defendants did not agree with miss robertson's comment criticizing him for declaring that they were going to censor citizen speech in the same public forum from which they automatically banned ms robinson do we have to decide whether a face k page is a public forum i believe we have to at least reach the question of whether the facebook page is subject to first of the bit screwy even if it isn't a public forum for example there's a on public forum that's still subject to she's also shown an ongoing had a horrible denial of access from speaking in which is on reasonable so it passes even the lower level first members but i thought the magistrate in the district court never reached the first amendment substantive free speech claims because they decided at the outset that the sheriff wasn't the policy maker and or if it this statement on the facebook page was not a pattern and practice and therefore never overlooked entirely miss robinson's allegations of an ongoing prior restraint it didn't even reach that issue although she specifically played it in her complaint in fact it up specific allegations about a categorical ongoing pam speaking in a public forum the second error on the order of dismissal your honor is that the court erroneous lee found that mr robinson's allegations and not sufficiently set forth viewpoint discrimination either as t enforcement and schools all over the country these public entities are putting up facebook pages which the public and students have access to is there no develop circuit law yet as to whether those are ok so it would seem like the focus would be to establish what who is the policy maker first and then is there a policy and if this is the dismissal stage you just have to make a plausible argument in the contest that you don't you want to turn to those two points  spokesperson out there this is our policy why isn't the magistrate the district court correct here that we can't attribute this to sheriff meeks and he is the one that has is the final decision and first i'm not sure th a policy i would i don't have a particular case that says that or took was a murder or so as i see it the government suppressed speech based on the message so once the government doesn't like the message policy make it forty he can take steps that further it was all in objectives of setting final policy for law enforcement here we have a facebook page that tells people to call nine one one says we're going to post mug shots of criminals  stage we want positively capital letters comments only that statement if the evidence of faces of you point discrimination is fairly attributable to the sheriff as follow policy for a law enforcement social talking and arguing on the other the question regarding whether we should be talking about the constitutional issues at all is a good question that dr constitutional gordons applies resoundingly here because what you have is decision well it was just the same the greatest judge jolley so therefore if we decide sheriff meeks is the final decision maker and we decide there was a policy here to positives and inappropriate votes you would say we shouldn't go further we should remain so that the first amendment free speech issues get addressed in the first instance i don't mean to be picky but use the word decision  they're ok so go ahead with your i want to focus for a minute on the decision making policy making because it's a very important distinction in this case and this court has always recognized that to be an important distinction this share of look to the state law to determine who the policymakers are and so in that it is well established the sheriff is the policy maker for law enforcement he's the policy maker for the jail so no matter what the county commissioners court doing over here with respect to the jail or whatever they feel like the policy makers going to be this year so that i can't stand up front of you and try to send them a sad situation it seems to me that the the face does if he's operating in the area that he is delegated is under state law is the final policymaker not the sort of decision final hours you make or then the county buys the liability of whatever  sheriff's office is available to ever god we want everybody to know that sure you can come to the sheriff's office if you have any kind of problems in the community relating to law enforcement which would that be within the sheriff's law enforcement duties to inform the public about the service and he was offering you are in that situation i'm thinking it's more along the lines of the person in the rights of the sheriff to speak provide the public and how we're trying to to implement those policies to protect the public generally yes and that's information that's been put out and that's in the nature of what the facebook pages informational social medi properly before the court how could it not be open to the sheriff we said in turn or into what the sheriff does is he engages with the public informs them of his achievements and has goes to a public forum this is this is what i'm what are your concerns about harm to be seen any on the street and that's exactly what this raid is doing he says this is the official sheriff page let's get the interaction that i would if i had time to walk out to every the about or should the sheriff has said this is why i'm opening up a facebook page it's so you know about us or we know about you how is that conceivably not law enforcement it isn't as if this year of this just on a ship sailed long ago first of all in our own please if you look at that that's a separate issue i'd like you to stick with your contention that the facebook page has no connection to law enforcement yet the sheriff's office put it up as to i don't understand that point stand question i'm not saying it has no connection everything is connected to everything in some sense but what what you're talking about here is what are the functions that that the sheriff was not response was not the decision that is it he did make the decision that our issue in this case is that part of your argument if we say he is a policymaker is that ended or your say and now that doesn't end because he was not the decision maker that caused the alleged constitutional violations very big question because we talk about decision makers on two different levels first is the boots on the ground a suggestion to say we want it all she has to do at this stage is alleged that she's still blocked it's still prior restraint she claims that she's not allowed to post she claims that and we are baffled by the claim well you're ba well they had no they had he had final decision making and to the extent that he would except that he arguably violated the charter then it wasn't a policy that caused the city's policy didn't cause a fire and same with  is the county remember you're talking about the nature of the structure of county government in texas it's a very decent rule of a structure and then you have to understand that these are separate elected officials so then you that's the davis versus lab county case but is it that is the only case that we have there's a twitter case with president trump but with this one it's the one that's very close to our situation where the loudon county was saying we didn't bel it this is all or platform it's not your platform it's not the government platform it's our private sector platform and we control it but that and that would depend on an inference because in this case i thought the allegation was that offensive statements were left up to that if you assume it's neutral facebook doing it a statement like well if you what is the one that was left up if you kill lawmen we will kill you back how would that be different that we conveniently gets left off but the one about the opposite that's doesn't sound like facebook imposing their policy i don't represent facebook i don't know what they do but i do know this that if we're saying there's they're saying there's a policy that we're going to scream nation than what we're talking about right now is a way to completely wipe them out policy you know that's positive for law enforcement you kill one of us will kill you but we have ms robinson clearly alleges she remains walked through commenting on with the thirty seconds after his primary argument which we spent almost or time talking about was that the sheriff is into the final policy maker so i'd love to twenty seconds of response to that i think we go back to the