ACLU raised the following question:
“One of the core purposes of the First Amendment is to allow people, regardless of their views, to hold the government accountable through expression. So, if your elected representative has an official Facebook page where she invites comments, can she block you from commenting because you criticize her work?[I]”
By extension, this same question can be asked of de facto private government HOAs and their elected officials.
In Davison v. Randall,[ii] Defendant Randall is a municipal representative who maintained a Facebook page related to her government activities, which was open to comments. Plaintiff Davison’s critical comments were blocked by Randall, and so he brought this first amendment suit. ACLU wrote:
“On Monday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the interactive portion of a public official’s Face book page is a “public forum,” so an official cannot block people from it because of the opinions they hold.
“Indeed, the right to criticize the government is at the heart of the First Amendment. The court specifically recognized blocking as infringing on that right, noting that blocking someone in order to silence criticism of government work is itself evidence of government action.”
(ACLU, n. i).
By extension, this decision by the circuit court can be applied to the de facto private government HOAs and their elected officials. Very importantly and on point, the NJ Supreme Court in Mazdabrook v. Khan[iii] held in favor of HOA homeowner free speech rights regarding signs.[iv]
“Moreover, [the Plaintiff] did not waive his constitutional right to free speech. To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and a waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear. Khan was not asked to waive his free speech rights; he was asked — by different rules in three documents — to waive the right to post signs before getting Board approval, without any idea about what standards would govern the approval process. That cannot constitute a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of constitutional rights. . . . . Instead, the exercise of those rights can be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Finally, covenants that unreasonably restrict speech may be declared unenforceable as a matter of public policy. (P. 5).
“The proliferation of residential communities with standard agreements that restrict free speech would violate the fundamental free speech values espoused in our Constitution.”
As is quite prominent, this violation is ripe in all those rogue HOA boards of directors because state legislatures have given HOAs a carte blanche, hands off right to function outside constitutional protections. In short, HOAs function as independent principalities within America![v]
References
[i] Court Rules Public Officials Can’t Block Critics on Facebook, Vera Eidelman, ACLU (2019). Reference to Davison v. Randall. See infra, n. ii. ACLU filed an amicus brief.
[ii] Davison v. Randall, Nos. 17-2002 & 17-2003 (4th Cir. 2019, VA).
[iii] Mazdabrook v. Khan, 46 A.3d 507 (2012). Note that the NJ ACLU had filed an amicus brief by Frank Askin.
[iv] See “CC&Rs and waivers of constitutional rights in HOA-Land.”
[v] See Establishing the New America of Independent HOA Principalities, Amazon, ISBN-13: 978-0974448831, ISBN-10: 0974448834. (2008).
HOA Constitutional Government 
What are the limits of “shareholder surveillance?” Board members “spy” on shareholders by questioning security personnel about shareholder presence in common areas.