- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS: Public officials can be held liable for blocking critics on social media
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:38 pm
quote:
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics, only when they have the power to speak on behalf of the state and are actually exercising that power.
The court’s decisions came in a pair of cases, involving local officials in California and Michigan who blocked constituents who made repetitive and critical comments on their personal social media accounts. In O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that two school board members violated the First Amendment when they blocked two parents from their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts, which they used to provide information about the board and its work. The court of appeals reasoned that there was a “close nexus between the Trustees’ use of their social media pages and their official positions.”
quote:
But in Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that because James Freed, the Port Huron city manager, maintained his Facebook page on his own rather than as part of his job, he was not acting as a government official when he blocked a city resident – and therefore there was no First Amendment violation.
In a unanimous decision on Friday by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices sent Freed’s case back for another look. Barrett acknowledged that the question before the court was a “difficult” one, “especially in a case involving a state or local official who routinely interacts with the public.” Although such officials can act on the government’s behalf, she reasoned, “Freed did not relinquish his First Amendment rights when he became city manager.”
Instead, Barrett explained, a government official’s social media posts can be attributed to the government only if the official had the authority to speak on behalf of the government and was exercising that power when he created the social media post at the center of the dispute. In a case like Freed’s, Barrett continued, involving a social media page with both personal and official posts, making such a determination will require “a fact-specific undertaking in which the post’s content and function are the most important considerations.”
Barrett also cautioned that the “nature of the technology matters” when determining whether an official acted on behalf of the government: Although deleting comments allows an official to target only personal posts, blocking someone from a social media page that contains both personal and official posts could also prevent someone from commenting on official posts. “A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated personal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability,” she warned.
In a brief unsigned opinion that followed Barrett’s decision in Freed’s case, the justices sent O’Connor-Ratcliff back to the 9th Circuit for it to take another look using the new test.
Friday’s ruling is the first of several expected this term involving the relationship between government and social media. On Feb. 26, the justices heard argument in a pair of challenges to controversial laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate large social-media companies. And on Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute alleging that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove false or misleading content. Decisions in those cases are expected by summer.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/public-officials-can-be-held-liable-for-blocking-critics-on-social-media/
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:41 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
This is a terrible ruling, but, Mandie Landry can suck it for me schooling her on this precedent year ago (on Facebook of all places).
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:45 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
Can we sue government officials for coordinating with social media companies that censor speech government does not like?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a terrible ruling
How?
Government officials have the 1A right to say things as they wish in a public forum. So why shouldn't the public at large have the right to respond as they wish in the same public forum?
Violation of free speech is never ok. Even "hurtful" free speech, is still free speech. Silencing dissent is a tenet of Marxism, Communism, Etatism and Totalitarianism. This ruling was correct.
If you open your mouth, even in an online capacity, you have the right to be criticized and/or praised. Even if you keep your mouth shut, the 1A still leaves you open to criticism and praise. This is still America after all, for the time being.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:55 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Government officials have the 1A right to say things as they wish in a public forum. So why shouldn't the public at large have the right to respond as they wish in the same public forum?
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention. They are not "public forums" in any way.
quote:
Violation of free speech is never ok. Even "hurtful" free speech, is still free speech. Silencing dissent is a tenet of Marxism, Communism, Etatism and Totalitarianism. This ruling was correct.
This isn't a free speech issue.
quote:
If you open your mouth, even in an online capacity, you have the right to be criticized and/or praised. Even if you keep your mouth shut, the 1A still leaves you open to criticism and praise. This is still America after all, for the time being.
This has nothing to do with the ruling. No regulation was in place to prevent anyone from responding via their own accounts
This post was edited on 3/15/24 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:56 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
They already ruled Trump, as president, couldn't block people on twitter so this just extends it out to all elected officials. They should have gone a step further and said that social media companies cannot ban elected officials since that prohibits the public from hearing their official statements.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:57 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
They should have gone a step further and said that social media companies cannot ban elected officials
That's part of the can of worms opened by that initial Trump ruling
Posted on 3/15/24 at 6:35 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
They should have gone a step further and said that social media companies cannot ban elected officials since that prohibits the public from hearing their official statements
They still want to be able to do that to the politicians with the wrong message from the wrong party though
This post was edited on 3/15/24 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 3/15/24 at 7:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
For someone who harps on using precedents for his arguments, you sure don’t have a lot of regard for the precedents your arguments would set…
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a terrible ruling
quote:
me schooling her
I dont even think you read what you post
You schooled someone on a terrible outcome? And then claim a win?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 10:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention. They are not "public forums" in any way.
Jack Dorsey said Twitter was a "digital public square." The CEO of one of the largest social media companies thinks his platform was a public forum.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 10:54 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Jack Dorsey said Twitter was a "digital public square." The CEO of one of the largest social media companies thinks his platform was a public forum.
Then all of the data relating to this "public square" should also be publicly accessible. The traffic, proprietary analytics, user data, etc is therefore public.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 10:55 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
You schooled someone on a terrible outcome? And then claim a win?
Just because it's a bad outcome doesn't mean that not explainable. Roe was a stupid decision but a person of intelligence could explain the law it created.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 10:59 pm to DByrd2
quote:
you sure don’t have a lot of regard for the precedents your arguments would set…
The court is the one who likes the foresight and they made a terrible decision years ago with Trump and now they're doubling down. They're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and it doesn't make sense and is going to create a gordian knot and lots of unintended consequences. They are forcing private companies into the regulatory space of public rights, but will pick and choose randomly in the future what this applies to, which indicates they don't really have a strong basis (possibly belief) in the ruling. It's a results-oriented decision. Courts are not good at grappling with technology and our Constitution.n
Posted on 3/16/24 at 12:18 am to SlowFlowPro
That reasoning might apply if the private social media company banned or restricted speech but in these cases it is the government official banning users.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 1:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a terrible ruling
It read like a very reasonable ruling to me.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 5:41 am to TigerAxeOK
Whats going to happen is governments will simply not allow any comments on social media posts.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 5:44 am to prplhze2000
Biden’s wh shuts down comments already on wh yt
Posted on 3/16/24 at 5:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention. They are not "public forums" in any way.
This is like saying that if you go into a town square and use a megaphone to broadcast your message, that it's no longer public.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 5:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:This endorsement is all I need to see (without even reading the details) to know that the ruling is a very good one.
This is a terrible ruling
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News