The Town of Kersey, Colorado reached a $45,000 settlement with resident Jered Morgan after illegally banning him from the town’s official Facebook page for posting comments critical of the police chief. The settlement, one of the second-highest First Amendment awards in Colorado history, required the town to overhaul its social media policy to prevent viewpoint discrimination and protect residents’ constitutional rights to free speech on government-controlled platforms. This case highlights a growing legal vulnerability for municipalities that moderate social media pages without understanding First Amendment restrictions, and it serves as a precedent for residents nationwide facing similar government censorship.
The dispute began when Morgan posted comments on the Town of Kersey’s official Facebook page questioning decisions made by the police chief. Rather than allowing the critical but lawful speech, town officials deleted his posts and subsequently banned him from the page—a decision that triggered a federal lawsuit and ultimately cost the town significant resources and reputation damage. The outcome demonstrates that government entities cannot use their social media accounts as unmoderated platforms for favorable messages only, nor can they suppress speech simply because it criticizes officials or policy.
Table of Contents
- What Happened When Jered Morgan Criticized Kersey’s Police Chief on Facebook?
- Why Is Banning Someone From Government Facebook Pages a First Amendment Violation?
- How Significant Is a $45,000 First Amendment Settlement in Colorado?
- What Specific Policy Changes Did Kersey Have to Make?
- What Are the Common Mistakes Municipalities Make on Social Media?
- Can Other Residents Sue for Similar Facebook Bans?
- How Will Government Social Media Policies Evolve After Cases Like Kersey’s?
- Conclusion
What Happened When Jered Morgan Criticized Kersey’s Police Chief on Facebook?
Jered Morgan engaged in constitutionally protected speech by posting comments critical of the Town of Kersey’s police chief on the town’s official Facebook page. Instead of allowing this political speech to remain, town officials removed his posts and blocked him from the page—actions that violated his First Amendment rights. Morgan responded by filing a federal lawsuit in January, arguing that the town had engaged in unconstitutional censorship and viewpoint discrimination.
The town’s actions represent a common mistake made by municipal social media administrators who conflate their personal ability to moderate private Facebook accounts with the very different rules that apply to government-controlled pages. When a municipality uses Facebook as an official channel for government communication, that page becomes a “public forum” under constitutional law, which means the government cannot remove lawful speech or ban speakers based on the viewpoint they express. The town’s deletion of Morgan’s posts and his subsequent ban crossed this legal line clearly.
Why Is Banning Someone From Government Facebook Pages a First Amendment Violation?
Once a government entity establishes a Facebook page as an official channel for public information or engagement, it cannot selectively censor residents’ lawful speech based on viewpoint. The First Amendment prohibits government from suppressing expression simply because officials disagree with it or find it critical. A resident posting comments about a police chief’s decisions, even harshly, is engaging in political speech—the most protected form of expression under the Constitution.
Government pages can remove content that falls into narrow exceptions: true threats, fighting words, obscenities, or content that violates state or federal law. However, they cannot ban users or delete posts simply because comments contain mild profanity, express unpopular opinions, or criticize government officials. The Kersey settlement explicitly required the town to remove policy language that allowed removal based on “profanity or vulgarity”—categories that are too vague and too broad to be constitutional restrictions on government-controlled forums. This distinction between lawful regulation and unlawful censorship is critical: a comment can be rude without being illegal.
How Significant Is a $45,000 First Amendment Settlement in Colorado?
The $45,000 settlement to Jered Morgan ranks as the second-highest settlement in Colorado history for First Amendment cases of this type, placing it in rare company. This substantial award reflects the seriousness of the constitutional violation and the legal liability municipalities face when they censor residents’ speech. For context, most government social media disputes settle for substantially less, or residents lack the resources to file federal lawsuits at all—making Morgan’s case unusual in both outcome and visibility.
The financial consequences extended beyond the settlement payment itself. The town had to commit legal resources to defend the lawsuit, hire counsel to revise social media policies, and implement training to ensure future compliance. The reputational damage to the town also lingers: Kersey became a cautionary tale about government overreach on social media, which amplified awareness of residents’ rights and the liability exposure municipalities create through careless content moderation.
What Specific Policy Changes Did Kersey Have to Make?
Under the settlement terms, the Town of Kersey agreed to remove portions of its social media policy that previously allowed officials to delete posts based on “profanity or vulgarity.” Going forward, the town can only remove comments and block users under narrow circumstances: when posts constitute true threats (threatening violence or harm), fighting words (incitement to immediate lawlessness), obscenities, or content that violates state or federal law. Any content removal or user ban must be content-based and not viewpoint discrimination—meaning the town cannot delete a post criticizing the police chief while allowing similar posts praising the chief.
The policy also explicitly prohibits viewpoint discrimination, requiring town officials to apply moderation rules consistently regardless of whether a comment supports or opposes town government. This means officials cannot use vague justifications like “disrespect” or “negativity” to remove posts, as these criteria invite the subjective, viewpoint-based censorship that Kersey had engaged in. Many municipalities have adopted similar clarifications after cases like this, recognizing that maintaining a government Facebook page comes with constitutional obligations, not just administrative convenience.
What Are the Common Mistakes Municipalities Make on Social Media?
Many small towns and cities struggle with the boundary between moderation and censorship because social media is relatively new compared to traditional government channels. Mayors, clerks, and police departments often approach official Facebook pages as if they were personal accounts, deleting comments that seem negative or critical without realizing they are violating residents’ constitutional rights. This confusion is particularly common in smaller municipalities, which may lack dedicated communications staff or legal review before taking moderation actions. However, ignorance of First Amendment law is not a defense to unconstitutional conduct.
Once a municipality establishes an official page and invites public comment, courts have consistently held that the government assumes First Amendment obligations. Kersey’s experience should serve as a warning to other towns: policies that allow removal based on “tone,” “profanity,” “negativity,” or “disrespect” are legally dangerous. Similarly, selectively blocking users who criticize government while allowing flattering comments creates obvious viewpoint discrimination. The safest approach is to adopt narrow, objective criteria aligned with the true threats and fighting words exceptions recognized by courts—not broader categories that invite constitutional violation.
Can Other Residents Sue for Similar Facebook Bans?
Residents who have been banned from government social media pages for lawful political speech have legal options. Like Jered Morgan, they can file federal civil rights lawsuits alleging First Amendment violations. The success of Morgan’s case and the resulting $45,000 settlement create precedent and incentive structure: municipalities know that social media censorship carries legal risk, and federal courts have consistently protected residents’ speech rights on government-controlled platforms.
To strengthen a potential claim, residents should document the original posts (screenshot before deletion), the ban notice, and any communications from town officials explaining the removal. If possible, identify whether the town allowed similar posts from other users—evidence of viewpoint discrimination significantly strengthens a First Amendment case. Residents can also file complaints with the American Civil Liberties Union or contact civil rights organizations, though a federal lawsuit (often without requiring an attorney upfront in strong cases) is the most direct legal remedy.
How Will Government Social Media Policies Evolve After Cases Like Kersey’s?
The Kersey settlement is part of a broader trend of courts and municipalities clarifying that government Facebook pages are not unmoderated spaces where officials can suppress criticism. As more settlements and court decisions accumulate, municipalities are gradually shifting from broad “protect our reputation” moderation policies to narrower, legally defensible ones. Organizations like the International City/County Management Association have begun issuing guidance on compliant social media policies, helping smaller towns avoid costly mistakes.
Looking forward, government entities are likely to be more cautious about maintaining official social media presence at all, or will adopt policies with explicit narrow carve-outs that withstand constitutional scrutiny. Some municipalities have hired communications staff specifically trained on First Amendment obligations, while others have moved away from Facebook engagement toward one-way information channels that avoid the “public forum” problem entirely. The Kersey case demonstrates that legal risk is high when government tries to control online political speech—a lesson that will reshape municipal social media practices nationwide.
Conclusion
The Town of Kersey’s $45,000 settlement with Jered Morgan exemplifies the legal consequences municipalities face when they censor residents’ lawful speech on official social media pages. By removing critical comments about the police chief and banning the resident, Kersey violated the First Amendment and exposed itself to significant financial liability. The town’s required policy changes—eliminating vague restrictions on “profanity” and “vulgarity” and explicitly prohibiting viewpoint discrimination—provide a blueprint for compliant government social media moderation.
For residents facing similar censorship, the Kersey outcome demonstrates that federal courts take First Amendment violations on government platforms seriously. If you have been banned from a municipal social media page for lawful political speech, document the facts carefully and consider consulting with a civil rights attorney about your legal options. The precedent established in this case strengthens residents’ ability to challenge government censorship and protects the political speech rights that are fundamental to democracy.