Quantcast
  

Friday, April 18, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 9 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Gun advocates banned from HPD's Facebook page sue city


POSTED:



Two gun advocates who run a charity called the Hawaii Defense Foundation are suing the city because they claim the Hono­lulu Police Department has censored, removed and banned their comments from HPD’s Facebook page.

The comments have been critical of HPD and HPD officials.

The plaintiffs are also suing Capt. Andrew Lum, who maintains the HPD Facebook page.

Christopher Baker and Derek Scammon filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court today. They are also asking the court for a restraining order and injunction.

Baker and Scammon claim HPD’s actions are an unlawful administration of its official Facebook page and a violation of their constitutional free speech and due process rights.

“The HPD cannot comment on details regarding the pending lawsuit,” Lum said in a written statement.

He also said HPD posts guidelines for its Facebook page on the website.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 9 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(9)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
IAmSane wrote:
"violation of their constitutional free speech"

AHAAHAHAAHAHAHA!!! What a bunch of self-entitled ****s. It's HPD's Facebook profile; they can do whatever they like. End of story. Stop wasting the court's time with nonsense.
on August 21,2012 | 10:43PM
peanutgallery wrote:
Why are tax dollars being spent to maintain a Facebook page? As far as your "they can do whatever they like" comment. Actually, they can't. This will be interesting to watch as it unfolds in court.
on August 22,2012 | 04:11AM
lynnh wrote:
I have a question. "Why the heck are taxpayer dollars paying someone to maintain a facebook page?" Why does HPD need a facebook page?
on August 21,2012 | 10:43PM
st1d wrote:
many federal, state, and city agencies and branches of government are on facebook. many people communicate via social media now, eschewing older traditional methods and sources of exchanging ideas and opinions. other than that, beats me.
on August 21,2012 | 10:52PM
Living_Large wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on August 21,2012 | 10:53PM
lynnh wrote:
You are correct! But, the question still stands...why the "H E double toothpicks" are taxpayers paying someone to maintain a social media page? HPD has an official Website for "official" business and that should be all taxpayers a paying for!
on August 21,2012 | 10:58PM
MC96816 wrote:
HPD no like be your fren', brah.
on August 21,2012 | 11:15PM
RetiredWorking wrote:
LOL, that's funny.
on August 22,2012 | 02:12AM
ACADEMICSFORJUSTICE wrote:
The threshold inquiry by the court will be "who are the parties?" First, the plaintiff is a private entity. Second, and more significantly, the defendant is a government agency. Therefore, state action is present and the U.S. Constitution is implicated. The vast majority of the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, made applicable to the states. Because the restriction on speech is content based, the highest constitutional standard of strict scrutiny will be applied by the court. Under strict scrutiny, the government has the burden to prove that the restriction is (1) necessary to achieve (2) a compelling government purpose. Most government action assessed under strict scrutiny fails. Therefore, the plaintiff will most probably be successful in proving a violation of the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Cordially, David A. Mihaila, JD.
on August 24,2012 | 01:01PM
ACADEMICSFORJUSTICE wrote:
The threshold inquiry by the court will be "who are the parties?" First, the plaintiff is a private entity. Second, and more significantly, the defendant is a government agency. Therefore, state action is present and the U.S. Constitution is implicated. The vast majority of the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment have been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, made applicable to the states. Because the restriction on speech is content based, the highest constitutional standard of strict scrutiny will be applied by the court. Under strict scrutiny, the government has the burden to prove that the restriction is (1) necessary to achieve (2) a compelling government purpose. Most government action assessed under strict scrutiny fails. Therefore, the plaintiff will most probably be successful in proving a violation of the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Cordially, David A. Mihaila, JD.
on August 24,2012 | 01:05PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News