In March of 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics.
Yet Portsmouth state representative David Meuse does not allow constituents to react to posts he publishes on X (formerly known as Twitter). Our non-exhaustive look through his post history indicated that most, if not all, posts made by Representative Meuse are locked to prohibit public comment.
This seems like a terrible way to “represent” people. Here is a post from January 8th:
Note the disclaimer “Who can reply?” (shown below) which states that only people David mentions can reply. Since he doesn’t mention anyone, that means NOBODY can reply.
Why do you suppose this is? Is it because David knows the public will eviscerate him for his ridiculous opinions?
Very few people know this, but if you select the three dots in the right-hand corner of a post, there is a menu which includes “View Post Engagements”. Just for fun, let’s see the post engagements for this anti-gun whopper, which was voted down by his legislative colleagues.
See them for yourself here –> https://x.com/JdmMeuse/status/1877059852817604783/quotes
The “engagements” are not very flattering to Mr. Meuse, to put it mildly.
We call on David Meuse to open his X posts to public comment as the Supreme Court (and basic common decency) demands. David, stop hiding from the citizens of New Hampshire.
Mr. Meuse, you are elected as our representative, and that includes listening to the will of the people.
Portsmouth Pulse
As for the content of his post– his attempt to prohibit his fellow legislators from carrying weapons in the chamber– New Hampshire is a constitutional carry state, meaning that citizens can generally carry firearms throughout the state, with a few exceptions, such as in courthouses. Why would Mr. Meuse propose creating a special class of restrictions for NH lawmakers? Does he genuinely see his colleagues as a heightened risk for committing violence? We certainly hope not.
Frankly, this proposal is both insulting to his fellow legislators and ill-conceived from a security standpoint. NH legislators do not have the luxury of “Secret Service”-style protection, and some may hold positions that provoke strong reactions. Under his plan, lawmakers who choose to carry for their own safety would be forced to leave their firearms in their vehicles and walk to legislative sessions unarmed. Worse still, any individual with harmful intent would know that NH legislators are unarmed due to this rule, making them easy targets for violence.
It’s far more prudent to preserve the current system, where the possibility that a legislator could be armed acts as a deterrent to those who might wish them harm. Even lawmakers who don’t carry benefit from the uncertainty this creates. Meuse’s proposal undermines that protection and puts everyone at greater risk.
Moreover, Meuse’s proposal implies that lawmakers cannot be trusted to behave responsibly—a sentiment most should find deeply disrespectful. The overwhelming majority of NH legislators are honorable, law-abiding individuals, and there is no evidence to suggest they would pose a threat to one another.
This is a non-issue and serves only as a stepping stone in a broader agenda to restrict gun rights for everyone, which the citizens of New Hampshire overwhelmingly do not want. David, you’d know that if you listened to your constituents. Unlock your X.
More post reactions
