Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from JgTheBoss 102.7 FM KTNT Worldwide TNT.

Link to video below:

Short Version https://www.facebook.com/reel/1140328874363620

Long Version https://www.instagram.com/p/DCjP_Ghpw7o/

Blocking Emails from Particular Senders

Congrats! You're 100th in the global Country charts! Hey JgTheBoss! Congrats!! Your upload JgTheBoss Worldwide TNT Dec 1, 2024, KTNT 102.7 FM Klamath Falls, Oregon. is now 100th in the global Country chart!! JgTheBoss Worldwide TNT Overnights Dec 10, 2024 Klamath Falls 102.7 FM Midnight to 6 AM.

Congrats! You're 97th in the global Country charts!

Congrats!! Your upload JgTheBoss Worldwide TNT Nighttime 6 PM to Midnight Nov 23, 2024, KTNT is now 97th in the global Country chart!!

Klamath Falls- Blocking Emails from Particular Senders Local governments should think carefully before blocking a private citizen from being able to contact the local government or one of its departments. A total block on emails from a member of the public uts off a major avenue of “speech” and “petition” —two rights that are protected under the First Amendment.

That being said, a number of cases have identified government mail and email systems as “nonpublic forums” for First Amendment purposes, meaning that restrictions on speech must only (1) be reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum, and (2) not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint. If an individual is blocked from contacting local government employees via email merely because they are expressing a viewpoint that is critical of the government or critical of a particular employee, that action would clearly violate the First Amendment as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. However, in a nonpublic forum, generally applicable restrictions on speech do not necessarily constitute viewpoint discrimination when the purpose of the restriction is to curtail disruptive behavior and not to suppress the speaker’s viewpoint. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 "U.S. 788, 811 (1985) (“The First Amendment does not forbid a viewpoint-neutral exclusion of speakers who would disrupt a nonpublic forum and hinder its effectiveness for its intended purpose.”).

Blocking Emails from Particular Senders Blocking Users or Deleting Comments on Social Media

A viewpoint-neutral action to block a particular email address may not necessarily violate the First Amendment on free speech grounds, but still raises some First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of petition. The rightof petition protects an individual’s right to bring complaints about public policy directly to officers of the government. In the modern era, email is an important avenue for citizens to petition their local government officials. Some courts have found that an indefinite ban on contacting local government officials via email—or a ban that applies broadly to contacting all county or municipal employees—may be an overly broad restriction on the right to petition. Local governments may want to consider a more narrowly tailored way to address the issue without instituting an indefinite block, such as instituting technological workarounds to help prevent staff from having to view disturbing, harassing, or threatening emails. For example, the local government may be able to help employees set up an inbox “rule” to forward emails from a particular sender to a particular folder. Alternatively, the local government may be able to set up a rule that would forward emails from a particular sender to a separate account. One person, perhaps a supervisor, could then be assigned to routinely monitor emails in that folder or separate account. Continuing to routinely monitor the emails, whether forwarded to a separate folder or a separate account, ensures that the individual in question still has meaningful access to contact the local government for legitimate purposes.

Local governments should think carefully before blocking a private citizen from being able to contact the local government or one of its departments.

What about action to block spambots, which can send massive amounts of automated emails in a short period of time? Scholars are still debating the extent to which spambot activity constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment. However, even if we assume the activity is protected, there is a strong argument to be made that blocking spambots is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction in a nonpublic forum. Without instituting such blocks and filters, the inboxes of local government employees could be filled with thousands of duplicative spam emails, completely disrupting their ability to communicate with citizens and carry out their duties. Outside of the email context, there are many cases holding that preventing disruption of a nonpublic forum’s intended function is a reasonable justification for a restriction on speech. The few courts examining a government entity’s use of spam filters have found that the action of flagging or blocking emails as spam, without evidence of intent to suppress a particular message or retaliate against a particular speaker, does not constitute a First Amendment violation.

James C. Garland