成人X站

After both an embarrassing report and a legal threat, Socialist State Rep. Shaun Scott appears to have unblocked constituents, activists, and journalists he unconstitutionally restricted from an X account he uses for legislative purposes.

Following a report by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH spotlighting Scott’s decision to preemptively block people he thought would be critics, the lawmaker reportedly received a cease-and-desist order from a Washington voter. That voter said he demanded Scott unblock his account, and the accounts of others, that he believes were unlawfully blocked.

“I am writing as a concerned citizen who has been unjustly blocked from your official X account, @Scott43LD, despite having no prior interactions with you. This letter serves as a formal demand to immediately cease your pattern of unconstitutional blocking of myself and other users on X, which constitutes prior restraint and viewpoint discrimination in direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the Washington voter explained, according to a copy of the letter he provided “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

The chief clerk for the Washington House of Representatives told the “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH that he would also reach out to Scott’s office to discuss the “nuances” of the rules around social media. The House does not take ownership or responsibility for this particular Scott account.

Shaun Scott uses his X account for government purposes

The voter explained that Scott’s X account represents a public forum, based on how the lawmaker uses and presents the account.

“By blocking me鈥攁 citizen who has never interacted with you鈥攜ou have engaged in prior restraint, preemptively silencing my ability to engage with an elected representative in a modern public square. This action is indefensible and unconstitutional,” he added.

The voter asked for anonymity to avoid harassment from progressive activists.

“As a state representative, you are a public servant, not a private citizen free to silence dissent at your discretion. Your role is to represent the people鈥攊ncluding those who disagree with you鈥攏ot to censor them. Washington state prides itself on transparency and accountability, as evidenced by the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56), and your actions run counter to these principles. By blocking me and others, you are not only violating our constitutional rights but also undermining the democratic process by stifling public discourse on a platform you use to communicate with constituents. This is a shameful betrayal of the trust placed in you by the voters of the 43rd Legislative District,” he noted.

Unblocked

The voter said he would sue Scott if the lawmaker didn’t immediately unblock him and others.

滨苍听, two public school board members blocked parents from their personal social media accounts after receiving frequent critical comments. The key issue was whether public officials violate the First Amendment when they block constituents from platforms used for official communication. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officials can be held liable if they were clearly acting in their official capacity when using those accounts. Scott was using his account in his official capacity as a state lawmaker. He has separate personal and campaign accounts.

It’s unclear how many other users Scott unblocked.

Shaun Scott is a petty man

Shaun Scott didn鈥檛 unblock people because he suddenly discovered a commitment to the First Amendment. He did it because he got caught, and he didn鈥檛 want to get sued.聽It was about shielding himself from criticism he can鈥檛 handle.

Scott used his platform to amplify radical causes he was engaged in as a lawmaker, then silenced anyone who might challenge him. That鈥檚 not leadership, of course. It鈥檚 cowardice.

But it’s also petty: a lawmaker who can’t take criticism has no business representing communities. It’s the position of a narcissist; if the voter doesn’t support Scott, he doesn’t care what they think because he believes himself to be smarter than everyone else. This from a man who, as a candidate, was even ridiculed from the left for putting out a campaign video complaining that he wasn’t allowed to run unopposed.

Blocking critics before they ever interacted with him shows a paranoia unbecoming of someone who claims to represent all his constituents. And let鈥檚 not forget: Scott still hasn鈥檛 explained himself. He just quietly reversed course, hoping no one would notice.

We noticed. The courts would have, too.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3 p.m. -7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the聽podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on聽,听,听, and聽.