Et tu, Gov. Ivey? I thought Republicans respected the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
I was clearly wrong, at least when it comes to Alabama Republicans. Over the past few weeks and months, some of their actions regarding the First Amendment have been reprehensible, if not criminal.
First, as just about everyone on planet Earth now acknowledges, Ivey apparently retaliated against former Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA) Commissioner Kent Davis after he filed a mandatory ethics complaint against Ivey’s cronies at the behest of his bosses on the State Board of Veterans Affairs. She did so even though both the Alabama ethics code and the federal government explicitly prohibit state officials from retaliating against whistleblowing activities, perhaps the greatest exercise of First Amendment rights as a check on unfettered government power that the amendment seeks to champion.
Next, when the governor’s office used legislative surrogates to introduce and then ramrod the horrible Senate Bill 67 (SB67) – that will now politicize veterans affairs in Alabama – through the Alabama Legislature, Ivey’s sycophants and those within ADVA threatened the jobs of their junior employees who dared to express personal opinions opposing Ivey’s bill. I have heard from numerous ADVA employees and have viewed credible evidence from those who wish to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal (remember Davis?). They have shared both verbal threats and e-mails they received warning them about expressing personal opinions, even off-duty, in opposition to SB67. One e-mail noted ominously:
[W]e should refrain from posting our opinions and views on these sensitive political situations or sharing the opinions of others on our social media platforms. Please do not post or share anything that reflects your opinion . . . It is okay to have an opinion[;] however, it is not acceptable to express such . . . . Your immediate attention and compliance to this is requested.
In a separate e-mail from another ADVA official, employees were warned:
[Interim ADVA] Commissioner Newton has directed that everyone is to be reminded that conduct outside the office that reflects the ADVA in a negative light is prohibited. This weekend an employee posted (or shared) to social media comments in a public forum about the possible changes in legislative session that influences the department. . . . Bottom line: you can have an opinion, but posting online . . . may be grounds for discipline.
The governor’s office and some of her legislative surrogates have apparently continued their assault on the First Amendment in the wake of SB67’s passage. For example, when a very large outcry continued from the veteran community over the bill’s implications, quite a few veterans began posting comments on the Facebook pages of Ivey and State Sen. Andrew Jones (R-Centre), one of the bill’s main sponsors, after both celebrated the SB67 vote via social media. Though the veterans’ comments were not threatening or vulgar, but merely expressed reasoned opinions against the bill, their comments were promptly hidden or removed, several veterans have claimed. It also appears I personally had my posts on Twitter subdued after a disingenuous post by Ivey supporting President Trump’s recent address before Congress.
Ivey and Jones, perhaps others, appear to be playing with fire, apparently unaware of recent legal precedents establishing guidelines for determining when a public official’s use of a private social media platform such as Facebook constitutes public speech that cannot be censored. Two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings in March 2024, Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, established what constitutes “state action” in the context of a public official’s use of social media in communicating with their constituents. Both cases focused on whether an official’s blocking of comments or responses to such communications constitutes censorship in violation of the First Amendment, and the Court announced a two-prong test to determine whether a public official’s speech on social media is attributable to the state. If the official “(1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts,” then the official may have violated the First Amendment by blocking negative comments to the initial social media post.
You play with fire too often and you will burn your fingers. There is a storm coming Alabama … RLTW!
Troy Carico is both a former infantry enlisted soldier (11B) and infantry officer with branch qualifications including counterintelligence (35E) and military intelligence (35D). He served with distinction in the U.S. Army for more than 22 years, and is highly decorated and service connected disabled. He also has prior service as a civilian intelligence officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency Great Skills Program and has served in numerous clandestine assignments throughout the world.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
