Free Speech Doesn’t Stop at Comment Section: North Carolina National Guard Barred from Silencing Critics on Its Facebook Page

Stanhope v. Hunt

The North Carolina National Guard banned a 23-year veteran from its official Facebook page and deleted his comments—because he criticized the Guard’s leadership.

While serving, Tim grew troubled by problems he saw in his unit’s leadership and management—and he said so, posting his concerns on the Guard’s official public Facebook page. But when Tim’s comments turned critical of leadership, the page’s manager would not tolerate it. The Guard banned Tim from the page, deleted several of his comments, and removed his critical posts. The Center for Individual Rights represented Tim, suing the Guard for violating his First Amendment right to free speech.

Why This Case Matters:

The First Amendment protects the right to criticize government officials. That doesn’t change just because the speech occurs online. When government agencies use social media platforms like Facebook and X to talk to the public, they must do so without trampling the right to free speech. The Guard can still discipline a guardsman whose speech disrupts the workplace or crosses into real insubordination, but it cannot control who gets to post on its public page based on what they say.

The Guard did not have to create a Facebook page. It didn’t have to open that page to public comment. But once it did, a responsibility to accept all comers—friends and critics alike—without discriminating based on viewpoint.

This case isn’t about one person or one post. It’s about protecting everyone’s right to speak freely in public forums—especially when that speech criticizes the government.

Background:

The North Carolina National Guard’s Facebook page is open to the public, and anyone can comment on its posts. By blocking Tim and deleting his comments, the Guard engaged in unconstitutional censorship.

While serving, Tim came to believe the Guard’s leadership regularly made poor personnel decisions and mistreated low-ranking guardsmen. Because the Guard is a public institution and Tim’s comments addressed matters of public concern, its Facebook page was a fitting place to raise them.

Over several years, Tim posted a range of critical comments: gently sarcastic jabs suggesting Guard leadership should have to pass the same fitness tests as enlisted guardsmen, comparisons between the quality of food served to guardsmen to the food and food served to officers, and shaper criticism of the Guard’s employment service for failing to help guardsmen find civilian jobs. He also criticized a hastily planned mobilization to Washington D.C. following the January 6, 2021 events at the United States Capitol. When an officer who had been arrested for a DUI was promoted, Tim publicly questioned the Guard’s judgment.

In 2023, the Guard pressured Tim into retiring after 23 years of service. Shortly after, it blocked him from its official Facebook page, deleted the tags to his critical posts, and removed his comments from the page.