Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites have made it easy for elected officials to communicate directly with constituents and vice versa.

But can elected officials block people who criticize them on social media?

A new federal lawsuit in Ohio argues that they can't.

Anthony Fambry of Batavia claims Ohio state Sen. Joe Uecker, R-Miami Township, illegally blocked him from Uecker's official Facebook page after a brief discussion over the senator's support for a controversial abortion ban.

In a complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, attorneys say Uecker violated Fambry's First Amendment right to freedom of speech when the senator banned Fambry and deleted his comments from a post on his page. Fambry can still see Uecker's posts and others' comments, but he cannot leave any comments.

"This is both frustrating and distressful to me as I very much want to engage both the Senator and other members of the public regarding matters of public import on the official Facebook page of the senator who represents my district in the Ohio Senate," Fambry wrote in an affidavit accompanying the complaint.

The complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting Uecker from banning Fambry from the page, compensatory damages to be determined, and attorneys' fees.

Uecker did not return a phone call seeking comment about the lawsuit. But Uecker unblocked Fambry late Thursday morning, according to a Senate GOP spokesman. Fambry's comments were restored to the page early Thursday afternoon.

Spokesman John Fortney said blocking someone on social media doesn't preempt his or her rights to voice an opinion by writing a letter, sending an email or making a phone call.

Fortney said unblocking Fambry should take care of the lawsuit.

Attorney Robert Newman said he was delighted Uecker took action but was not sure that resolves his client's complaint.

"Once having lowered the boom on speech, and having the controls in hand, something like this can happen in the future," Newman said. "What we want to accomplish here is an end to any kind of political censorship on comments of public concern that are in a forum that is created by a government official."

What does the complaint say?

In December, Uecker posted a few paragraphs on his official "SenUecker" Facebook page about the Senate's votes to override several of Gov. John Kasich's vetoes. In the post, Uecker said he regretted the Senate was not able to overturn the veto of a bill that would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks into a woman's pregnancy.

"It is possibly the strongest piece of pro-life legislation I have had the privilege to work on in my fourteen years in the legislature," Uecker wrote as part of a longer post on Dec. 28, 2018. "I look forward to once again taking up this issue in the 133rd General Assembly under a new Governor."

Several people commented in support or opposition of Uecker's position. Uecker responded to critics by writing, "Sorry your judgmental beliefs are bothering you. I'm just trying to save babies from being killed."

Fambry replied to the comment: "Joe Uecker no babies are being killed, you're flat out wrong. Science has shown this. Also, are you not familiar with Roe V Wade? That bill was 100% unconstitutional."

Uecker replied: "Anthony Fambry -- loose [sic] the emotions, get your facts straight then come back to the conversation."

Fambry replied again: "I believe I've been quite courteous here, can you answer the question Joe?"

Uecker didn't reply, but Fambry again asked if the senator was familiar with Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

It was after then, Fambry claims, that Uecker blocked him and deleted his comments. Fambry's comments did not appear on the post at 1:45 p.m. Thursday.

The complaint argues that Uecker's page constitutes a public forum. Uecker's official Senate website links to the page, and it's separate from a personal page kept by the senator.

"The deletion of plaintiff's comments on the official page is viewpoint discrimination and done in retaliation for plaintiff's lawful expression of their political views and criticism of defendant's actions," Newman and attorney Michael O'Hara wrote in the complaint.

What have other courts said?

Similar complaints have been made in recent years, including one against President Donald Trump.

A judge in the Southern District of New York ruled last year that Trump's Twitter account is a public forum, and the president's blocking of users who disagree with him is unconstitutional. The federal justice department is appealing the decision. But Trump's personal account @realDonaldTrump, which the president uses to comment on official policy, unblocked several accounts in the months following the May ruling.

In 2017, a U.S. District Court judge in Virginia ruled against a county official who had blocked a Facebook commenter from her official page for about 12 hours. Phyllis J. Randall, the chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, blocked constituent Brian Davidson after Davidson left a comment alleging corruption by the county school board. Randall admitted to the court she blocked Davidson because of this criticism, and the judge found Randall engaged in "viewpoint discrimination" and thus "committed a cardinal sin under the First Amendment."

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin's practice of blocking constituents has also been challenged in court. A preliminary ruling last year was made in Bevin's favor. U.S. Eastern Kentucky District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove denied a preliminary injunction, as requested by the ACLU, saying "public officers can 'speak' through a privately owned platform like Twitter and Facebook, and they can choose whom to listen to on those platforms without offending the First Amendment."

The ACLU has also filed lawsuits in Maine and Maryland and warned public officials in other states that banning constituents from social media pages could be unconstitutional.