censorship. Government and government officials just can’t do that, as Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have learned.

They were both sued for engaging in censorship in how they managed their on-line public forums, principally their Twitter feeds. Trump lost in District Court and again in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. AOC folded when she got sued for doing just what Trump had done. The published opinions in the Trump case established clear legal precedents, and paved the way for lots of lawsuits. We submitted extensive public records requests for the activity log of the county’s Facebook page. Those records would reveal every instance of censorship and the identity of those censored, meaning many more claims and additional plaintiffs.

But Jefferson County has a very good attorney. Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, quickly saw the problems with the county’s position. He welcomed settlement discussions. Greg Overstreet and I prepared a short synopsis of the evidence and legal claims on our side. Mr. Hunsucker, I am certain, shared our presentation with the County Commissioners and Administrator in executive session. The case then moved quickly to settlement.

The county has agreed to cease its censorship practices and to adopt the following policy in how it will manage the public forum of its Facebook page:

Authorized agents shall not restrict individuals from interacting with County-sponsored social media accounts. For purposes of this policy, ” restrict” includes both blocking and hiding comments.

If an authorized agent feels it is necessary to restrict an individual from interacting with County- sponsored social media accounts, they must consult with the Director before doing so. In determining whether an individual will be restricted the Director may consider, among other factors, whether restricting is allowed under these procedures, applicable laws, the nature of the incident on the County sponsored social media account that prompted review, whether restricting would entail viewpoint discrimination, and whether other actions could be attempted to stop or prevent further violations without restricting an individual. If an individual is restricted on authority of the Director, documentation must be kept, such as screenshots of the data that prompted the restriction and the reason for the restriction.

The Director is responsible for conducting an audit of social accounts every six months, to ensure they are being maintained in compliance with this policy.

That is a vast improvement over the wide discretion and unconstitutional practices written into the county’s previous social media policy. There may be some conceivable reason for the county in the future censoring activity on its Facebook page. A threat of violence, for instance, or publication of pornography. Or outright defamation that could subject the county to liability for injuries and losses. The county may decide that censorship, the last resort under the new policy, is unavoidable and worth a possible lawsuit. But that decision will be made only at higher levels in county government and certainly only after consulting with legal counsel.

We withdrew our extensive public records request. We don’t need to and won’t be digging up other potential claims and claimants. That saved county employees a lot of work.

The county is also paying Mr. Overstreet’s fees. I never sought monetary compensation for violation of my civil rights, but my lawyer does need to be paid. We kept our fees and costs down. Punishing the county economically was not the goal. Changing policy to bring it into compliance with the Bill of Rights was the reason for the lawsuit.

The county will pay Mr. Overstreet $12,500. He reduced his fees to facilitate quicker settlement and avoid litigating a higher fee claim–which would have cost the county even more. He would have been awarded not only the higher fee amount to which he was entitled, but also fees for his time in seeking that amount. The county would also have paid for our expert witness. That was not what we wanted and the costs of battle were avoided.

I did a lot of legal and investigative work, as though I were Mr. Overstreet’s associate counsel. I did not seek compensation for my time, though I believe I may have been entitled to an award.

We got want we wanted. Both attorneys did a good job. The county commission wisely listened to their lawyer. This case has set a precedent in Washington that other state, county and municipal governments are likely to follow. It did not produce a judicial ruling, but the example it set shows the way to conduct the business of government on-line while upholding the rights of citizens to engage freely in discussing and debating matters of public interest, even if government very much dislikes what those citizens may have to say.

Related: My First Amendment Lawsuit Against Jefferson County: Update