Springfield Ohio Censorship and Election Interference
The City of Springfield, Ohio, prohibits Interaction on all its social media platforms. They "allow" citizens to speak for three minutes every two weeks. They move around meeting times and locations at the last minute. They refer to two unsearchable contact forms buried on the website that are filtered through the City Clerk with canned answers. The list goes on.
2/1/20275 min read
The City of Springfield Still Doesn't Allow Comments on any Social Media Platforms, but They Want to Hear from You
The City of Springfield, Ohio, prohibits Interaction on all its social media platforms. This started in August and September 2024 when Rue told the world we were dangerous. It's now over a year later.
One month later, Karen Graves, the Communications Director, filled the Digital Media Specialist role at a salary of $75,000-$80,000. A new role for the city. Several items in this new role's job description center around "community engagement" and "the monitoring of online conversations". ONE MONTH after they shut the city's communications down.
Mention the Forms - "Thank you for your insight -
THIS IS NOT A DIALOG.
SIT DOWN.
THIS IS YOUR THIRD OFFENSE. YOU ARE NOW TRESPASSING.
YOU ARE BANNED FOR LIFE.
DO NOT COME NEAR THE DAIS.
ESCORT THEM OUT IMMEDIATELY.
They're JUST GUIDELINES, because they aren't legal.
In the October 21st, 2025, Commission meeting, Diana Daniels spoke out to defend something Melissa R said - the welcoming city lie they keep sticking to - and Rue sent her a letter in the mail banning her from attending a meeting until February 1st.
How is that legal? What/who gives him that legal authority?
Submitted to City of Springfield website's question page, which is sent to the law and city clerks. This and 3 minutes every 2 weeks are the only ways to communicate with anyone.
To which I got the expected response from Regina Jeffers, Clerk: Thank you for your suggestion and insight.
Not a question, just a comment. Y'all might want to consider turning comments back on your social media accounts. We pay Karen Graves and her staff of minions to do a weekly podcast and a monthly newsletter. I would think they'd have time to moderate interaction. I know this was a DeWine/Rue tactic in September 2024 to paint us all as dangerous racists, but it's been a year and there is no reason. right? What needs to be hidden from the citizens paying all the bills? Not to mention that it's yet another thing dangerously close to illegal. I mean, when AI gets it......
A city government can turn off comments on a social media post if the page is clearly labeled as "government speech" and not open for public interaction, but if the page functions as a public forum for discourse, the First Amendment generally prevents viewpoint-based censorship. Governments can disable comments due to excessive harassment or to maintain an orderly discussion, but they must avoid deleting or blocking comments based on disagreement with the content or the user's opinion. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
When It's Generally Permissible
• Government Speech: If a government social media account is set up and clearly labeled as an official communication channel, it's less likely to be considered a public forum, allowing for broader discretion in managing comments. [3]
• Deleting Unlawful Content: Governments can remove comments that contain threats, incitement to violence, obscene language, or promote illegal activities, as these are not protected by the First Amendment. [5, 6]
• Prohibiting Spam and Off-Topic Comments: Comments that are commercial, off-topic, or spam can be deleted or restricted to maintain the relevance and focus of the page. [5]
When It May Violate the First Amendment [1, 2]
• Viewpoint Discrimination: If a government page is used for public interaction, it is considered a "public forum," and officials cannot delete comments or block users simply because they disagree with the viewpoint expressed.
• Selective Comment Deletion: Blocking or deleting comments from one user while allowing similar comments from others is considered viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment.
Key Court Cases and Principles
• Supreme Court Decisions: Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, have established that public officials' social media accounts that conduct official business are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. [7, 8]
• Two-Part Test: The Supreme Court introduced a two-part test to determine if an official's social media account is a state actor: first, whether the official has actual authority to speak for the state, and second, if they purported to exercise that authority in the specific post. [9]
• Distinguishing Official vs. Personal Accounts: Public officials must be careful to keep their personal social media accounts separate from their official government pages to avoid First Amendment violations, according to a blog from Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law. [3]
Best Practices for Governments
• Develop a Clear Policy: A clear and posted social media policy is crucial for establishing guidelines on what comments are permissible. [5, 10, 11]
• Treat Like a Public Meeting: Governments should view their social media platforms as public meetings to help determine the legality of their actions regarding comment management. [12]
• Transparency: Avoid actions that may appear to be censorship or silencing criticism, as this undermines transparency and accountability. [1]
The City of Springfield, Ohio - Government prohibiting any interaction with the community on all social media platforms is not just illegal, it’s ELECTION INTERFERENCE. It took me too long to realize this – I’ve been thinking it was just Rue and Heck paralyzed with fear about the city’s reality attracting the national spotlight again. But I had a light-bulb moment - this is intentional to prevent citizens from speaking, sharing, working together (so much for that Forward Together nonsense spray-painted on everything, including water towers), or even asking questions.
The Talk to Us Page
Not only that, Clerk Regina Jeffers is the gatekeeper to the only communication method on the website - a form buried at the very bottom of the Commissioner photo page – and if you send a question, comment, suggestion, complaint she doesn’t like, she responds with, “Thank you for your suggestion and insight.”
The Communications Team
Since 2024, not only have we been paying at least $150K (going rate for Directors in 2023) for a newly promoted Communications Director in Karen Graves, a new $75K Digital Media Specialist position was created and filled in October with Trent Devine. A month AFTER they shut communication down.
Part of the Digital Media Specialist job description (click on the link for a PDF of the posting) says:
Social Media and Website Management:
• Develop and implement social media strategies to increase engagement and promote city events and programs across various platforms.
• Monitor and respond to community inquiries and comments on social media channels in a timely and professional manner.
What do we get? Four or five weekly Facebook videos (sometimes) every month that each get about 50 views. None has anything to do with anything that matters.
There is no interaction allowed with the City of Springfield, thus interfering with local and county elections. Even the Clark County Board of Elections should be all over this. But they’re not, of course. Ohio’s “selected, never elected” mantra.
Heck is starting to run a little scared by October 2025:
Posted on Facebook Friday morning to announce the meeting would be Monday. <8 emoji reactions>
The Communications department at work. NO sympathy for the devil. "Share your thoughts" and "get an inside look". If you believe that..... <13 emoji reactions>
Moved to a whole new location. Posted notice 2 days before. <4 emoji reactions>