With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and make use of it in a manner that would render it governmental in nature. See id. at 561 (noting that predeprivation process is generally not required where the action at issue is “unforeseeable”). Finally, it does not appear that predeprivation process is feasible on a systematic level in this context. See id. (noting that predeprivation process is not constitutionally required when impracticable). The only way to provide such process would be to require that County officials and employees treat all social media accounts they maintain as governmental in nature, and thus subject to constitutional limitations. That, however, would unduly burden the speech of County officials and employees, and could in fact violate their First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Packingham, 137 S.Ct. at 1736 (<HOLDING>); Liverman v. City of Petersburg, 844 F.3d 400,

A: holding unconstitutional a similar law penalizing independent expenditures
B: holding unconstitutional a law deemed to unduly restrict social media usage
C: holding a social security number is not private
D: holding mere deviation unconstitutional
B.