A fourteenth formal complaint has been filed against Josephine County Commissioner Chris Barnett, this time zeroing in on how the commissioner uses Facebook pages that critics say function as an unofficial media network, a political war room and a public policy megaphone all rolled into one. The new filing arrives on top of thirteen complaints submitted on November 4 and is framed not as a repeat of earlier allegations, but as a fresh and more pointed challenge to the legality of Barnett’s social media conduct.
The complaint was submitted to Josephine County Human Resources pursuant to Article 11, Section 5 of the county’s personnel policy manual, which states that any member of the public may file a conduct complaint about a county employee and that complaints about a commissioner must be directed to HR. The filer notes that while this complaint stands on its own, it would be reasonable for investigators to consolidate it with the November 4 submissions because it touches on many of the same patterns of behavior. Where the earlier complaints focused on what the filer described as bullying, defamatory and retaliatory treatment of local residents, this latest document aims to show specific ways in which Barnett’s online activity allegedly violates social media law and exposes both the commissioner and the county to substantial legal risks.
At the center of the complaint is the 2024 Supreme Court case Lindke v. Freed, which established a two part test for when a public official’s social media use qualifies as state action under the First Amendment. In simple terms, a public official’s posts on social media may be treated as government conduct when two conditions are met. First, the official must have authority to speak on behalf of the government. Second, in the posts at issue, the official must be purporting to exercise that authority. The complainant argues that Barnett easily meets both parts of this test, and that his practice of blocking critics from pages he uses to discuss official business violates the law as articulated in that case.
According to the complaint, Barnett does not merely maintain a personal Facebook page and a campaign account. The filer states that it has become common knowledge in what they call the Facebook town square of Grants Pass and Josephine County that Barnett owns and operates a cluster of news branded pages in addition to his personal and campaign pages. Among the pages named in the complaint are Real Live News Southern Oregon, Josephine County News, Josephine County Tribune, Grants Pass News and Grants Pass Oregon Newsdesk. Except for Real Live News Southern Oregon, which has existed for several years, these pages were reportedly created roughly two months after Barnett took office as a commissioner.
The complaint asserts that these pages are not neutral community bulletin boards but rather platforms that Barnett uses to frame county issues, promote his own narrative and push back against coverage from independent outlets. The filer notes that most of these pages appeared shortly after the Grants Pass Tribune, described in the complaint as the most widely read digital local newspaper, requested executive session media access to county meetings early in 2025. In the filer’s view, the timing suggests that the pages were created at least in part as retaliation for that coverage and access request.
Beyond questions of motive, the complaint focuses on the way Barnett allegedly intertwines these pages with official county communication. The filer recounts that Barnett posts about county business on his personal account, his campaign page, two official county Facebook pages, and the various news pages he controls. In some instances, the same content appears both on an official county page and on Barnett’s privately controlled news pages. One example, the filer notes, is documented in the earlier November 4 complaints. This pattern, they argue, shows that Barnett is using his social media presence as an extension of his official role, a key factor under the Lindke v. Freed analysis.
The complaint then turns to the practice of blocking citizens. The filer states that Barnett has blocked them from viewing and commenting on his personal Facebook pages as well as multiple news pages he owns and operates. Screenshots of block notifications are included with the complaint, and the filer says they can provide testimony from numerous other residents who have also been blocked. When those same pages are regularly used to discuss county business, pending decisions, public spending and the performance of county government, the filer contends that blocking critical voices amounts to a constitutional violation and a direct breach of the rules set by the Supreme Court.
The most striking example in the complaint involves Barnett’s response to the recall effort currently targeting his seat. On November 21, 2025, posts appeared on several Barnett operated pages, including Josephine County Oregon News and Josephine County Oregon Tribune, stating that “Josephine County demands to verify all signatures on recall petition. Citizens feel fraud and don’t want clerks sampling method.” According to the complaint, those posts were made two days after the Josephine County Clerk had emailed Barnett to explain that Oregon law requires a sampling method for signature verification and that adopting a different process would be illegal.
In the view of the complainant, these posts did two troubling things at once. First, by using the phrase “Josephine County demands,” they created the impression that the county as a governmental entity was pressing its own clerk to break state law. Second, they suggested that there might be fraud among recall petition signatures without offering any evidence of wrongdoing. The filer argues that this combination not only misleads the public but potentially exposes both Barnett and the county to legal claims from petitioners and others who may be harmed by accusations of fraud or by pressure to ignore established state procedures.
To further ground the complaint in established law, the filer has attached presentation slides on social media and public officials prepared by an attorney with the Local Government Law Group PC in Eugene. These slides, which were presented as training materials for local governments, outline how the courts view public officials’ online conduct and what constitutes a public forum or state action in the context of social media. The filer asserts that Barnett’s conduct, as shown in the screenshots, falls squarely within the scenarios warned against in those materials.
Despite the potential exposure outlined in the complaint, the filer states that their goal is not to rush into outside lawsuits or regulatory actions. They write that their interest lies in having Barnett and Josephine County recognize the mistakes made and adopt internal corrective measures so that similar violations do not occur in the future. At the same time, they reserve the right to pursue complaints with external agencies if the county fails to act.
The complaint closes by returning to a theme that runs through both the November 4 filings and this new document. The filer contends that Barnett has a long standing pattern of retaliating against critics, both online and offline. They state that after the initial thirteen complaints were submitted, Barnett continued what they describe as defamatory and retaliatory social media behavior directed at them and at others in the community. Additional examples, they say, are available should investigators or outside authorities request them.
With this fourteenth complaint now on record, Josephine County officials face growing pressure to determine whether Barnett’s online activities amount to mere political infighting in the digital town square or whether they cross the line into unlawful state action and misuse of public communication channels. As the recall process advances and public scrutiny intensifies, the outcome of this internal review may carry consequences not only for one commissioner’s political future but also for how the county as a whole approaches transparency, social media conduct and the First Amendment rights of its residents.
The following are screenshots of posts on Chris Barnett’s various owned and operated Facebook Pages as well as personal Facebook pages showing proof of allegations in this complaint.
The following are screenshots of Chris Barnett’s various owned and operated Facebook Pages as well as personal Facebook pages which show proof that I have been personally blocked from viewing or commenting on these pages. Countless other local citizens have also been blocked from viewing or commenting on these pages as well as had their comments deleted, despite the discussions of County business by Commissioner Chris Barnett on these pages.
What Lindke v. Freed Means for Public Officials on Facebook
The 2024 Supreme Court case Lindke v. Freed is central to the new complaint against Commissioner Chris Barnett because it answers a once murky question. When does a public official’s social media activity count as government action rather than purely private speech?
In Lindke v. Freed, the Court said that an official’s online conduct can be treated as state action when two conditions are met. The official must have authority to speak on behalf of the government, and in the specific posts at issue, the official must be purporting to exercise that authority. When both elements are present, things like blocking users, deleting comments, or limiting access can raise First Amendment concerns because the official is then controlling a public forum rather than a private page.
In practice, courts look at factors such as whether the account is used to announce official decisions, share government information, invite public feedback on policy, or coordinate public services. They also consider whether the account is promoted on official websites, whether staff help manage it and whether it has been used continuously as an official communication channel.
For Josephine County, and for any local government, Lindke v. Freed means that when an elected official mixes personal politics with official business on Facebook and then blocks critical voices from seeing or engaging with that content, the result is not just online drama. It can become a constitutional question and a potential source of liability for both the official and the government they represent.