A Colorado town has agreed to pay $45,000 to settle a First Amendment lawsuit after blocking a resident from its official Facebook page for posting critical comments. Jered Morgan sued the Town of Kersey after being blocked from the town’s public social media account in January when he posted concerns about the town’s police chief. The settlement represents the second-highest amount awarded in Colorado history for this type of First Amendment violation—a significant win that establishes important precedent about government overreach on social media platforms.
This case highlights a growing legal issue: when government agencies operate official social media accounts, they create a public forum where citizens have a right to participate. Blocking users for expressing viewpoints—even critical ones—violates the First Amendment. This article examines what happened in Kersey, why the settlement matters, what the new rules are, and what rights citizens have when government entities manage their online spaces.
Table of Contents
- What Triggered the First Amendment Lawsuit in Kersey?
- Understanding First Amendment Rights When Government Controls Social Media
- What the Settlement Actually Requires the Town to Do
- Why a $45,000 Settlement Represents a Significant First Amendment Victory
- When Government Social Media Policies Go Wrong
- Similar Cases and Colorado’s Legal Landscape
- What This Means for Government Transparency and Public Discourse
- Conclusion
What Triggered the First Amendment Lawsuit in Kersey?
Jered Morgan’s dispute with the town of Kersey began when he posted critical comments on the town’s official Facebook page about the police chief. Rather than engage with the criticism or leave the posts visible for public debate, the town simply blocked Morgan from the page—preventing him from seeing future posts and commenting. This type of blocking on a government social media account is different from a private company moderating its corporate page.
Government pages function as public forums, and removing people based on the viewpoint they express raises serious constitutional questions. Morgan filed a lawsuit in January challenging the block. His case centered on a straightforward legal principle: the First Amendment prevents government from censoring speech or punishing citizens for expressing viewpoints, even critical or unpopular ones. The town’s response to his case revealed an even larger problem—the town was operating under a vague, unconstitutional policy for managing comments on its official social media pages, with no clear standards for what comments could be removed or whose accounts could be blocked.
Understanding First Amendment Rights When Government Controls Social Media
When a government entity creates an official social media account and opens it for public comment, it establishes what courts call a “public forum”—a space where First Amendment protections apply just as they would at a town hall meeting or on a city street. Private companies can moderate their Facebook pages however they want, removing criticism and blocking users at will. But government agencies cannot. They must allow speech to continue even when the message is negative, critical, or uncomfortable to elected officials and staff.
However, this protection is not absolute. Governments can still remove and prohibit comments that fall into narrow categories: true threats of violence, fighting words designed to provoke immediate physical confrontation, obscenities, or content that violates state or federal law—such as posts that violate a protection order or include instructions for illegal activity. The distinction is crucial: removing a post because someone disagrees with it or finds it offensive violates the First Amendment. Removing a post because it contains a genuine threat or illegal content does not. The Town of Kersey’s old policy failed to make this distinction, treating legitimate criticism the same way it might treat genuine threats.
What the Settlement Actually Requires the Town to Do
The $45,000 settlement came with binding terms that restructured how Kersey manages its official Facebook page. The town agreed to establish a clear, constitutional policy for content moderation. Going forward, the town can only remove comments and block users in very specific circumstances: when posts contain true threats or fighting words, obscenities, or content that violates state or federal law. Every other type of speech—including criticism of town officials, disagreement with town policies, complaints about services, and political speech—must remain visible and the user cannot be blocked.
This approach protects the town while protecting citizens’ rights. Town staff won’t have to read abusive language or threats, and they can remove posts that cross the line into illegal territory or genuine threats. At the same time, citizens can criticize the police chief, question town spending, or express disagreement without fear of retaliation through blocking. The policy creates a standard that other Colorado municipalities can follow—and many likely will, given that Kersey’s settlement demonstrates the legal and financial cost of getting it wrong.
Why a $45,000 Settlement Represents a Significant First Amendment Victory
The settlement amount places this case among Colorado’s most consequential First Amendment victories. At $45,000, it ranks as the second-highest settlement ever awarded in Colorado for this specific type of case—government blocking citizens from social media. This isn’t a small claims case or a nuisance settlement. It signals to other municipalities that First Amendment violations on social media are serious, costly, and worth taking seriously before they happen.
For Jered Morgan, the settlement compensates him for the harm of being blocked and vindicated the principle that he had a right to post. For other Colorado residents, it establishes a powerful precedent: if your town or city blocks you from an official government social media page for expressing a viewpoint, you have legal recourse. The high settlement amount means that municipalities now have financial incentive to get their policies right the first time. Small towns with tight budgets will think twice before violating First Amendment rights, knowing that doing so could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
When Government Social Media Policies Go Wrong
Before the settlement, Kersey’s social media policy lacked clear boundaries—the classic setup for First Amendment violations. Staff had discretion to remove posts they deemed “inappropriate” or “disruptive” without defining what those terms meant. One person might flag a complaint about potholes as disruptive; another might remove criticism of a town decision as inappropriate. This type of subjective, standardless moderation is exactly what the First Amendment forbids. Courts recognize that even well-intentioned officials can’t be trusted with unlimited discretion to decide which speech “belongs” on a government page. The warning here applies to any government entity running social media: vague policies fail.
A policy that allows removal of “offensive” content invites constitutional problems. A policy that allows staff to block users at their discretion is a lawsuit waiting to happen. The Town of Kersey learned this the hard way. Other municipalities should learn from Kersey’s mistake. Clear rules—true threats, fighting words, obscenities, illegal content—are enforceable and defensible. Everything else must stay up.
Similar Cases and Colorado’s Legal Landscape
Colorado has seen several First Amendment disputes over government social media, though the Kersey case is among the most litigated and settled. Courts across the country have consistently held that government accounts cannot block users based on viewpoint or remove comments simply because they criticize elected officials. These rulings apply to all government entities: cities, towns, counties, school districts, and state agencies. If it’s an official account funded by taxpayers and used for government business, First Amendment rules apply.
The second-highest settlement ranking in Colorado reflects both the seriousness of Kersey’s violation and the relative rarity of cases that go to full settlement. Most municipalities, faced with clear First Amendment law, adjust their policies and settle quickly. Others dig in and eventually lose in court, paying even higher damages. Kersey’s $45,000 settlement sits in the middle—significant enough to hurt a small town’s budget but not as catastrophic as losing in trial.
What This Means for Government Transparency and Public Discourse
The Kersey settlement points toward a future where government social media accounts operate under clear constitutional rules. As more municipalities face litigation or update their policies preemptively, the standard should become consistent: government pages are forums for public speech, not marketing channels where officials get to choose which messages appear. This shift strengthens government transparency because citizens can publicly question decisions, voice concerns, and hold officials accountable in real time. The case also reflects a broader evolution in how First Amendment law applies to digital spaces.
Ten years ago, courts were still working out whether social media pages were truly public forums. Today, the answer is clear: yes, they are. The next phase will likely involve even clearer standards for what constitutes illegal content or genuine threats in the social media context. The Kersey settlement establishes that Colorado is moving forward on this issue—protecting citizens’ rights while giving government clear guidelines for maintaining order.
Conclusion
The Town of Kersey’s $45,000 settlement with Jered Morgan establishes important precedent in Colorado: government entities that block citizens from official social media pages for expressing viewpoints are violating the First Amendment and will face legal consequences. The new policy Kersey adopted—removing only comments that constitute true threats, fighting words, obscenities, or illegal content—sets a constitutional baseline that other municipalities should follow. This approach protects both government interests (safety, legal compliance) and citizen rights (free speech, public participation).
If you’ve been blocked from a government social media account and believe it was retaliation for expressing a viewpoint, you may have legal claims similar to Morgan’s. Document the block, gather screenshots of your posts and comments, and consult with an attorney who handles First Amendment cases. The Kersey settlement demonstrates that these cases can be won and that municipalities are now on notice: operating unconstitutional social media policies is expensive.