Political Rival Sues S.C. Lawmaker and X in First Amendment Case
South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, D-N.Y., deprived political rival Gregg Marcel Dixon of his First Amendment rights by blocking and muting him from his social media accounts on Twitter, said Dixon’s complaint (docket 9:23-cv-04500) filed pro se Thursday in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Beaufort. Dixon's website refers to him as a candidate for the 6th Congressional District of South Carolina, a post Clyburn has held since 1993.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Dixon of Ridgeland, South Carolina, a certified candidate who ran against Clyburn in the Democratic primary election in June 2022, also named X, formerly known as Twitter, in the freedom of speech suit for “failing to properly manage” its platform. Clyburn and X didn’t comment.
“Upon information and belief,” Clyburn “blocked and muted” Dixon from having access to or posting on his X accounts, “including the deletion of comments posted by plaintiff and allowing comments posted by plaintiff from appearing on the Twitter accounts in comments or reposted comments by other Twitter users,” said the complaint. Clyburn continues to block and mute Dixon, who has two X accounts: @Marcel4Congress and @IamKatoEmir.
Dixon referenced X policy, saying the platform’s account holders who are public officials or seeking public office are “automatically subject to verification, recognizing the special public interest nature of these accounts and a duty to limit fraud and dishonesty on its' platforms and the legitimate corporate interest to facilitate the free flow of ideas amongst its' users.”
Dixon alleges Clyburn’s and X’s wrongful actions and inactions were practiced with “actual malice and reckless disregard” toward Dixon and his legal rights and property interest. Dixon has “openly and notoriously posted critical comments” about Clyburn’s political positions, funding priorities and other job-related matters, the complaint said.
X should have known that “if left improperly managed,” state actors like Clyburn “would engage in unconstitutional activity” via their X accounts “by blocking and muting other Twitter users, like plaintiff, who are critics of their official job-related performance," said the complaint.
Dixon asserts a civil rights violation against Clyburn under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and a claim of negligence against X. He seeks a judgment that defendants’ actions were unconstitutional, an order compelling defendants to unblock him and grant access to Clyburn’s accounts, and an order compelling X to institute a policy whereby its account holders “deemed state actors, cannot block, mute or otherwise silence constituents.” He seeks compensatory damages of $10 million, plus punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and legal costs.