Scarborough v. Frederick Cnty. Sch. Bd. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. , 515 U.S. 819, 830–31, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995) ) ("When government creates such a forum, in either a literal or ‘metaphysical’ sense, ... some content- and speaker-based restrictions may be allowed.... However, even in such cases, what we have termed ‘viewpoint discrimination’ is forbidden." (citations omitted)). 578 In this case, Scarborough alleges that FCSB—by and through Steve Edwards, the head of communications for the school system—deleted her comments as the result of viewpoint discrimination.4 *578 Scarborough alleges that after she posted comments criticizing aspects of the school district's reopening plans and mask mandates, Edwards deleted those comments, and later, using the nom de guerre Steve Cornwell, informed her that she would be blocked from the FCPS Facebook page entirely. These allegations strongly support the inference that Defendants took these actions because they did not like what Scarborough had said about their policies, or, to put it in First Amendment terms, because they were "impermissibly motivated by a desire to suppress a particular point of view." Cornelius , 473 U.S. at 812–13, 105 S.Ct. 3439. 4 Although Defendants do not raise this argument, Edwards was unquestionably acting in his official capacity, "under color of state law," when he allegedly took these actions. As the Fourth Circuit recognized in Davison , "[i]n the context of an alleged First Amendment violation, in particular, this Court has found that a challenged action by a governmental official is fairly attributable to the state when the sole intention of the official in taking the action was to suppress speech critical" of the government organization and its principals. 912 F.3d at 680 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Scarborough's Facebook allegations satisfy the elements of a First Amendment claim, the court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss 517 F. Supp. 3d 569 (W.D. Va. 2021) on these grounds. b. Alleged First Violation: Twitter Amendment The second part of Scarborough's First Amendment claim stems from FCPS Superintendent David Sovine's and Assistant Superintendent James Angelo's alleged blocking of Scarborough from their official Twitter accounts. Defendants raise several arguments in support of their motion to dismiss this First Amendment claim, and these two defendants, from the lawsuit. First, they contend that Scarborough failed to allege facts establishing that her attempted use of these Twitter platforms constituted protected First Amendment activity. Second, Defendants allege that Scarborough failed to adduce enough facts about the Twitter accounts to trigger First Amendment forum analysis. Third, Defendants argue that, even assuming Scarborough has alleged that she engaged in protected First Amendment activity on Twitter, she has failed to allege that Sovine and Angelo were acting in their official capacities—or under "color of law"—when they blocked her from their pages. The Second Circuit's recent decision in Knight , which addresses these arguments on strikingly similar facts, is persuasive, and the court will adopt its reasoning. See Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump , 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019). In that case, the plaintiffs sued President Donald J. Trump for unlawful viewpoint discrimination after he blocked them from his Twitter account, which was "otherwise open to the public at large." Id. at 230. The court noted that although the account, which the President activated in 2009 (almost eight years before he assumed office), was initially private, "[t]he public presentation of the Account" after he became president bore "all the trappings of an official state-run account." Id. at 231. For example, the President and members of his administration regularly described the account as official, and the 6