Whether the petitioner's First Amendment right to free speech was violated when the respondent restricted the petitioner's ability to post comments on a public social media platform

estions) PRESENTED — ae 7 L pacoceh Dol Gta We te gly won dd, Coie a Crap documenta Whey 1a plbsent foes Hate ot Kapeechflyp Suboniltib thas L7H Wise 2019 Fit eos sefiree 72033-Th29 a TE Bresnons) pnesenteD | OS EE : | Sit Grae Yo kethou) mp oe tm ote | Speen B, Aap By Gora © Sob Hprede® | . jught 4 Re HR brands the. 13 rt Qorendionard &y Coved fhe trttnam Unworily Koay opyres Ind Dyprstnnd f Seek Coch | Soul Sse wad nef Heli ta fu LD bag? damage, fhe Des Thuaf arte a aay lufer : vrifealed Thx Geren thet paduliel Ike Vidlafesn 9 any /41h Uae the tos4d 14 Wedd defion Udatig amy Crist fahon! | te ark tt sag Te ta Apo doll normafer } hel Mer, Capel Papel pre Hh Hi Omen. Vaud oh Wheniily fe heb that the tapi as Be ep for Te Uahon Par Wee | OmecLnsnl peg ee fe hie GOR ae , SB: Cher ofofafoinnd pra arb [AL 4 | Buthorifedd Wer Kidbig, 5, 20(F Lo | te Tag Pi 7 —— Boowad hiptanca (5097 779 L Ta. 08669 whe 7 . TL_—~