Plaintiff Amjad Masad, Through His Attorneys at ADC, Opposes Congressman Randy Fine’s Motion to Dismiss 

Case challenges whether elected officials may use official social media accounts to attack targeted communities while blocking critics from responding

ORLANDO, FL – Plaintiff Amjad Masad, along with his attorneys, has opposed U.S. Rep. Randy Fine’s motion to dismiss a First Amendment lawsuit challenging the congressman’s decision to block him from the official @RepFine X account after Mr. Masad criticized anti-Muslim remarks posted there.

As alleged in the complaint, Rep. Fine uses the account, titled “Congressman Randy Fine,” to communicate with the public about legislation and other concerns of public interest. The account also links to Rep. Fine’s official congressional webpage and allows members of the public to reply, repost, and participate in discussion threads.

Mr. Masad’s lawsuit alleges that Rep. Fine used an official government communications channel to discuss public affairs, attack Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians, and then exclude a critic from responding because of his viewpoint. After the lawsuit was filed, Rep. Fine unblocked Mr. Masad, a Palestinian-American Muslim, and adopted a new moderation policy, which Rep. Fine now cites as a basis for dismissal. Mr. Masad argues that those actions should not allow Rep. Fine to evade judicial review. Public officials cannot be permitted to silence critics, reverse course after being sued, and then potentially return to the same conduct once a case is dismissed and no court order prevents it.

Rep. Fine also argues that his official congressional account is not subject to First Amendment limitations because he is a legislator rather than an executive official. Mr. Masad’s opposition argues that the complaint plausibly alleges governmental action because the account bears Rep. Fine’s congressional title, links directly to official congressional resources, and is used to communicate with constituents regarding legislation, government affairs, and official activities.

 “The First Amendment protects Congressman Fine’s right to spew hateful rhetoric – and it also protects the public’s right to challenge government officials,” said ADC President and National Legal Director, Jenin Younes. “The First Amendment protects the rights of those targeted by hateful rhetoric – including Mr. Masad – to criticize Congressman Fine’s speech in the public forum that he opened.” In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court said public officials are not granted unlimited power to block critics online. When an official uses a social media account as a government channel, the First Amendment may limit who government actors can exclude from the conversation. Plaintiff’s latest filing asks the Court to apply that standard to Congressman Fine’s official congressional X account and determine whether the complaint plausibly alleges governmental action under Lindke.

“At a minimum, this lawsuit has already succeeded in reopening an official government forum to critics who had previously been excluded,” said ADC Staff Attorney, Malak Afaneh. “That is an important victory for free expression. But constitutional rights mean little if public officials can escape accountability simply by changing their behavior after they get sued.”

At stake is a basic constitutional principle: when an elected official opens an official channel for public discussion about government affairs, that official cannot exclude people because they criticize him. That principle matters most when an official uses his platform to vilify  certain groups, and  then block those who challenge that rhetoric from participating in the public conversation.

The case is Amjad Masad v. Randall Fine, Case No. 6:26-cv-00442, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division.