But not Hartford's King Luke
Luke Bronin doesn't deal well with anyone that challenges him or criticizes him, apparently especially when that person is a City of Hartford employee.
Bronin didn't fare too well when he stepped afoul of Federal law and was rebuked by a Federal Judge when he refused to indemnify Hartford Police Officer's from a Federal Court judgment, You can read more about that here.
Yesterday , apparently a City of Hartford employee voiced his displeasure with King Luke through a posting on social media venue "Twitter" as follows:
The City employee was quickly met with a response from the thin skinned Bronin as follows:
Apparently in the Kingdom of Luke, Federal law doesn't matter. But lets give King Luke the benefit of the doubt, can we really expect Mayor Bronin to keep up on Federal law as he is guiding us down the road to Bankruptcy.
Our Federal Courts recently ruled that an elected official can not block their constituents from criticizing them on social media, no matter how thin skinned they are. It determined that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views
In the Federal Court decision of Davison vs Loudon County Board of Supervisors it involved the chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Phyllis J. Randall. In her capacity as a government official, Randall runs a Facebook page to keep in touch with her constituents. In one post to the page, Randall wrote, “I really want to hear from ANY Loudoun citizen on ANY issues, request, criticism, compliment, or just your thoughts.” She explicitly encouraged Loudoun residents to reach out to her through her “county Facebook page.”
That Kind of sounds like Luke Bronin's campaign promises to be "open and tarnsparent" . That is until you criticize him and then you will be BLOCKED.
Davidson sued, alleging a violation of his free speech rights. As U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris explained in his decision, Randall essentially conceded in court that she had blocked Davidson “because she was offended by his criticism of her colleagues in the County government.” In other words, she “engaged in viewpoint discrimination,” The Court cannot treat a First Amendment violation in this vital, developing forum differently than it would elsewhere,” Cacheris wrote, “simply because technology has made it easier to find alternative channels through which to disseminate one’s message.”which is generally prohibited under the First Amendment ,Judge Cacheris explained.
Maybe Luke is just emulating Donald Trump , who has been criticized for the same behavior. Another decision noted that citizens can use social media to “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.” The decision’s reasoning can also be applied neatly to Trump’s practice of blocking Twitter users with whom he disagrees. When Trump blocks Twitter users, they can still see his tweets—by, for instance, viewing them in an incognito window. But they cannot engage directly with his tweets, at least not without resorting to an intricate and unreliable workaround.
Toughen up Luke and grow a set, it goes with the territory. We have much greater issues to deal with than your feelings being hurt on Twitter.