James Hall, a failed candidate for the Arkansas state legislature recently failed in his efforts to hold Facebook liable for blocking his account.

Hall contended that Facebook is a public forum, and therefore liable under the First Amendment. The Arkansas based federal court rejected his claim.According to Hall’s complaint, on November 1, 2022, Hall was indefinitely banned from Facebook.  At the time, he was a candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives, District 5, with the general election slated for November 8, 2022. Hall claims he had “approximately 2.2 thousand friends and over 300 followers and the ability of [his] approximately twelve thousand plus constituents to hear, and comment on, the views and content of the speech he was expressing.”The stated reason for the ban was a violation of Facebook’s community standards which Hall describes as “non-existent or broad, vague, and ever-shifting standards.”  He indicates the ban was “over a sarcastic, humorous and satirical post . . . Republicans vote Nov 8—Democrats vote Nov 9th.”According to Hall, his account became a “public forum for speech by, to, and about government policy.” He asserts that: “[t]he ban directly impacted Plaintiff’s ability to communicate with family and friends and politically, including: (1) daily communications necessitated by his unquestioned position as a candidate for the 2022 Election some five days away from [November 3, 2022]; (2) campaigning for the Arkansas State House; (3) fundraising for the campaign; (4) laying a foundation for a potential 2024 Arkansas State House campaign.”Hall sued Facebook for violating his First Amendment rights.  According to Hall, Facebook acted in “willful participation in joint activity with federal actors. Defendant Facebook’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor. As such, [Facebook] is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in censorship decisions it makes regarding its Users.”The court was unpersuaded by Hall’s bombast and seemingly far-reaching claims. In response to his claims of Facebook silencing Trump supporters, the court pointed out the similarity between Hall’s complaint and the complaint filed in Trump v. Facebook, a case transferred from Florida to California.The court concluded that “Facebook cannot to be deemed to be a state actor when it applied its own ‘community standards’ when placing a temporary ban on Hall’s account. First, the court concluded that the alleged First Amendment deprivation did not result “from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority.”  In other words, Facebook’s action was its own, not that of the government. Second, Facebook was not “performing a traditional, exclusive public function” or acting jointly with the government in making the decision. The court noted, “[w]hile Facebook undoubtedly provides a public forum, the alleged government involvement is at best speculative.” Hall’s speculation about Facebook’s motives was just that – speculative.Under traditional state action analysis, Hall failed to state a plausible First Amendment claim against Facebook.  Plaintiffs like Hall continue to ask courts to apply governmental standards to social media platforms.  For the most part, they continue to fail

Jack Greiner is a partner at the Graydon law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Strictly Legal: Facebook not liable for blocking Arkansas candidate