Judge orders Sacramento sheriff to ‘unban’ 2 black activists from his Facebook page

A federal judge on Friday ordered Sacramento Sheriff Scott Jones to lift the ban he had placed on two black community activists that prevented them from posting comments on his Facebook page.

The order by U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley requires the sheriff to lift the ban on posts from Tanya Faison and Sonia Lewis, who sued Jones last year after posts they made on his page were deleted and they were prevented from making further posts.

“The court orders defendant to unban plaintiffs from his Facebook page, retain them in unbanned status, and take no further action restricting their participation unless and until further order of this court,” Nunley wrote.

Jones had argued in court filings that his Facebook page was part of his campaign apparatus rather than an official county page and that he is a “public figure” on the account rather than a “government official.”

“However, defendant cannot escape his role as a government official simply by calling himself a public figure ...” Nunley wrote in an 18-page order.

Lewis and Faison sued as co-leaders of Sacramento’s Black Lives Matters chapter, and both women said Friday they were pleased by the order. Before noon Friday, Faison said she was able to make comments on Jones’ Facebook page while Lewis said she still cannot access the page.

“I have mixed feelings about it,” said Lewis said, now an activist with the Liberation Collective for Black Sacramento. “I figured he would have to give in – that’s the most logical thing.

“But we know we’re dealing with someone who is illogical in dealing with Jones and his office.”

Faison, who still leads Black Lives Matter Sacramento, said she hopes the victory makes it clear that public officials have “a responsibility that is higher than the average citizen.”

“I’m glad that the judge made that decision, it shows that we were on the right side of justice,” she said. “We want to make sure this doesn’t happens to other people and constituents who voted them into office, whether they agree with them or not.”

Jones’ spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The dispute began over postings the women made as Jones was embroiled in controversy over the shooting death of Mikel McIntyre, a black man killed in a confrontation with deputies, and the aftermath that ensued when the county’s inspector general issued a report critical of aspects of the shooting.

Jones locked then-Inspector General Rick Braziel out of sheriff’s facilities, essentially ending Braziel’s ability to provide oversight of the sheriff.

Faison claimed in the suit that she was banned after a Nov. 5, 2018, Facebook post by Jones in which he criticized county Supervisor Phil Serna and posted a photo of Serna holding a Black Lives Matter shirt.

Jones “also included screenshots of posts from BLM and Fasion’s Facebook pages that were critical of law enforcement,” Nunley wrote. “Faison asserts that she commented on the post from her personal Facebook account as follows: “I think it’s creepy that you have saved screen shots from my page from November 2015 . . . You(r) concern of my abilities looks to be real. Thank you for your confidence in me.”

Jones then deleted her comments and banned her, Nunley wrote.

Lewis’ claim stemmed from an Oct. 31, 2018, post by Jones, Nunley wrote.

“Can you imagine the Sheriff’s Department being controlled by ... Black Lives Matter?” Jones posted, and asked his supporters to attend a Board of Supervisors meeting.

Lewis contends she posted a comment stating that Jones was resisting oversight of his department, and the comment was deleted and she was banned.

The two women then sought a preliminary injunction to stop Jones from keeping them off the page, and the sheriff responded by claiming the Facebook account was not an official county page.

But the judge was not persuaded.

“A Sheriff’s central function is to represent the interests of the Sheriff’s Department,” Nunley wrote. “To that end, defendant posted against outside oversight of the Sheriff’s Department at least six times in a little over a month and encouraged his supporters to get involved.

“Defendant also engaged in back and forth discussions about the controversy on his page, sometimes explicitly speaking on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department. Moreover, defendant informed the public about developments in the McIntrye shooting in at least one post and linked to a Sheriff’s Department press release about a separate shooting in another post.”

This story was originally published February 21, 2020 at 12:03 PM.