Just five days into their new roles, Josephine County Commissioners Chris Barnett and Ron Smith are already at the center of a growing controversy that raises serious concerns about free speech, transparency, and ethical governance. Allegations have emerged that the two commissioners have systematically blocked members of the public and media on social media, suppressed local news sources, and made decisions without proper consultation or community input. Dissatisfaction among residents is growing as screenshots shared by constituents highlight these actions, leading to questions about the commissioners’ commitment to open governance and adherence to legal and ethical standards.
While reports suggest that these practices began during their election campaigns, their continuation while in public office is viewed by many as not only unethical but also potentially illegal under state and federal laws. Public officials are obligated to maintain open communication with their constituents, and actions like blocking dissenting voices or deleting critical comments on official social media accounts may violate Oregon’s transparency laws as well as recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court.
Numerous individuals have alleged that Barnett and Smith have routinely silenced critics and erased comments on their social media accounts, targeting posts that question their narratives or challenge their positions on local issues. What may have been concerning during their campaigns is now far more problematic given their roles as public officials entrusted with safeguarding citizens’ rights to engage with their representatives.
The Grants Pass Tribune has encountered these challenges firsthand. Last year, the Tribune reached out to Ron Smith for an interview, only to have the request ignored. Our access was blocked, and our account was deleted from his page. To make matters worse, Smith later engaged in discussions aimed at discrediting the Tribune. On September 18, 2024, in a post on the Josephine County Conservative Facebook page, Smith publicly supported defamatory remarks made by William Kronert, further perpetuating false information about the publication.
Around the same time, Chris Barnett also blocked the Tribune’s access, and it has yet to be restored. In addition, recent reports indicate that as of Sunday morning, Smith deleted his Facebook account entirely. He issued a statement, which read: “Because of my new position to be ‘politicticaly ‘smart and keep myself safe from phony ethics complaints, I’ve temporarily suspended my Facebook account. Please text or call me at 541-660-4185. Thanks, Ron.” This move further limits public dialogue and media accountability.
Adding to the controversy, Commissioner Chris Barnett faces multiple lawsuits, including one accusing him of labeling critical media reports as “fake news.” Critics argue that these actions undermine his claims of fostering transparency and deepen the perception of hypocrisy. For a public official tasked with representing all constituents, such behavior raises serious concerns about his ability to uphold democratic principles.
One lawsuit alleges libel and tortious interference, with critics suggesting that Barnett uses his position to suppress dissent rather than encourage open dialogue. His legal challenges cast a shadow over his ability to govern effectively and fairly. Further complicating the matter, Barnett owns and operates Real Live News Southern Oregon, a media outlet that directly competes with local news organizations. This dual role raises ethical concerns about conflicts of interest, leaving constituents to question whether Barnett is prioritizing his duties as commissioner or leveraging his office to enhance his personal media brands.
The actions of both commissioners may also put them at odds with legal standards. Oregon’s public records and open meeting laws mandate that public officials provide accessible avenues for citizen participation. Social media platforms, increasingly used for official communication, are now widely regarded as critical public forums. Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, including O’Connor-Radcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, reinforce that public officials using social media accounts for official purposes cannot block critics. Such actions violate First Amendment protections and leave Barnett and Smith vulnerable to legal liability.
The O’Connor-Radcliff case is particularly relevant. In this instance, a school board member used social media accounts for campaign purposes and later continued using them for official communication. The court ruled that blocking users or deleting comments was unconstitutional. The parallels to the Josephine County commissioners’ situation are striking, suggesting that legal consequences could follow if corrective actions are not taken.
If lawsuits are filed against the commissioners for actions performed in their official capacities, the financial burden could fall on Josephine County taxpayers. Under “qualified immunity,” public officials are often shielded from personal liability, meaning the county might have to cover legal fees and damages. However, if the commissioners acted outside the scope of their duties or engaged in illegal conduct, they could be held personally liable. Most counties carry liability insurance to protect against such claims, but ongoing legal challenges could strain local resources and erode public trust yet even further.
Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have long advocated for protecting free speech and preventing public officials from abusing their authority on social media. The allegations against Barnett and Smith align with broader concerns about officials suppressing dissent and silencing critics. If these practices continue, the ACLU could intervene, as it has done in similar cases nationwide, potentially placing Josephine County at the center of a high-profile legal battle.
The public’s reaction has been swift and overwhelmingly critical. Many residents feel betrayed by the commissioners, who campaigned on promises of transparency and public engagement. Instead of fostering open dialogue, their actions have left constituents feeling silenced and excluded. Some residents are organizing efforts to hold the commissioners accountable, calling for apologies, greater transparency, and the reinstatement of deleted comments. Others are exploring legal avenues to address what they view as violations of constitutional rights.
Barnett’s multiple professional roles only complicate matters further. In addition to his public office, he is actively involved as a broadcaster, real estate broker, drone pilot, and on-air personality. Critics argue that juggling these responsibilities detracts from his ability to prioritize his duties as commissioner. Moreover, his role as the owner of a media outlet raises ethical concerns about impartiality and the potential for conflicts of interest, particularly when his personal and professional endeavors intersect with his public duties.
The controversy in Josephine County highlights a broader national conversation about the role of social media in governance. As platforms like Facebook and Twitter become central to public discourse, the distinction between personal and official accounts has blurred. Courts have made it clear that once a social media account is used for official purposes, it must comply with constitutional protections. For public officials, adapting to these new realities is essential to maintaining trust and avoiding legal consequences.
The path forward for Barnett and Smith is clear: they must rectify their actions, unblocking individuals and reinstating deleted comments, or face the legal and reputational consequences. Legal experts suggest that taking steps toward greater transparency could help rebuild trust with constituents, but failure to act could result in costly lawsuits and further public backlash.
The allegations against Josephine County’s commissioners underscore the importance of accountability and professionalism in public office. Blocking and censoring constituents undermines the democratic process and violates the principles these officials were elected to uphold. As the situation unfolds, the people of Josephine County have an opportunity to demand better from their leaders. Whether through dialogue, advocacy, or legal action, one thing remains certain: the public’s voice will not—and cannot—be silenced.
