Joe Gale settles federal lawsuit
Calling it a victory for the First Amendment, lawyers representing constituents who sued Montgomery County Commissioner Joseph C. Gale for blocking their access to his social media sites said under a court settlement Gale must restore the constituents’ access and stop blocking their comments.
Gale and Friends of Joe Gale “shall immediately cease blocking any social media users from following or having access to” Gale’s Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Savage wrote in a court order available on Monday.
Furthermore, Savage wrote, Gale “shall not delete or edit comments posted within the social media accounts.”
The restoration of access comes as part of a settlement reached between Gale and eight constituents who filed a federal lawsuit against him in June over what they called his social media censorship. The complaint was filed by lawyer Philip Press, of Norristown; Walsh Pancio, LLC of Lansdale; and Mudrick & Zucker, P.C. of Blue Bell on behalf of the eight constituents.
“When Commissioner Gale began blocking people from commenting negatively on his public statements, it created the impression that his views were unopposed when in reality, many of us strongly disagree with him,” said plaintiff Abby Deardorff, of Limerick. “I am grateful that our rights have been restored and that the ‘marketplace of ideas’ can function as it should.”
In the suit, seven constituents alleged they were blocked by Gale on social media after posting comments critical of him on his official Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram pages. An eighth constituent wished to view the full range of dialogue on Gale’s social media pages but was prevented from doing so by Gale’s selective deletion of unfavorable comments, the complaint alleged.
“We are pleased that Commissioner Gale has decided, albeit belatedly, to respect the First Amendment rights of his constituents,” Press said. “This lawsuit never should have been necessary, but at the end of the day, justice prevailed.”
In the suit, the lawyers representing the constituents asked a judge to issue an order requiring Gale to stop censoring the opinions of his constituents. The complaint originally sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, maintaining that without such relief, Gale’s “impermissible censorship will continue, resulting in further immediate and future irreparable harm to plaintiffs and others.”
With the settlement dated Aug. 27, the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were dismissed.
“It’s a good thing for freedom of speech in Montgomery County, that’s for sure,” lawyer Adam Zucker reacted to the settlement. “This is not only a victory for the First Amendment it’s a victory for the citizens of Montgomery County because now they get to voice their positions on any matter to all of our elected officials. Regardless of who you support or don’t support, elected officials have to hear your opinions, good and bad.”
The judge added that within 10 days Gale must personally reimburse the plaintiffs the cost of filing and serving the complaint in the amount of $594.20.
“I have every right to ban, block, and delete as I see fit. However, after watching President Trump get screwed by federal courts on this very same issue, I had no doubt I too would be the victim of a bad ruling,” Gale said on Monday when asked to comment about the settlement.
“But, to be honest, if I allow leftist agitators to troll and dog pile my social accounts, they will trigger the Facebook and Twitter algorithms that determine what posts get shown to more people. By unbanning and unblocking the Marxist mob, they will actually help me spread my message to more supporters and grow my base,” Gale added.
When the suit was filed, Joseph P. Walsh, a Lansdale lawyer and former county judge who represented the plaintiffs, said courts around the country have held that elected officials cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination on the official social media pages that they use to communicate with the public.
The suit was filed against Gale, of Plymouth, individually and in his official capacity as commissioner and Friends of Joe Gale, which according to the complaint is an organization that assists Gale in the operation and maintenance of his social media accounts.
In addition to Deardorff, the constituents listed as plaintiffs in the suit included: Bryan Oteri, of Lower Gwynedd; Monica D’Antonio, of West Norriton, an associate professor of English at Montgomery County Community College and a member of the Norristown Area School Board and the West Norriton Human Relations Commission; Elaine Hannock, of Marlborough Township; Karen Hayman, of West Norriton; Zak Hutchinson, of Upper Moreland; Elizabeth C. Brooks, of Springfield; and Caroline & Co. Media, doing business as SAVVY Mainline based in Tredyffrin Township, Chester County, a monthly online publication that regularly reports on events, activities, and news items of interest in Montgomery County and the Main Line.
In a June 1 statement entitled “Riots & Looting In Philadelphia,” issued on letterhead bearing the seal of Montgomery County and under Gale’s official title as commissioner, the lone Republican on the three-member commissioners’ board compared the Black Lives Matter group to “far-left radical enemy combatants.”
“In fact, nearly every major city across the nation was ravaged by looting, violence and arson. The perpetrators of this urban domestic terror are radical leftwing hate groups like Black Lives Matter,” Gale, elected in 2015 and re-elected to another four-year term in 2019, wrote.
The lawsuit maintained Gale published his press release over social media during the workday, at 4 p.m. and gave the statement the appearance of an official proclamation in his capacity as a county commissioner.
Gale has not backed off from his position and he has fought calls for his resignation.
The June 1 statement drew immediate condemnation from multiple users across social media, multiple public officials, civic groups and other elected officials.
Critics who blasted Gale by responding to his social media pages later found their comments had been deleted and ultimately that Gale had blocked them, according to the suit.
The suit alleged that in a further attempt to curtail speech that he finds unfavorable, after publication of the June 1 statement, Gale sought to re-classify his publicly available and official social media pages as his “private” social media accounts. The attempted re-classification of the social media platforms into “private” accounts “is a thinly veiled attempt” to legitimize Gale’s unconstitutional actions, the complaint alleged.
Gale’s establishment and maintenance of the social media accounts constituted public fora under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions, the complaint alleged.