Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Governance Social Media topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to draft social‑media policy based on a limited public‑forum approach
Summary
City attorney and staff briefed council on First Amendment limits for municipal social media; council directed staff to draft a social‑media policy using a limited public‑forum framework that would allow topic‑limited comments and set rules for viewpoint‑neutral moderation.
City staff and the city attorney presented legal parameters and options for city social‑media use and for allowing public comments on city accounts, and the council gave staff direction to draft a social‑media policy that would treat city comment sections as a limited public forum, with topic‑based, viewpoint‑neutral restrictions.
City Attorney Ty (Tay) Mazodi outlined the First Amendment framework courts use to assess government restrictions on speech and described four forum types: traditional, designated, limited and nonpublic. He emphasized that viewpoint‑based restrictions are always unconstitutional in public forums and explained that a limited public forum — for example, public comment at a council meeting — permits reasonable, viewpoint‑neutral limits tied to the forum’s purpose. Mazodi said the city could remove obscenity, imminent threats of unlawful action and defamatory statements (with caution), but that removing comments because of viewpoint would be impermissible.
Staff identified a number of practical options: keep comments off, consolidate accounts, accept direct messages only, or open comment sections and limit them to topics within the city’s jurisdiction or to the specific subject of a social‑media post. Council members expressed differing views: some members cautioned that opening comments could generate abusive or off‑topic discourse and increase staff workload; other members supported a temporary trial to see whether topic‑limited comments would raise the city’s profile as a trusted source and allow rapid correction of misinformation.
After discussion, the council provided “sufficient direction” for staff to draft a social‑media policy that would treat comments as a limited public forum and permit restrictions that are viewpoint‑neutral and reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose. Staff were also directed to consider account consolidation and to include operational guidance on monitoring, response timelines, and how to restrict comments to the subject of a post or matters within the city’s jurisdiction. The city attorney noted the council could later reverse a decision to enable comments if needed.
Public commenters at the study session urged caution, saying comment sections routinely become venues for venting and misinformation; several residents recommended preserving direct‑message avenues and the city website as primary official sources.
Provenance: The social‑media presentation began with an item announcing proposed changes to city social media (including comment enablement) and ended after council offered direction that staff draft a policy based on a limited public‑forum structure.
