{"id":2085855,"date":"2023-10-31T19:25:02","date_gmt":"2023-10-31T23:25:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-look-into-whether-public-officials-can-block-citizens-on-social-media\/"},"modified":"2023-10-31T19:29:43","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T23:29:43","slug":"supreme-court-to-look-into-whether-public-officials-can-block-citizens-on-social-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-look-into-whether-public-officials-can-block-citizens-on-social-media\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to examine if officials can block citizens on social media."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-to-look-into-whether-public-officials-can-block-citizens-on-social-media%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2085855&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><blockquote>\n<h2>The U.S. Supreme Court to \u2063Hear Cases on Public Officials Blocking Citizens on Social Media<\/h2>\n<p>The U.S. \u200cSupreme Court is set to hear two lawsuits on Tuesday that will examine whether public officials can block citizens from their social\u2064 media accounts \u2062and\u2064 if such \u2063actions violate First \u2063Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>The cases, originating from\u2064 California and Michigan, center around public officials blocking citizens who made critical comments on\u2064 their social media \u200bpages. The lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on both\u200d cases. In California, an appeals court ruled that the officials\u200c violated\u200d citizens&#8217; First Amendment rights by blocking them. However, in\u200d Michigan, an appeals court ruled that \u200cthe official in question was not at\u200c fault.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>The Biden \u2064administration has taken the side of the public officials, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) \u2062arguing that there should be a \u200cdistinction between officials&#8217; personal and public lives. The DOJ emphasized that\u200c the government does not\u200c own \u2064or control the social media accounts involved in the lawsuits.<\/p>\n<div class=\"shortcode\">\n<div class=\"border-comp-divider mb-4 mr-4 w-full max-w-[500px] border px-5 py-4 text-[16px] leading-[20px] text-[#262626] md:float-left\" id=\"in_article_related_stories\">\n<h2 class=\"mb-3 font-sans text-[16px] font-semibold uppercase leading-[19px] text-[#2F2F2F]\">Related Stories<\/h2>\n<div class=\"mb-4 flex gap-2\">\n<div class=\"grow\">\n<div class=\"mb-1 line-clamp-4 sm:line-clamp-3\">\n            <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/opinion\/supreme-court-to-scrutinize-biden-administrations-alleged-big-tech-censorship-machine-5518219?ea_src=author_manual&#038;ea_med=related_stories\"><\/p>\n<h3 class=\"text-sm sm:text-base\">Supreme Court to\u200c Scrutinize Biden Administration&#8217;s Alleged \u2062Big Tech Censorship Machine<\/h3>\n<p>            <\/a>\n          <\/div>\n<div class=\"text-comp-caption text-[14px] leading-[18px]\">10\/31\/2023<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"shrink-0 basis-[70px] sm:basis-[120px]\">\n          <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/opinion\/supreme-court-to-scrutinize-biden-administrations-alleged-big-tech-censorship-machine-5518219?ea_src=author_manual&#038;ea_med=related_stories\">\n            <picture><source type=\"image\/webp\" https:><\/source><source type=\"image\/jpeg\" https:><\/source>\n            <\/picture>\n          <\/a>\n        <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"mb-4 flex gap-2\">\n<div class=\"grow\">\n<div class=\"mb-1 line-clamp-4 sm:line-clamp-3\">\n            <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/us\/supreme-court-wont-rehear-police-brutality-case-5519345?ea_src=author_manual&#038;ea_med=related_stories\"><\/p>\n<h3 class=\"text-sm sm:text-base\">Supreme Court Won\u2019t Rehear Police\u2062 Brutality Case<\/h3>\n<p>            <\/a>\n          <\/div>\n<div class=\"text-comp-caption text-[14px] leading-[18px]\">10\/31\/2023<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"shrink-0 basis-[70px] sm:basis-[120px]\">\n          <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/us\/supreme-court-wont-rehear-police-brutality-case-5519345?ea_src=author_manual&#038;ea_med=related_stories\">\n            <picture><source type=\"image\/webp\" https:><\/source><source type=\"image\/jpeg\" https:><\/source>\n            <\/picture>\n          <\/a>\n        <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>In an interview \u2064with CBS \u200dNews, Katie Fallow, senior counsel at the Knight First \u2063Amendment Institute, highlighted the key issue at stake in these cases: whether \u200dpublic officials can discriminate \u2062against individuals based on their viewpoints by blocking or deleting their comments on social media.<\/p>\n<p>She \u2064emphasized the real-world impact of these cases, stating \u2063that they will affect free speech, the public \u2063sphere, and the ability\u2063 to engage in participatory democracy.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>The Knight\u2064 Institute previously\u200c brought a \u200dsimilar \u200ccase against former \u200cPresident Donald Trump for \u200cblocking users on Twitter, which is now called X.<\/p>\n<div class=\"shortcode post-related-videos\">\n<div class=\"lazyload-wrapper\">\n<div class=\"lazyload-placeholder\"><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>Although a federal\u200b appeals court deemed President Trump&#8217;s actions\u2063 unconstitutional, the Supreme Court dismissed the case\u200b after he left the White\u200d House.<\/p>\n<h2>The California Case<\/h2>\n<p>The first case \u200binvolves two California public officials from the Poway Unified \u200bSchool\u200c District Board of\u2064 Education\u2014current vice president Michelle O&#8217;Connor-Ratcliff and former board member T.J. Zane.<\/p>\n<p>During their election campaigns in late 2014,\u2063 both officials created public Facebook pages. Ms. Ratcliff also created a public Twitter\u200b page\u200c before 2017. After being elected, they used\u200d these social\u200c media \u200baccounts to provide updates on board \u200cactivities.<\/p>\n<div class=\"post-figure\">\n<figure style=\"width:600px\" class=\"alignnone\"><figcaption>The logo for\u2064 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-new-acting-attorney-general-jeff-rosen-recently-wrote-an-essay-on-foreign-influence-in-us-elections-this-tells-us-a-little-about-his-knowledge-of-whats-going-on-today\/\" title=\"The New Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen Recently Wrote an Essay on Foreign Influence in US Elections \u2013 This Tells Us A Little About His Knowledge of What\u2019s Going On Today\">social media platform<\/a> X, following \u200dthe rebranding of Twitter, is seen covering the old logo in an illustration taken on\u2063 July 24, \u20622023. (Dado Ruvic\/Illustration\/Reuters)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>Two parents, Christopher \u200cand Kimberly \u200dGarnier, whose children were enrolled in the school district, made\u200b multiple replies to the officials&#8217; social media posts. Eventually, Ms. Ratcliff and Mr. Zane blocked the Garniers from their Facebook pages, and Ms. \u200dRatcliff also blocked Mr. Christopher from her Twitter page.<\/p>\n<p>The\u2062 Garniers filed a lawsuit, alleging that the\u200b officials violated their \u200cFirst Amendment speech rights by blocking\u2063 them\u2063 on what they considered public forums.<\/p>\n<p>The case reached a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/breaking-hunter-bidens-original-sweetheart-plea-deal-falls-apart-after-he-appears-in-court\/\" title=\"Breaking: Hunter Biden's Plea Deal Crumbles as He Attends Court\">federal district \u200ccourt<\/a>,\u2063 where the officials argued that the \u2064school district had no involvement in the creation or maintenance\u200b of their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/democrats-move-to-force-conspiracy-theorist-marjorie-taylor-greene-off-her-committee-assignments-report\/\" title=\"Democrats Move To Force Conspiracy Theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene Off Her Committee Assignments: Report\">social media pages<\/a>. However, the district court disagreed, noting that the officials\u200d presented\u200b themselves in an official capacity on their pages and\u200c discussed \u200cmatters related to their positions.<\/p>\n<p>The district court\u200c ruled that blocking the Garniers from the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-look-into-whether-public-officials-can-block-citizens-on-social-media\/\" title=\"Supreme Court to examine if officials can block citizens on social media.\">officials&#8217; social media pages constituted<\/a>\u200c a violation of their First Amendment \u200brights.<\/p>\n<p>The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the district court&#8217;s ruling. Now, the\u2063 Supreme\u200d Court\u2064 will weigh \u2063in\u200d on the matter.<\/p>\n<p>Both \u2064the officials and the Garniers have presented their \u2062arguments to the \u2064Court. The officials argue that a public official&#8217;s personal\u2063 social \u200bmedia page should not\u200b be considered state action\u2062 if\u2063 it does not involve\u200c any official duties or rely on state\u2064 authority.<\/p>\n<p>The\u2064 Garniers, in their filing, assert that the officials\u200d were acting in their capacity as board members\u2064 when \u200bthey \u2063operated the social media pages and communicated\u200c matters related to the\u2064 board.<\/p>\n<h2>The Michigan Case<\/h2>\n<p>The second case centers around James Freed, the city manager \u2062of Port Huron, Michigan, \u200cwho deleted\u2062 comments from citizen Kevin Lindke on \u200bhis Facebook page. Mr. Lindke&#8217;s comments\u2063 criticized \u200cMr. Freed&#8217;s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Mr. \u200dFreed also blocked him from the \u200dpage.<\/p>\n<p>The Facebook page was originally Mr. Freed&#8217;s personal profile, which he later \u2063converted into a \u200dpublic page and updated\u200b to reflect\u200d his title as city manager.<\/p>\n<p>Displeased with the deletion of his \u200bcomments, \u2062Mr.\u2064 Lindke sued\u200b Mr. Freed\u200c in federal court, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. A\u200b federal\u2063 district \u2063court ruled in favor of Mr. Freed, and the case was appealed.<\/p>\n<p>In its\u200b opinion, the U.S. Court\u200d of Appeals for the Sixth\u2063 Circuit\u2062 sided with Mr. Freed, stating that\u200b his Facebook activity\u2062 did not \u200bconstitute state action.<\/p>\n<p>Following \u200bthe\u2064 decision, Mr. Lindke brought \u2064the case to\u2062 the Supreme Court, arguing that Mr. Freed\u2063 designed his Facebook page to resemble a government outlet\u2062 and used it to carry out \u200dpublic\u2064 responsibilities.<\/p>\n<div class=\"my-5\">\n<p>The\u2062 Supreme Court will \u2063review both \u200bcases\u200c on Tuesday, providing \u200cclarity on the \u2062relationship between the government and online platforms under U.S.\u2064 law.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> How might the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in these cases \u2062impact \u2064the relationship between public officials\u2062 and citizens in the digital age?<\/h2>\n<p><span>  Citing First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear two significant cases regarding the ability of\u2064 public officials to block citizens on social media platforms. These cases, originating\u2063 from California and Michigan, have sparked debate on whether\u200d public officials infringe upon \u2062citizens&#8217; rights\u2062 by\u2062 blocking them from their social media accounts.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuits revolve around\u2063 instances where\u2064 public officials blocked individuals for making critical comments on their social media pages. However,\u200d lower\u2063 courts have issued conflicting rulings in \u200bthese\u200d cases. In California, \u2064an appeals court found that the \u200cofficials were indeed in violation of citizens&#8217; First Amendment rights. On the other hand, in Michigan, an appeals court ruled that the official in question was not\u200d at fault.<\/p>\n<p>The Biden administration has expressed support\u2064 for\u2062 public officials, as the Department \u2063of Justice (DOJ) argues \u2063that there should be a\u200d distinction between officials&#8217; personal and public lives.\u2063 The DOJ \u200demphasizes that\u2063 the government does not own or control the social media accounts involved in the lawsuits. This position raises\u200c important questions \u2064about the rights and responsibilities of public officials on social\u2062 media platforms.<\/p>\n<p>While social media has become an \u200dinstrumental tool\u200d for public officials to engage with constituents \u2063and disseminate information, \u200bit has also become\u2062 a forum for public discourse. \u200cAs such, the question arises as to what extent officials\u2064 can limit or control the \u200cspeech of citizens on their social media platforms. On one hand,\u2062 officials may \u2062argue that they have the right to manage the content on their personal accounts. On the other hand, citizens may contend that by blocking them,\u200d officials are limiting their ability to participate in public conversations and denying them their First \u200dAmendment rights.<\/p>\n<p>The\u200c Supreme Court&#8217;s decision\u200b in these\u2062 cases will\u200b have far-reaching implications for the relationship between public officials and citizens in the digital age. \u200bIt will establish precedent and provide\u200b clarity on the extent to which public officials can regulate speech on social media platforms. Regardless\u200d of\u200b the \u200coutcome, it is crucial to strike a balance between\u200c the rights\u200d of public officials to \u200bmanage\u200d their accounts and the \u200brights of citizens to\u2062 participate \u2064in public\u200b discourse.<\/p>\n<p>In an era where social media \u2063has become a\u2064 powerful tool for communication\u200d and\u200b connection, it is imperative to consider the broader implications of blocking citizens on these \u200cplatforms.\u200c The Supreme Court&#8217;s\u2062 rulings will shape the future of social media interactions between public officials and citizens and have a lasting impact on the boundaries of free speech in the digital realm.<\/p>\n<p>As the arguments unfold before \u200cthe Supreme Court, it is a reminder of the ongoing challenges posed by the \u200brapid evolution of \u2064technology and its effects on our democratic processes. \u2062The outcome of these cases will not only shape the role\u200c of public officials on social media but also contribute to the ongoing conversation on the intersection \u2064of technology, freedom\u200c of speech, and the First Amendment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court will review two lawsuits on Tuesday, examining whether public officials violating citizens&#8217; First Amendment rights by blocking them on social media. These cases, originating from California and Michigan, focus on the issue of public officials blocking individuals from their accounts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":186,"featured_media":2085856,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[543],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2085855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-epoch-times"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2085855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/186"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2085855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2085855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2085856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2085855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2085855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2085855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}