Potanovic, Jr. v. Town of Stony Point

Background

George Potanovic, Jr. sued the Town of Stony Point under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights. He alleged that the Town violated his First Amendment freedom of speech and right of access to public proceedings, as well as his Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection right.

The claims concerned the Town Board’s public input sessions. Before the challenged policy, the Town broadcast in-person meetings through Facebook Live and archived recordings on its Facebook page. Beginning around October 12, 2021, the Town allegedly stopped broadcasting and recording the public input portion. Online viewers instead saw a blank screen and heard nothing during that portion, although the video and audio resumed afterward.

Potanovic alleged that he had frequently spoken at Town Board meetings for more than thirty years, intended to speak at future meetings, and watched meetings online when he could not attend in person. The Town moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint plausibly states a legal claim. Serve Rockland Civic Association and Michael Diederich, Jr. separately moved to intervene.

First Amendment Freedom-of-Speech Claim

The court held that speaking during a Town Board public input session was protected speech. But it determined that Potanovic had not plausibly alleged that the Town’s policy restricted his ability to engage in that speech. He could still address the Town Board in person, had allegedly done so after the policy was adopted, and did not claim that the policy restricted the content of his remarks or prevented people attending in person from hearing them.

The court concluded that the policy restricted online observation of the public input session, not Potanovic’s ability to speak. It therefore dismissed the freedom-of-speech claim.

First Amendment Right-of-Access Claim

The court also dismissed Potanovic’s claim that the policy violated a First Amendment right to access the public input sessions remotely. Potanovic could attend Town Board meetings in person, and the court stated that the First Amendment did not require the Town to provide access through Facebook Live or archived video. The court distinguished the right to attend a public proceeding from a claimed right to watch a particular proceeding by television or another recording method.

Equal-Protection Claim

Potanovic alleged that the Town impermissibly treated in-person attendees differently from people viewing meetings at home. The court concluded that remote viewers and in-person attendees were not similarly situated because in-person attendees could participate in the public input session, while online viewers could only observe; archived-video viewers watched after the meeting had occurred.

The court further stated that, even if the groups were sufficiently similar, the complaint did not eliminate reasonably conceivable rational reasons for the distinction. One possible reason identified by the court was that citizens might be less likely to share sensitive concerns if they knew their comments would be posted on social media and easily disseminated. The court dismissed the equal-protection claim.

Motion to Intervene

Because the court granted the Town’s motion to dismiss, it concluded that there was no longer a case or controversy in which Serve Rockland Civic Association and Michael Diederich, Jr. could intervene. The court therefore denied their motion to intervene.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was GRANTED. The motion to intervene was DENIED. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two motions and close the case.