Supreme Court ponders if officials can block constituents on social media.
Supreme Court Considers Government Officials Blocking Individuals on Social Media
The United States Supreme Court recently held a hearing on when government officials can block individuals on their social media accounts. This high-profile controversy, which involves conflicting rulings by lower courts, has significant implications for all levels of government as citizens increasingly use social media to interact with public officials.
Later this term, the court will also hear cases challenging laws in Florida and Texas that regulate how social media companies moderate content on their platforms. These cases raise the question of balancing the right of individual Americans to freely express themselves online with the right of social media platforms to make editorial decisions about the content they host. Both of these rights are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Related Stories
-
Supreme Court to Decide If Public Officials Can Block Critics on Social Media
4/24/2023 -
Trump Back on Twitter With a Defiant Message
8/24/2023
The Florida case is Moody v. NetChoice LLC (court file 22-277), and the Texas case is NetChoice LLC v. Paxton (court file 22-555).
This hearing brings to mind a previous lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, where individuals sued him for blocking them on Twitter. The Supreme Court dismissed that case in April 2021 as moot since President Trump had already left office.
During that time, Twitter had banned President Trump, but when Elon Musk took over the company, he reversed that policy.
Two Contradictory Cases
On October 31, the Supreme Court heard two cases back-to-back: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (court file 22-324) and Lindke v. Freed (court file 22-611).
The central legal issue is whether blocking someone from accessing a public official’s social media account constitutes state or governmental action subject to the First Amendment. One federal appeals court ruled in favor of the citizens, while another ruled in favor of the public official.
Petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California, used their personal social media accounts to communicate with the public. Respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, parents of local students, allegedly “spammed” the petitioners’ posts and tweets with repetitive comments and replies. As a result, the school board members blocked the respondents from their accounts.
Spamming Alleged
The Garniers claimed they were acting in good faith, exposing financial mismanagement and incidents of racism. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the Garniers, considering elected officials’ social media accounts as a public forum.
In the other case, James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used a public Facebook account to communicate with constituents. Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, criticized the municipality’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and accused local officials of hypocrisy. Mr. Freed blocked Mr. Lindke and others, removing their comments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of Mr. Freed, stating that his actions were personal and not governmental.
During the hearing, attorney Hashim Mooppan argued that individuals who hold public office are still private citizens and have the right to decide who can participate in discussions on their personal social media pages. However, Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether this could lead to viewpoint-based blocking by town managers. Justice Elena Kagan also raised concerns about former President Trump’s Twitter account and whether it was considered personal or governmental.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the need for clear guidance for local officials on how to communicate with the public. The arguments presented by attorneys from both sides highlighted the importance of balancing First Amendment rights with the use of personal social media accounts by government officials.
After the hearing, attorneys expressed their views on the case. Victoria Ferres, representing Mr. Freed, emphasized the importance of government employees having the right to talk publicly about their jobs on personal social media accounts. She argued that labeling every action on social media as state action would discourage government officials from engaging in public discourse. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for government employees and their use of social media.
Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
How do the actions of the school board members in the Favor of the Garniers case violate the First Amendment?
Favor of the Garniers, stating that the school board members’ actions violated the First Amendment. They argued that blocking the respondents prevented them from engaging in a public forum and expressing their opinions.
On the other hand, in the Lindke v. Freed case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the public official. In this case, petitioner Michael Lindke, a citizen of New York, was blocked by Stephen Freed, a town supervisor, from accessing his Twitter account. Lindke claimed that the blocking violated his First Amendment rights. However, the court held that Freed’s Twitter account was a personal account and not a government-controlled forum.
These contradictory rulings by lower courts have led the Supreme Court to take up the issue to provide clarity on the matter. The court must determine whether government officials’ blocking of individuals on their personal social media accounts constitutes state action and therefore falls within the scope of the First Amendment.
First Amendment Rights
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of individuals to freedom of speech and expression. It ensures that the government cannot abridge these rights or suppress dissenting voices. However, it is essential to strike a balance between individuals’ right to express themselves and social media platforms’ editorial control. This balancing act becomes more complex when government officials are involved.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for government officials at all levels. The ruling will determine when and under what circumstances public officials can block individuals on their social media accounts. It will set the boundaries for their actions and establish guidelines for maintaining an open and inclusive public forum online.
Regulating Social Media Companies
Alongside the issue of government officials blocking individuals, the Supreme Court will also hear cases challenging laws in Florida and Texas that regulate how social media companies moderate content on their platforms. These laws, sometimes referred to as “Big Tech” regulations, raise the question of how to balance individuals’ freedom of expression with social media platforms’ right to make editorial decisions.
Florida’s law, known as the “Social Media Transparency Act,” requires social media companies to publish detailed guidelines for content moderation and provide users with explanations when their content is removed. It also imposes fines for deplatforming political candidates. Similarly, Texas passed a law that prohibits social media platforms from blocking, banning, or demonetizing users based on their viewpoints.
These laws aim to address the concerns of many who believe that social media companies have too much power and control over online speech. However, critics argue that such regulations infringe upon the First Amendment rights of these private companies and interfere with their ability to moderate harmful or false content.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s consideration of government officials blocking individuals on social media accounts and the regulations of social media companies marks a crucial moment in the ongoing debate surrounding free speech and digital platforms. The rulings in these cases will shape the boundaries of individuals’ online expression and the power of public officials and social media platforms to control discourse.
As the influence of social media continues to grow, these issues become increasingly important for safeguarding democratic principles and protecting the diverse voices in our society. The Supreme Court’s decisions will provide guidance on striking the delicate balance between individual freedoms and the responsibilities of government officials and social media platforms in the digital age.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
