Blocked for Speaking Out: When Government Censors Go Digital

Rodriguez v. Bohner

When a brutal power outage swept through a naval submarine base in Georgia, a decorated military spouse and retired Army veteran stepped up to help. Sergio Rodriguez posted practical guidance on the base’s official Facebook page to help military families secure compensation for spoiled food and access emergency housing. He also criticized the slow action to correct the problem. The response? Base officials deleted his posts and blocked him from ever commenting again.

CIR now represents Sergio in Rodriguez v. Bohner, which challenges censorship in open public forums the government hosts. The case draws direct parallels to CIR’s earlier filing in Stanhope v. Hunt, where a retired North Carolina National Guardsman was banned from the Guard’s official Facebook page after his critical posts. Both cases strike at the same unconstitutional core: viewpoint discrimination by government actors who open public forums for all purposes but then block criticism.

Sergio is not a fringe agitator. He is a nationally recognized advocate for military families, honored with a presidential commendation and the “Navy Spouse of the Year” award in 2022. His work focuses on improving housing conditions and guiding families through the military’s bureaucracy. He used the submarine base’s Facebook page—a government-run forum open to public comment—to continue that mission.

The base’s commanding officer directed subordinates to erase Sergio’s comments and block his access, which they did without contacting him. The First Amendment
doesn’t permit the government to shut down speech simply because it finds it inconvenient or embarrassing.

Sergio’s comments were almost exclusively aimed at helping fellow military families navigate difficult situations like the power outage on the naval base. This is the civic minded engagement that justified his presidential commendation, but the legal rule would be no different if his posts were mostly critical. When a government entity opens a platform for public discussion, it cannot pick and choose who can speak or what messages are allowed based on whether officials like the message or viewpoint. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle repeatedly, and it applies just as strongly to digital spaces as it does to town halls and public squares.

The submarine base’s Facebook page is a public communications channel operated by the federal government. Blocking Sergio because of his critical speech is a textbook
First Amendment violation.

CIR seeks to hold officials accountable and reaffirm that constitutional protections don’t end where social media networks begin. As government agencies expand their presence online, they must respect the public’s right to speak freely and openly. The government can limit its forum to a particular topic and can prohibit obscenities, but it cannot discriminate based on the views expressed.

This is not just about Sergio’s right to post on a Facebook page. It’s about protecting the rights of all Americans who engage with their government online. We cannot permit speech critical of government conduct to be silenced with a click.