When The Hawk’s Eye asked the Comal County Sheriff’s Office to hand over the list of people it had blocked on its official social‑media pages, the agency complied.  This wasn’t a leak or hack – it was an open‑records request, and the Sheriff’s Office also supplied the written policy governing user comments.  The policy notes that its online pages are “moderated forums” and that deputies may remove content that contains profanity, personal attacks, hate speech or commercial promotion.  It also warns that violators may be banned from posting.  What the agency didn’t explain, however, was why dozens of people and pages had been blocked.

The Hawk’s Eye reviewed the Facebook block list and found more than fifty accounts – a mix of individuals, businesses and community pages – that the Sheriff’s Office had barred from interacting with its public presence.  The names include residents, people from other states and even international profiles.  Some are small businesses or hobby pages; others appear to be individuals who once commented on the Sheriff’s posts.  We are not publishing the names, but the list raises questions about who gets silenced and why.  In an era when government agencies use social media as a principal way to communicate with constituents, blocking someone can prevent them from seeing alerts or participating in conversation. 

Is blocking critics lawful?

Blocking someone from a government social‑media page isn’t automatically illegal.  In March 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lindke v. Freed, a case involving a city manager who blocked a resident from his Facebook page.  The unanimous opinion set a two‑part test. A public official acts as the government on social media only when they “possess actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter” and they purport to use that authority in the posts at issue. Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained that officials keep their First Amendment rights to run personal pages, but if they mix official announcements with personal posts and then block someone, courts will review whether the blocking prevented a citizen from participating in official discourse.  The Court remanded the case for a fact‑specific inquiry, warning that “the nature of the technology matters” – because blocking applies across an entire page, officials must clearly separate personal and public accounts or risk liability.

Earlier Fifth Circuit rulings provide additional guidance.  In a 2017 case, a Texas sheriff’s office faced a First Amendment lawsuit after blocking a critic from its Facebook page.  Free‑speech advocate Frank LoMonte described the situation as viewpoint discrimination, noting that “if the First Amendment protects anything, it’s the quality of government services you’re receiving.”  The appellate court suggested that when a government agency opens its social‑media feed for public comment, it functions like a town‑hall forum, and officials cannot single out critics.  That case was still working its way through the courts when the Supreme Court announced the Lindke test, but it highlights that agencies should be cautious in using the block button.

Why does this matter in Comal County?

The Comal County Sheriff’s Office uses social media to post crime alerts, road closures and public‑safety announcements.  For residents who rely on those platforms, being blocked could mean missing important information.  The block list obtained by The Hawk’s Eye shows that the Sheriff’s Office isn’t just blocking obvious spam or automated bots; it includes people with real names.  Because the agency did not provide reasons for each block, it’s impossible to know whether those users were banned for profanity or simply for being critical.

Government censorship on social media has become a national controversy.  The Fifth Circuit’s 2023 decision in Missouri v. Biden held that federal officials violated the First Amendment by coercing platforms to remove “undesirable” content, though the Supreme Court later dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Even so, the settlement that followed prohibits several federal agencies from pressuring platforms. These cases show that courts are paying close attention to how government interacts with social media – and that public bodies can overstep.  The Comal County Sheriff’s Office is hardly the federal government, but it still holds power over a public forum.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---