Szilagyi v. Mayor Van Johnson and The City of Savannah

Case 4:20-cv-00165-WTM-CLR Document 1 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JESSICA SZILAGYI,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO. CV420-165
MAYOR VAN JOHNSON,
in his individual and official capacities,
and THE CITY OF SAVANNAH,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
Plaintiff, Jessica Szilagyi, brings this action against Defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution for equitable relief and small damages concerning the blocking of
her ability to post, comment, and react (i.e. “like”) on Defendant Mayor Van
Johnson’s official Facebook page or to respond to Johnson’s comments posted on
her personal page. Plaintiff is one of more than 200 individuals who have been
blocked from this page. Contrary to basic First Amendment principles,
Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and prior restraint, and
exercised standardless discretion to censor any speech the Mayor did not like.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Jessica Szilagyi (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is a
Georgia resident. Plaintiff resides in Bulloch County and is a concerned citizen
and writer, who is politically and civically active in the community and online.
2. Defendant Mayor Van Johnson (hereinafter referred to as
“Defendant Johnson”) is sued in his individual capacity for small actual and
nominal damages and in his official capacity for equitable relief. At all times
relevant to the complaint, Defendant Johnson acted under the color of law.
3. Defendant City of Savannah is (“Savannah” or “City”) is a body
corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, duly
established under its laws and Constitution. At all relevant times, Savannah
acted under color of state law.
4. Defendant Johnson is a final policymaker for the City of Savannah
for duties related to communication and the setting of policy, pursuant to the
authority granted him by state law and the charter for the City, and as a matter
of practice and custom.
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action arises under the authority vested in this Court by virtue
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(3), the First Amendment
of the United States Constitution, and Georgia law.
6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
7. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the
events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose in this district and division and
because the City of Savannah is located within this district and division.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. Plaintiff writes for the website AllOnGeorgia.com on matters of
politics and local news.
10. Plaintiff is also active on social media, including Facebook, where
she voices her opinion and engages with elected officials, including Defendant
Johnson.
11. Defendant Johnson has an official Facebook page for
communications in his capacity as Mayor and on behalf of the City of Savannah.

3
12. Defendant Johnson’s Facebook page is a designated or limited
public forum.
13. Plaintiff wishes to engage in constitutionally protected speech
within the designated or limited public forum created by Defendant Johnson
and Defendant City of Savannah for citizen discourse.
14. Plaintiff desires to voice her beliefs and viewpoints and participate
in the forum to debate and comment on such matters of public concern.
15. Once she is again able to do so, Plaintiff wishes and intends to
immediately resume her public speech activities and engage with a Mayor
Jonson, with the staff who view the page, with Mayor Johnson’s constituents
and other citizens, and with the City of Savannah.
Defendant’s Facebook Page
16. The Facebook page @MayorJohnsonSAV is a designated or limited
public forum for Defendant Johnson and Defendant City of Savannah on the
social media platform Facebook. See “Home Page,” attached hereto as Exhibit A.
17. The page was created in May 2011 when Defendant Johnson was an
alderman in the City of Savannah government. See “Page Transparency for
Mayor Van Johnson,” attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4
18. The page name has since changed to reflect Defendant Johnson’s
status as Mayor of the City of Savannah. See id.
19. Approximately 21,000 citizens “like” and 27,000 citizens “follow”
Defendants’ Facebook page. See Exhibit A, Home Page.
20. This Facebook page identifies Defendant Johnson as “the Mayor of
Savannah.
21. Defendants’ Facebook Page contains contact information,
specifically Facebook messenger, email, and web addresses for Defendant
Johnson’s position as Mayor and head of Savannah’s government. See “About
Page,” attached hereto as Exhibit C.
22. Defendants’ Facebook Page identifies him as a “Government
Official.” See id.
23. Defendants’ Facebook Page contains a “blue badge,” which means
that Van Johnson has confirmed his identity as a public figure. See
“Organizations That Manage This Page,” attached hereto as Exhibit D.
24. The posts and content of Defendants’ Facebook Page concern
Defendant Johnson’s elected government position and his work related thereto,
as well as official pronouncements of the City of Savannah.
5
25. The posts consist of Defendant Johnson documenting his public
activities as Mayor, including promoting political viewpoints and matters of
concern for his constituency and the public, and updating citizens with official
materials about his official activities.
26. Defendants’ Facebook page also contains official pronouncements of
City of Savannah policy and official announcements via video and other means.
See Posts Page, Exhibit E (making official statements and live streaming news
conference of City of Savannah Government regarding COVID-19 updates).
27. Defendant Johnson maintains the Defendants’ Facebook Page and
frequently responds to citizens’ comments that are favorable to him.
28. Despite the creation of a limited or designated public forum for
public discussion, Defendants have engaged in targeted censorship of the speech
of Plaintiff and others on his Facebook Page through a variety of methods
including deleting comments and blocking posters entirely.
29. Comments and posts can be deleted by the Facebook page host
while the Facebook Page user/commenter has no ability to delete or block the
posts of others, but may delete or block their own posts.
6
30. Deleting a comment from a Facebook page also deletes the comment
from the user’s Activity Log, and blocking a poster prevents them from
commenting or providing “likes” or “dislikes.”
31. Defendants have censored Plaintiff and other citizens by deleting
and/or hiding their comments from the Facebook Page and by blocking them.
32. Defendants deletes and/or hides comments and bans users because
of political disagreement with the viewpoint of the messages posted.
33. Defendants have censored Plaintiff and other citizens by “banning”
them from making any further posts on the Facebook Page and banning them
from expressing an opinion using the reaction feature (e.g., “Likes”).
34. Defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, routinely and
customarily censor the protected speech of citizens on the Facebook Page solely
because the speech was in opposition to Defendant Johnson or his political
views.
35. Defendants have no articulated standards or rules for banning or
censoring speech. They simply do so at the whim of Defendant Johnson.
Blocking Plaintiff from Official Page Because of Her Viewpoint
36. In the Fall of 2019, Plaintiff engaged with Defendant Johnson on
Facebook, by criticizing Defendant Johnson and the City of Savannah for a

7
resolution of support for gun control, as well as Defendant Johnson’s subsequent
and separate endorsement of the resolution.
37. Plaintiff and Defendant Johnson then engaged in a back-and-forth
about the Second Amendment and the City of Savannah’s First Amendment
rights.
38. Defendant Johnson wrote, in specific response to Plaintiff, “If you
can have an opinion, why can’t we?” Exhibit F, p. 2.
39. Defendant Johnson then banned Plaintiff from his Facebook page.
40. Plaintiff asked why she was banned, by tagging Defendant
Johnson’s page in a post on her own page. Id.
41. Plaintiff cited to litigation involving Donald Trump’s twitter account
and the Worth County Sheriff’s Office’s Facebook page in an attempt to ask to
resume her speech activities on Defendants’ public forum. Id.
42. Defendants did not and has not allowed Plaintiff to resume her
speech activity on their public forum.
43. Plaintiff is currently blocked from posting, liking and commenting
on Defendants’ Facebook Page.
44. Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer specific loss of First
Amendment rights as a citizen and reporter and distress as a result of this

8
campaign of harassment and intimidation and denial of her First Amendment
rights.
Others Blocked from Defendants’ Facebook Page
45. Plaintiff, and another individual, submitted a joint Open Records
Act request to the City of Savannah for information regarding Defendants’
Facebook page and the number of persons who have been banned from the page.
46. Defendant City of Savannah’s response to this request shows that, as
of April 28, 2020, over 200 persons were banned by Defendants from engaging in
speech activity on their public forum. Exhibit G.
47. Defendants banned and/or deleted comments and/or blocked
Plaintiff and other citizens from the Facebook Page solely because their
viewpoint was critical of Defendant Johnson’s viewpoint.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I
First Amendment Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
48. This Count incorporates the factual allegations set forth above.
49. Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected speech in opposition
of Defendants’ political views in Fall 2019.
9
50. Defendants silenced Plaintiff’s protected speech and censored
Plaintiff’s speech by denying her the right to speak publicly on Defendants’
official Facebook Page.
51. Such conduct would deter a person of ordinary firmness from the
exercise of First Amendment rights. Moreover, the blocking of Plaintiff from
posting prevents Plaintiff from exercising his First Amendment rights and is a
prior restraint on speech.
52. Plaintiff was damaged both by the blocking which prevented First
Amendment activities, and by damage to her ability to further her work as a
writer for AllOnGeorgia.com.
Count II
Violation of Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Right to Free Speech
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
53. This Count incorporates the factual allegations set forth above.
54. Speech utilizing official Facebook and other social media pages for
governmental bodies is subject to the same First Amendment protections as any
other speech.
55. Defendants’ banning of Plaintiff violates Plaintiff’s right to freedom
of expression because Defendants have imposed viewpoint-based restrictions on
Plaintiff’s participation in a designated or limited public forum.
10
56. Defendants’ lack of clear and constitutional standards for blocking
posters or censoring posts leads to unbridled discretion in decision-making in
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and content and viewpoint
restrictions on speech in violation of the First Amendment.
57. By banning Plaintiff, Defendants have both directly and implicitly
chilled Plaintiff’s free expression, as well as that of other citizens.
58. By banning Plaintiff from the Facebook Page, Defendants have
created a prior restraint on Plaintiff’s free expression, as well as that of other
citizens.
59. Defendants violated and continue to violate a clearly established
constitutional right – the right to speak freely on topics relevant to the
government in a government-established forum free of viewpoint discrimination
– of which all reasonable government officials should have known.
60. Plaintiff is denied this right to free expression each time she is
prevented from commenting, liking posts, or interacting in any way on the
Facebook Page.
61. The denial of constitutional rights is irreparable injury per se, and
Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to restore access to the
Facebook Page.
11
62. Additionally, Plaintiff experienced emotional, reputational and
other injuries as a consequence of being denied her First Amendment rights for a
sustained period of time on issues of critical importance to her and the public at
large.
Count III
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq.
63. This Count reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if set forth
fully herein below.
64. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff
and Defendants concerning Plaintiff’s rights under the United States
Constitution. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time as to
Count II above.
65. As described above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions violate
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
66. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants’ censorship of posts on
his official page that are critical of her and/or her policies is unconstitutional and
violates Plaintiff’s rights to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
12
67. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendants to (1) Enjoin
their unlawful practice of censoring Plaintiff’s comments on the Facebook page
due to their viewpoint (2) Enjoin the current unconstitutional and standardless
practice of deleting comments and blocking posters; (3) Restore Plaintiff (and
others) posting privileges that were blocked and afford Plaintiff full access
afforded any other citizen to the Facebook Page.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF1
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully prays
that this Court:
a) Assume jurisdiction over this action;
b) Hold a trial by jury on all issues so triable;
c) Declare Defendants’ viewpoint-based censorship of Plaintiff from
Defendants’ official Mayor Van Johnson Facebook Page to be unconstitutional;
d) Enjoin Defendants’ unlawful practice of censoring Plaintiff’s
comments due to her viewpoint;
1 Plaintiff does not seek an immediate hearing on the contemporaneously filed

motion for preliminary injunction in light of the current COVID-19 emergency
and circumstances surrounding the movement restrictions of the Court, its
personnel, and the parties involved. Plaintiff will work with Defendants’
counsel and this Court to establish a workable timeframe to address the issues
raised in the Complaint and motion for preliminary injunction.
13
e) Enjoin the current unconstitutional and standardless practice of
deleting platform activity and banning users from the official Mayor Van
Johnson Facebook Page due to their content or viewpoint;
f) Enter an injunction restoring Plaintiff’s posting privileges that were
blocked and afford Plaintiff full access afforded any other citizen to the official
Mayor Van Johnson Facebook Page;
g) Award general and special compensatory damages to Plaintiff in an
amount determined by the enlightened conscience of fair and impartial jurors;
h) Award reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of litigation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law; and
i) Award other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of July, 2020.
/s/ Gerald Weber /s/ Craig Goodmark

Gerald Weber Craig Goodmark
Georgia Bar No. 744878 Georgia Bar No. 301428
LAW OFFICES OF GERRY WEBER, GOODMARK LAW FIRM

LLC 1425 Dutch Valley Place Suite A
Post Office Box 5391 Atlanta, GA 30324
Atlanta, GA 31107 404-719-4848
404-522-0507 [email protected]
[email protected]
14
/s/ Zack Greenamyre

Zack Greenamyre*
Georgia Bar No. 293002
MITCHELL & SHAPIRO LLP

3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 650
Atlanta, GA 30305
404-812-4747
[email protected]
*Counsel has submitted a petition to practice in the Southern District of Georgia
15

Szilagyi v. Mayor Van Johnson and The City of Savannah

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Szilagyi v. Mayor Van Johnson and The City of Savannah

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:20-cv-00165-WTM-CLR Document 1 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Plaintiff, Jessica Szilagyi, brings this action against Defendants under 42

Johnson’s official Facebook page or to respond to Johnson’s comments posted on

blocked from this page. Contrary to basic First Amendment principles,

Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and prior restraint, and

1. Plaintiff Jessica Szilagyi (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is a

Georgia resident. Plaintiff resides in Bulloch County and is a concerned citizen

2. Defendant Mayor Van Johnson (hereinafter referred to as

3. Defendant City of Savannah is (“Savannah” or “City”) is a body

acted under color of state law.

4. Defendant Johnson is a final policymaker for the City of Savannah

of practice and custom.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

of the United States Constitution, and Georgia law.

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9. Plaintiff writes for the website AllOnGeorgia.com on matters of

politics and local news.

10. Plaintiff is also active on social media, including Facebook, where

11. Defendant Johnson has an official Facebook page for

communications in his capacity as Mayor and on behalf of the City of Savannah.

12. Defendant Johnson’s Facebook page is a designated or limited

13. Plaintiff wishes to engage in constitutionally protected speech

within the designated or limited public forum created by Defendant Johnson

and Defendant City of Savannah for citizen discourse.

in the forum to debate and comment on such matters of public concern.

and other citizens, and with the City of Savannah.

Defendant’s Facebook Page

16. The Facebook page @MayorJohnsonSAV is a designated or limited

alderman in the City of Savannah government. See “Page Transparency for

Mayor Van Johnson,” attached hereto as Exhibit B.

status as Mayor of the City of Savannah. See id.

19. Approximately 21,000 citizens “like” and 27,000 citizens “follow”

Defendants’ Facebook page. See Exhibit A, Home Page.

20. This Facebook page identifies Defendant Johnson as “the Mayor of

21. Defendants’ Facebook Page contains contact information,

specifically Facebook messenger, email, and web addresses for Defendant

Johnson’s position as Mayor and head of Savannah’s government. See “About

Page,” attached hereto as Exhibit C.

22. Defendants’ Facebook Page identifies him as a “Government

Official.” See id.

23. Defendants’ Facebook Page contains a “blue badge,” which means

“Organizations That Manage This Page,” attached hereto as Exhibit D.

24. The posts and content of Defendants’ Facebook Page concern

as well as official pronouncements of the City of Savannah.

25. The posts consist of Defendant Johnson documenting his public

activities as Mayor, including promoting political viewpoints and matters of

materials about his official activities.

26. Defendants’ Facebook page also contains official pronouncements of

conference of City of Savannah Government regarding COVID-19 updates).

27. Defendant Johnson maintains the Defendants’ Facebook Page and

frequently responds to citizens’ comments that are favorable to him.

28. Despite the creation of a limited or designated public forum for

public discussion, Defendants have engaged in targeted censorship of the speech

of Plaintiff and others on his Facebook Page through a variety of methods

including deleting comments and blocking posters entirely.

posts of others, but may delete or block their own posts.

commenting or providing “likes” or “dislikes.”

31. Defendants have censored Plaintiff and other citizens by deleting

of political disagreement with the viewpoint of the messages posted.