Threats and threatening messages

SCOTUS to Review Whether Public Officials Can Block Users on Social Media

APR 24 2023·Updated MAY 1 2023

Story

Image credit: Getty Images [via NBC News]

The Facts

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) agreed to take up two cases on whether public officials blocking people on social media violates the First Amendment — a recurring legal question that was left unresolved in a previous case involving former Pres. Trump's Twitter account.
NBC
In one case, Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, Mich., is appealing the decision of the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled that City Manager James Freed did not violate the First Amendment by blocking him after he left critical comments on Freed's Facebook page related to his COVID policies.
SCOTUSblog
In the other case out of California, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considered that two school board trustees who had created Facebook accounts for their campaigns, later updating them to reflect their new positions and share official board business, had crossed a line when blocking two parents of children for "repetitious and non-responsive" comments.
The Washington Times
While the Justices will hear both cases separately, they touch upon almost identical issues, with both involving public officials who created social media accounts personally and both contending that they did not use them for government purposes.
The Hill
Users in both cases argue that courts should assess a broad range of factors, including the accounts’ purpose and appearance, even if they aren’t technically created by a government entity. Oral arguments are expected this fall with decisions to be made by the end of June 2024.
The Hill
Though SCOTUS has already heard a similar case involving Trump, it sent the case back to the Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the case because, by then, he was no longer serving as president.
SCOTUSblog

Sources Split

LEFT

CENTER

RIGHT

ESTAB
CRIT

CENTER

PRO
ESTAB

The Spin

Narrative A

As government officials across the country are increasingly using social media to speak with constituents, it's time for the nation's highest court to establish the importance of allowing the people to communicate with their leaders unhindered. SCOTUS has already stated that digital platforms are "the modern town square," and that statement should be upheld in this and all future freedom of speech cases. Elected officials in America are duty-bound to the Constitution and must not be allowed to break that oath so long as they're in office.

Knight First Amendment Institute

Narrative B

Similar to a case involving a police officer, politicians shouldn't be judged based on how they present themselves on their private social media accounts. Trump lost his case because his personal Twitter account linked directly to the White House. However, if a personal account does not purport to be linked to an official office, it shouldn't necessarily receive the same scrutiny. These are novel and complex legal questions that should consider both the private rights and public duties of officeholders.