Anonymous Facebook users who run what they describe as a “satirical” social media page have sued San Benito County over its recent efforts to name them as the page’s owners.
At a Nov. 26 online hearing before the California Northern District Court, after receiving arguments from attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the county, Judge Virginia DeMarchi said she would issue a temporary restraining order requiring the county to withdraw a subpoena seeking the names and other information about those who published an allegedly threatening post on the Facebook page “Benito Beet Beat.”
The page’s owners, represented by Legal Director David Loy of the First Amendment Coalition, had filed an emergency motion to quash the county’s subpoena, which was issued to Meta, the parent company of Facebook. Loy argued that compliance with the subpoena would result in the public identification of Benito Beet Beat’s owners in violation of their First Amendment right to anonymous political speech.
DeMarchi’s order requires the county to withdraw the subpoena and notify Meta that it is not required to comply just yet. DeMarchi’s temporary order lasts 14 days, and the judge scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10 on the plaintiffs’ original request to block the subpoena permanently.
The legal action centers around a cartoon—posted in early November to Benito Beet Beat—that county officials and other community members saw as threatening toward the elected county supervisors. The sheriff’s office opened a criminal investigation into the published post.
The offending content was removed and Benito Beet Beat issued an apology statement shortly after county officials discussed the post as potentially illegal at a Nov. 4 board of supervisors meeting.
The board on Nov. 18 unanimously approved the filing of a subpoena to Meta, seeking to identify the creators of the allegedly threatening cartoon so that the county can continue its investigation.
“The county’s ability to proceed with civil or criminal actions will not be materially impeded by a temporary restraining order that permits a more fulsome briefing of the issues,” DeMarchi said at the Nov. 26 hearing.
DeMarchi’s order also noted that the FAC’s clients “have established that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm” if the temporary order was not granted—that damage consisting of a loss of their anonymity which is a constitutional right. The plaintiffs also claimed that if anyone found out who they are they may suffer “reputational and professional harm.”
Loy said at the hearing that the cartoon in question was “classic political satire” that is protected by the First Amendment, and did not present a “true threat” or incitement to violence.
“The First Amendment guarantees their right to speak anonymously,” Loy told this newspaper. “The cartoon at issue was self-evidently political satire, which is fully protected by the First Amendment… and there is no basis to compel them to be identified.”
The Nov. 3 post depicted cartoon images of people—some ostensibly resembling county officials—gathered below a sign that read “BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.” A caption at the top of the cartoon said, “Supervisors make a surprise visit to behavioral health and find a surprise…”
Each of the characters in the cartoon displayed a thought or speech bubble, one of which referred to possible violence toward county officials and their families.
Loy and the FAC wrote in court filings and statements to the media that the cartoon “satirizes risks to the County’s behavioral health clinic staff due to potential cuts to security. It depicts an imaginary situation in which a staff member said ‘We’re in danger! Call security now!’ because a person in mental distress seeking help said, ‘Voices are telling me I need to hurt a supervisor or his kids!’ while another staff member thought, ‘We cut security because Velazquez told us to do it,’ referring to county supervisor Ignacio Velazquez.”
Loy wrote in a Nov. 24 letter to county supervisors that the Facebook post in question was not intended as a threat and “no reasonable person” would have seen it as “a true threat to any member of the Board of Supervisors or anyone else.”
The FAC said in a press release that the owners of Benito Beet Beat are “two anonymous journalists” but did not specify when or where, or in what medium, the plaintiffs have published any journalism work. Loy declined to disclose additional details about the plaintiffs’ backgrounds.
“For purposes of the First Amendment, a journalist is anyone who reports on or comments on the news for distribution to the public,” Loy said.
The FAC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest organization that provides general practice legal services for certain clients facing threats to their freedom of speech. When asked if FAC took Benito Beet Beat’s case pro bono, Loy said while he couldn’t comment on specific clients’ confidential information, “We generally do not charge fees to our clients.”
The Benito Beet Beat Facebook page includes the description, “Serving up a fresh, satirical slice of local politics and news—directly from the root of San Benito County.”
