In 2024, I filed a federal lawsuit against Florida State Representative Chip LaMarca after he blocked me on his X (formerly Twitter) account.

That account was not a private diary. It was used to:

• announce legislative activity,
• communicate with constituents,
• promote official positions,
• and interact with the public about state business.

After I posted critical comments, I was blocked.

Blocking a constituent from an official government communication channel based on viewpoint raises a straightforward constitutional issue: the First Amendment forbids the government from silencing speech it dislikes in a public forum.

The case was filed by me, as a Pro Se litigant, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used when state actors violate constitutional rights.

The defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing:

• the account was “personal,” not official,
• no state action occurred,
• and even if it did, qualified immunity protected the legislator.

The court allowed an amended complaint, the motion was fully briefed, discovery was stayed, and the matter was referred to a magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on whether the case survives the Motion to Dismiss.

That R&R has now been pending for several months (going on five).

That’s where things stand.

Why the Case Is Quiet — and Why That’s Not Defeat

Silence in federal court feels ominous if you’ve never been through it.

An administratively closed docket.
A motion sitting for months.
No updates.

It looks like nothing is happening.

In reality, this is exactly what complex First Amendment cases look like at the gatekeeping stage.

Why Lindke Changed the Rules

In 2024, the Supreme Court decided Lindke v. Freed, rewriting how courts decide when a public official’s social media account becomes government action.

Before Lindke, courts relied on vague “color of law” tests.

After Lindke, judges must apply a two-part, fact-intensive inquiry:

1. Did the official have authority to speak for the government on the subject?
2. Did the official purport to exercise that authority on the account?

That requires judges to examine:

• how the account was used,
• what it communicated,
• whether it mixed official and personal content,
• and how it appeared to the public.

That analysis is slow. And it should be.

Fast rulings usually mean easy dismissals.
Slow rulings usually mean the court is working through hard questions.

Do I think I’ll prevail?  I have a non-zero chance and ready to file an appeal if needed.

The Real Gatekeeper: Qualified Immunity

Even if a rights violation occurred, the case can still be dismissed if the law wasn’t clearly established at the time.

That’s why the judge isn’t rushing.

Social-media blocking by elected officials sits at the intersection of:

• evolving technology,
• unsettled doctrine,
• and constitutional limits on power.

Courts take their time when the immunity question is close.

Why This Case Draws Attention (Whether I Want It To or Not)

This isn’t just about one blocked account.

It’s about whether elected officials can:

• use social media as an official megaphone,
• then curate dissent by blocking critics.

Cases like this matter because the reasoning travels.

City attorneys, legislators, and government lawyers watch how courts apply Lindke because it affects how officials across entire circuits interact with the public online.

Win or lose, the analysis becomes a roadmap.

The Fane Lozman Parallel (And Why It Matters)

People sometimes ask if I see this case as “another Lozman situation.”

That’s a fair question.

Fane Lozman is a good friend. More importantly, he’s a model for what happens when an ordinary citizen refuses to accept “that’s just how government works” as an answer.

Lozman didn’t start out trying to be a Supreme Court litigant. He started out trying to be heard—at city council meetings, by local officials, in spaces where power assumed silence was cheaper than accountability.

What followed were two trips to the Supreme Court, not because he was flashy, but because he was persistent, disciplined, and focused on forcing courts to answer clean constitutional questions.

I take real inspiration from that path.
Lozman is my spirit animal.

Not because Supreme Court cases are trophies—but because they’re how unclear law gets clarified for everyone else.

This case sits in that same tradition:

• not about personalities,
• not about performative outrage,
• but about forcing courts to define where government power ends in a new context.

Lozman fought over physical civic space.
This case fights over digital civic space.

Different battlefield. Same constitutional fault line.

And yes—if this case ever winds its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, I’d consider that the system working exactly as designed.

The Internet’s Weird Obsession with “No AI”
(and the “AI slop” crowd)

Some corners of Reddit like to dismiss anything they don’t like as “AI slop.” That label may generate clicks online, but it has no legal relevance.

For clarity: I do my own legal work. I read the cases. I analyze the doctrine. I draft and sign every pleading myself. I am responsible for every factual allegation and legal argument submitted to the Court. My pleadings fully indicate I’ve used AI in their preparation.

I use AI as a research and indexing tool, no differently than lawyers use Westlaw, Lexis, PACER searches, or clerks. It helps me sort, summarize, and locate relevant authority across large volumes of precedent so I can identify the controlling cases and verify them myself. AI does not generate filings, make legal judgments, or substitute for independent analysis.

To wit: I wrote custom code directing my LLM engine to scan thru thousands and thousands of LaMarca’s tweets, finding ones that were problematic for his case.  What would have taken weeks or months, took me an hour. 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida does not regulate what tools a litigant may use to conduct research. It evaluates whether pleadings are plausibly alleged, legally grounded, and signed in good faith. By that standard, my filings stand or fall on their merits—not on whether I used modern research tools to level an obvious resource imbalance.

Seasoned constitutional lawyers understand this distinction. They respond to my pleadings on the law. They do not argue about the tools used to locate it.

Refusing to use available research tools in 2026 is not a legal principle. It is a preference. Courts adjudicate law, not internet aesthetics.

Note: The General Counsel for the Florida House of Representatives, Florida’s best 1A lawyer (from Gray Robinson), and a support team are top-notch lawyering on the other side.  You know what I’ve not heard from them? Exactly.

What This Case Is Not: A Money Grab

This case is not about money.

I am suing for one dollar in nominal damages.

$1.00.

That’s it.

The point is not compensation. The point is vindication of a constitutional right and a clear ruling on whether an elected official can block a constituent from an official communication channel based on viewpoint.

I am proceeding pro se.
I am in forma pauperis.
I am indigent.
I am piss poor broke.

I have been sick. Very sick.  Near death. Twice. I have been out of work, and now only now getting back on my feet and back into this matter.

There are no damages to chase here. No payday at the end of the tunnel.

This is about:

• the First Amendment,
• the rules of digital governance,
• and whether ordinary citizens are allowed to speak back to power in modern public forums.

Where Things Stand Now

• The case is stayed.
• Discovery is paused.
• The magistrate judge is preparing a Report and Recommendation.
• No deadlines are currently running.

Silence does not mean dismissal.
Delay does not mean defeat.

It means the court is writing something it expects to be scrutinized.

And when that ruling drops — whatever it says — the next phase begins.

— Chaz