Fmr. Police Chief Alleges It’s Unconstitutional to Ban Commentors from Knightstown (IN) Police Dept. Facebook Page

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

The former chief of the Knightstown, Indiana Police Department alleges he is one of more than two dozen individuals who have been unconstitutionally banned from commenting or posting on the police department’s Facebook page. 

Former chief Christopher Newkirk’s 12-page proposed class action contends that it’s a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to “ban” and/or remove the posts of Facebook users who express opinions or provide information “deemed to reflect poorly on the Town or its Police Department.” Newkirk claims to have been banned from the Knightstown Police Department’s Facebook page after a back-and-forth concerning new decals for the town’s police vehicles.

According to the lawsuit, Newkirk, who resigned as chief in July 2020, is “one of at least twenty-six persons” who have been banned from posting comments on the Knightstown Police Department’s Facebook page due to making remarks that “did not flatter the Police Department.” 

“The Town’s actions are unconstitutional as constituting viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief must issue,” the case, filed in Indiana federal court, alleges. 

Like many government officials and entities, the Knightstown Police Department operates a public Facebook page on which it posts announcements and photographs concerning the activities of the department and its officers and information relevant to the community, the suit begins. When Newkirk served as chief, he frequently used the comment function to respond directly to comments, questions and concerns from members of the Knightstown community, the case relays. Newkirk has remained involved in the community even after leaving the Knightstown Police Department, and continues to comment on the department’s posts and provide relevant information to conversations occurring on the page, the lawsuit says.

The Facebook post at issue is dated October 7, 2020, when the Knightstown Police Department allegedly informed users that its vehicles would be “getting new decals,” and provided a picture of what the new decals would look like. In response to a user comment about whether the cost of the new decals represented the best use of Knightstown’s resources, Newkirk chimed in directly, stating to the commenter that the old graphics were under warranty while providing other contextual information to the conversation, the lawsuit says:

According to Newkirk’s Facebook response as shared in the complaint, an appointment to replace the graphics on Knightstown Police Department vehicles for free was made “prior to my leaving.” Newkirk, the lawsuit depicts, added that Knightstown’s police committee “was aware of this. It should have went back to be redone for free under warranty. This is exactly why I am running for office. I live in Knightstown so I care where my money goes.” 

The lawsuit says the information in Newkirk’s response was true. More specifically, the complaint states, “Mr. Newkirk was aware from his time as Chief of the Police Department that the decals were under warranty and could have been replaced by the company who had done the original decals without any cost to the taxpayers.” Thereafter, the police department indicated in a comment in direct response to Newkirk that “they had tried reaching out to the company that provided the original decals but had not received a response,” the lawsuit says. 

In a comment in response to the police department, Newkirk, according to the complaint, said [sic throughout]: 

“I’ve bought 400 yard signs from him in the last 3 months. Never ever had an Issue reaching him. He even responds to Facebook messages and his address is listed. Just so everyone knows the company did and always does a great job. The graphics were pealing due to a manufactures defect In a roll of vinyl. Mikel Knepley does excellent work and I’ve never had an issue with his company.” 

Per the case, Newkirk tagged Mikel Knepley, the business owner, in the post, ensuring he would be notified by Facebook that he had been mentioned in the conversation. After he was tagged in the conversation, the man, the suit claims, responded:

In his response, Knepley, a non-party to the lawsuit, said that it was the first he was hearing about the Knightstown Police Department being unable to get in touch with him, and claimed he had “ZERO missed calls, ZERO voicemails, ZERO emails, and ZERO messages on my Facebook page from the KPD,” according to the complaint. The lawsuit says Knepley then said he was “not sure who lied to who in this situation, but MK Designs did not receive anything from the KPD.” Knepley then said before his comment was cut off that he would “add that the colors picked to be on the cars were approved by the Town as well as each officer. I also redid one officers [sic] car for no charge last year as he ended up not liking the color after it was on…,” according to the suit.

From there, Newkirk, the lawsuit claims, responded to Knepley’s comment with praise of his experiences with the man’s company, and added a remark to the effect of “[a]s for the lying it’s topical [sic] Knightstown politics.” 

The suit avers that although the plaintiff’s comments were critical of Knightstown and its police department, “they were not threatening, obscene, profane or otherwise improper.” Thereafter, however, the Knightstown Police Department “promptly” banned the plaintiff from its Facebook page, thereby prohibiting him from engaging in any expressive activity thereon, the case claims. When a user is banned from a Facebook page, the suit adds, they’re prohibited from making any new comments, and their previous comments, regardless of their content, are automatically removed and no longer visible. 

Following his ban, Newkirk submitted to the town a formal public records request in search of records he says concern the number of people who had been banned from the Knightstown Police Department’s Facebook page, the lawsuit continues. The plaintiff received records that show 26 Facebook users had been banned from the page as of December 22, 2020, the case says. 

According to the lawsuit, Newkirk was able to deduce from the records he was provided that those banned from the police department’s Facebook page had posted “comments that were critical of the Police Department or that expressed favorable opinions about Mr. Newkirk’s tenure as Chief of the Police Department.” 

“At the same time, many of these users also posted ‘comments’ that were generally supportive of the Police Department or its officers,” the suit claims. “Even these ‘comments,’ however, were removed from the Facebook page of the Police Department once the user was ‘banned.’” 

The suit goes on to say Newkirk received no response to the portion of his public records inquiry that sought information on how many comments had been deleted from the Knightstown Police Department page.

The lawsuit alleges Knightstown maintains a practice or policy of banning those whose comments on its police department’s Facebook page “reflect poorly on the Town or Police Department” while allowing favorable comments to stay on the page. According to the complaint, “[n]o definite and articulable standards exist to guide the Town in determining which Facebook users will be ‘banned’ and which Facebook users will not be ‘banned.’” 

“In order words,” the lawsuit charges, “the Town engages in standardless viewpoint discrimination in determining which users to ‘ban’ from commenting on the Facebook page of the Police Department.” 

The suit looks to represent all individuals who are currently banned, or will be banned in the future, from commenting on the Knightstown Police Department’s Facebook page. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.