The Libertarian Party of Iowa threatened legal action against State Senator Claire Celsi, D-West Des Moines, after she blocked several of their members, including the party chairman, on Twitter.
The Libertarian Party of Iowa threatened legal action against State Senator Claire Celsi, D-West Des Moines, after she blocked several of their members, including the party chairman, on Twitter.
The Libertarian Party of Iowa threatened legal action against State Senator Claire Celsi, D-West Des Moines, after she blocked several of their members, including the party chairman, on Twitter.
JULTA A, OFENBAKH, NBA BROOKE J. THOMPSON KYLE A. VON JOHNSON
Attorney at Law Attorney at Laws, Mediator Attorney at Law, Mediator
July 15, 2019
Senator Claire Celsi
1007 E. Grand Ave.,
Des Moines, IA 50319
Dear Senator Celsi,
Please be advised that I represent the Libertarian Party of Iowa. Our Party has been
contacted by several of your constituents who report that you have blocked them on Twitter
and/or from your public email account. The following is a list of those constituents. I strongly
encourage you to cease and desist this unconstitutional behavior by unblocking them and any
other Iowans you may have blocked, by Wednesday, July 17, 2019, at 5:00 pm to avoid further
legal action, I have included their Twitter handles for your convenience.
- Eugene Nassif (@EugeneNassif)
- Reed Schwarek (@midwestreed)
- Michael Dinos (@mrmiked42)
- Aaron Smith (@aaronmillmind)
~ Danny Even (@DannyEven)
= William Gray (@Swampfox46)
- Tom Halterman (@TomHalterman)
- Nate Martin (@skids89)
- Jason Rumley (@Jasonrumley_)
- Joseph Howe (@chairmanhowe)
As you may be aware, blocking constituents from commenting in a public forum violates
state and federal law. See Campbell v. Reisch, 367 F. Supp. 3d 987 (W.D. Mo., 2019). It also
demonstrates character that dishonors the public office you hold. In the Iowa Constitution (a
document you swore to uphold), Section 7 of the Bill of Rights guaranteed to all Iowa citizens
states:
Liberty of speech and press. Every person may speak, write, and publish his
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law
shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. In all
prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the
jury, and if it appears to the jury that the matter charged as libelous was true, and
‘was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be
acquitted.
www.lowaDefenders.com
P:515.868.0088 . F:515.963.5370 . 2183 86th Street, Suite C Clive, lowa 50325Further, not only does the Iowa Constitution provide for free exercise of written and
published expression of sentiment, but it protects this expression in a public forum. The latest
federal case regarding this issue ruled that President Trump was not permitted to block Twitter
users from his account. See Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 2019
USS. App. LEXIS 20265 (2d Cir. N.Y., July 9, 2019). While this may be a 2 Circuit case, given
Jowa’s long history of upholding its citizen’s First Amendment rights, I have every confidence
that were this issue to be litigated, the same ruling would be upheld in this state, See State v.
Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d 781, 784 (Iowa 1989) (Protesting governmental action is a legitimate
purpose, and “Such restraint on free speech can only be justified in the case of ‘fighting words,’
a narrowly defined exception to the first amendment...”); Campbell v. Reisch, 367 F. Supp. 3d
987 (W.D. Mo., 2019) (“Similarly, this Court believes that the public forum doctrine applies to
[Defendant's] Twitter account. In particular, the Court finds convincing the rationale in Knight
that the interactive space following each tweet in which other users may directly interact with the
content of the tweets is subject to forum analysis.”)
Not only is your social media presence considered a public forum, but in addition, your
personal website (https://www.clairediowa.com) states: “Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if
you have a problem or a question — or to voice your support or opposition to a bill before the
Jowa Senate.” It is disingenuous to publicly state that your constituents may contact you to voice
their support or opposition only to take away their ability to do so on social media. It would be
utterly shameful if the purpose of blocking constituents from your social media accounts or email
was simply because they disagree with you.
When you were elected, you gained the title of “public servant.” Your job is to be the
voice in our state government for your constituents. When you choose not to listen to all the
voices of your constituents, you fail to serve the public. Given your consistent history of
silencing your constituents, it appears you are merely serving yourself and those with whom you
agree.
Thank you for your attention to the above. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Julia A. Ofenbakh, JD, MBA.
Attorney at Law