By Mackenzie Thomas July 28, 2026, Carolina Public Press
A dispute over First Amendment rights has resulted in the North Carolina National Guard settling a lawsuit with a veteran who claimed he was pressured to retire over his criticism of leadership.
Timothy Stanhope, a retired guardsman who spent roughly 20 years in the military, received pushback when he made several posts online to the Guard’s official Facebook page criticizing leadership.
After attempts to discourage his online posts, the Guard pressured him to retire, Stanhope said. Not long after, his access to the official Facebook page was revoked and his posts were removed. Stanhope sued the Guard, namely Major General Tom Hunt and a few other officials, alleging that his right to free speech under the First Amendment had been violated, the complaint said.
Ultimately, the Guard’s attempts to silence Stanhope were unsuccessful. It settled with Stanhope earlier this month, restoring his access to the Facebook page and his posts, the complaint said.
“This case isn’t about one person or one post,” a March press release from the Center for Individual Rights said about the ongoing case in which the organization represented Stanhope. “It’s about protecting everyone’s right to speak freely in public forums — especially when that speech criticizes the government.”
Posts about the National Guard
Stanhope first started his military career by joining the Army in 1996. He let the service in 2002, but returned to the military in 2010 when he joined the National Guard.
This was the same year the National Guard created its official Facebook page. When the complaint for this case was filed last year, the page had roughly 45,000 followers, which has since climbed to 50,000 today.
While he was in the Guard, Stanhope started making posts on its Facebook page and his own calling out leadership and what he believed to be “mismanagement.” The first posts mentioned in the complaint were from 2019, when Stanhope made a sarcastic comment suggesting that leadership should have to pass the same combat fitness tests as the guardsmen, the complaint said.
When asked by Carolina Public Press what inspired him to become so vocal on the page, Stanhope said he’s always been outspoken about his opinions.
“If a soldier had a problem, I would speak up for him because a lot of times they couldn’t … I had always wanted to be an advocate for them,” Stanhope told CPP.
“Somewhere deep inside, taking care of the soldiers that I had was one of my top priorities. If I thought someone was being wronged or something of that nature, I would say something.”
The Guard made it clear to Stanhope after his initial post that his criticism was unwelcome, which Stanhope said disappointed him.
“As opposed to once you get something and say ‘Oh well we do have an issue let’s fix it,’ it was more of a ‘Let’s shoot the messenger who’s trying to tell us about it in the way he’s saying it,’” he said.
However, that didn’t stop Stanhope from continuing to post his thoughts, both on the Guard’s official Facebook page and his own, his legal complaint said.
In 2021, he criticized the mobilization to Washington, D.C., following the events of Jan. 6, arguing it was “ill-conceived,” “hastily planned,” and gave guardsmen little time to prepare, his complaint said.
In 2023, he drew attention to the promotion of an officer who had previously been arrested for a DUI. Other posts through the years focused on the quality of food, “third world conditions” of living quarters and more, the complaint said.
Eventually, after years of unfavorable posts, the Guard informed Stanhope he wouldn’t be retained, the complaint said. He was essentially forced into retirement in 2023, the March press release said.
After Stanhope retired from the Guard, his access to the official Facebook page was blocked. His posts and comments criticizing the Guard were also taken down except for the ones on his personal page, the complaint said.
Those actions shocked Stanhope, he said.
“They don’t want to deal with a problem that’s brought to them, and then when somebody does speak out and says it in a way they don’t like, they’re still not dealing with the problem,” he said.
“They’re just going to try to deal with the person that they don’t agree with. So I was angry that they did that.”
Michelle Scott, associate counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, said the page had language at the time that said the Guard could delete content “at their sole discretion.” But with it being an official page of the National Guard, that should never have been the case, she said.
Stanhope asked that his access to the page be restored, but his request went unanswered by the Guard, he said.
Frustrated with the Guard’s lack of response, Stanhope sought advice from another Facebook page that handles a lot of Army issues. After telling them he had been blocked from the Guard’s page, someone told him that was illegal and sent him an article about a similar situation, he said.
At that point, he realized he might have a case.
Stanhope, represented by the Center for Individual Rights, sued the Guard and filed a complaint in March 2025. He argued his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated, since he was speaking about issues that concerned the public on a public platform, the complaint said.
“The First Amendment protects Tim’s ability to criticize government officials and call attention to public issues without fear of retaliation or censorship,” the March press release said.
Stanhope sought restored access to the Facebook page and his posts to be put back, as well as an admission from the Guard that they did in fact violate his First Amendment rights, the complaint said.
On July 7, 2026, more than a year from the initial complaint, Stanhope got the victory he was hoping for. The Guard settled, granting Stanhope his access and his posts back, according to a July press release.
While Scott said the Guard didn’t provide an explicit admission that it violated Stanhope’s rights, the Guard did agree not to ban users any longer or hide posts based on the opinions and views expressed, even changing its user agreement from its previous “sole discretion” policy, the July press release said.
Now, the page’s new policy reads: “Posts will not be removed, hidden, or deleted, and users will not be banned or blocked, based on the viewpoint expressed in any comments,” the July press release said.
CPP reached out to the North Carolina National Guard to request a comment on the settlement, but it did not respond prior to publication.
Victory for free speech
This case serves as a reminder that the First Amendment doesn’t go away even when speech occurs online, Scott told CPP.
“The government can’t just silence people that they don’t like just at a click of a button, and so that’s why we thought this case was very important,” Scott said.
The settlement was reached fairly quickly; if the Guard didn’t settle, it would’ve been a more drawn-out process and ultimately a matter for the court to decide instead of having a trial, since it was more a “question of the law.” But the Guard likely recognized what they did was a clear violation of the First Amendment, Scott said.
Stanhope was very pleased with the outcome, telling CPP that hopefully it inspires others to speak up.
Privately owned media platforms like Facebook, where Stanhope was posting comments, typically have discretion when it comes to moderating or removing content it doesn’t agree with or condone. It can exercise this right to do so — as can other private media platforms — thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Section 230 ensures that private media platforms aren’t held responsible for what users post on their sites, and even protects their decisions to remove content they find offensive or inappropriate.
“The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private organizations, like a business or an individual,” Scott said.
But even though Facebook itself is considered a private company, the North Carolina National Guard is not.
“The page prominently states that it is ‘the NC National Guard’s official Facebook page,’” the complaint said. “The page has been verified by Facebook, bearing the verified checkmark. And it is categorized on Facebook as the page of a ‘government organization.’”
When the Guard created an official page on Facebook representing its agency, it essentially created a public forum within a private one, meaning any speech that takes place there — with some exceptions — is protected by the First Amendment.
Scott said her organization has had other cases like this come up every so often.
“Even though the law is very clear, the government sometimes needs to be reminded that they can’t do this, because they keep doing it to people,” she said.
By making the Guard change its terms of use on its Facebook page, Scott said they’re hopeful this will deter it from blocking or silencing users based on their posted content in the future.
Stanhope said he hopes his victory will send a message to other members of the military who feel like their voices are being suppressed.
“Obviously, I never want anyone to say things that they’re not allowed to say. To a certain extent their freedom of speech is curtailed, and they do have to watch what they do,” he said.
“But I still enjoy the fact that even after being retired for a few years, I have soldiers that when something’s wrong, they’ll still contact me and ask for advice or opinions.”
Leave a Reply