IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
Alexblubear,
Plaintiff
v.
Ridgeway Department of State
Ab_bae,
Defendant.
___________________________/
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: RSC-CV-9146
JUDGE: HON. Notsfeelings
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
Plaintiff respectfully submits this Response in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5), and states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Defendants assert that the closure of a public government-run Discord chatroom does not
implicate the First Amendment. However, their motion mischaracterizes both the facts and the
law. Plaintiff alleges a viewpoint-discriminatory removal of a government-created space for
public discourse. When a government entity voluntarily opens a space for public expression and
then targets that space for closure in response to disfavored speech or viewpoint, it engages in
unconstitutional conduct under Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), and long-standing First
Amendment doctrine.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” that is facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff meets that burden.
ARGUMENT
I. Defendants Operated a Designated Public Forum
The Discord chatroom at issue was maintained by the Ridgeway Department of State for public
interaction. Defendants do not dispute that they created and operated the space. Under Perry
Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983), a government may designate
certain nontraditional spaces—such as a digital forum—as public forums. Once it does so, it
cannot close that forum in retaliation for disfavored speech. See also Davison v. Randall, 912
F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir. 2019) (applying public forum doctrine to a Facebook page run by a
government official).
The closure here was not a neutral operational change—it was, as alleged, the result of public
criticism and discontent voiced in the chatroom. That makes this action
viewpoint-discriminatory, not a content-neutral limitation. Government cannot “silence speech
simply because it criticizes those in power.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995).
II. The First Amendment Applies to Online Government Spaces
The notion that “websites—including Discord servers—owned and controlled by the
Government, is property” does not insulate those spaces from constitutional scrutiny. On the
contrary, once the government opens a digital forum, it is bound by constitutional principles.
See Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 105–06 (2017) (recognizing the internet as a
“modern public square”).
Moreover, Lindke v. Freed instructs that when a government official or entity uses social media
to conduct public business, First Amendment limitations apply. Plaintiff alleges that the public
chatroom was a venue for public engagement and community speech. Shutting it down in
response to discontent transforms administrative discretion into constitutional harm.
III. Plaintiff States a Claim for Relief
Taking the facts as true—as required at the motion to dismiss stage—Plaintiff alleges:
● Defendants created and maintained a public forum.
● Defendants closed that forum in response to public speech.
● Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, lost access to a forum for public expression.
That is sufficient to state a claim under the First Amendment. See also Cornelius v. NAACP
Legal Defense Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985) (holding that forum analysis depends on the
“intent of the government and the nature of the property”).
IV. Applicable Ridgeway Constitutional and Statutory Law
A. Ridgeway Constitution
The Constitution of the State of Ridgeway contains explicit protections that mirror and
reinforce federal constitutional rights:
● Article I, Section I: Guarantees a remedy for all wrongs and the right to justice "freely,
and without being obliged to purchase it; completely and without any denial." By closing
a designated public forum in retaliation for public dissent, Defendants deny Plaintiff that
access to justice and expression.
● Section IX: “The people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing
their sentiments… the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.” Defendants’
actions violate this explicit Ridgeway constitutional right by closing a public space used
for political and civic speech.
● Section XV: Guarantees the right to "assemble together to consult for their common
good... and to apply to the Legislature for redress of grievances.” This protects not just
physical assembly, but also digital public engagement in forums hosted by the state.
B. Ridgeway Procedural Law
Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 8(a), Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the claim.
Plaintiff has clearly pleaded:
● Government operation of the chatroom;
● Use of the chatroom for civic and political expression;
● Closure of the chatroom in direct response to dissenting viewpoints.
Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5), dismissal at this stage is appropriate only if the Court finds the
complaint to be legally insufficient. However, Plaintiff has stated a facially plausible claim
grounded in both constitutional law and factual allegations. Therefore, dismissal would be
improper.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and allow this matter to proceed to discovery.
/s/ DJA M AF1
DJAMAF1
DJAMAF1 & Associates LLP
Managing Partner
Attorney for Plaintiff Alexblubear
8/5/2025
