The Supreme Court will soon consider two cases that could decide whether or not government officials can block their critics on their social networks. According to reports from several US media, the court agreed on Monday to deal with the appeals in two cases from California and Michigan. In it, citizens allege that officials violated their First Amendment right to free speech by banning them in response to critical comments on social media.
According to a New York Times report In one case, California couple Christopher and Kimberly Garnier believe that two members of the Poway Unified School District, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and TJ Zane, wrongly blocked them on Facebook and Twitter because they often wrote long and repetitive statements wrote critical comments. Meanwhile, in Michigan, a resident alleges that Port Huron City Manager James R. Freed violated his rights by banning him from Facebook for criticizing the pandemic measures.
Split lower instances
In previous instances, courts have decided differently. A federal judge sided with the Garniers in 2021. An appeals court upheld the decision, saying Poway Unified School District officials were using in an official capacity the social media accounts they set up during their election campaigns to communicate with their constituents about the school board’s activities.
In the school officials’ petition seeking a Supreme Court review in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, no. 22-324, states that their accounts are personal and were created and maintained “without any direction, funding, assistance or other involvement from the district.”
In the other case, a federal court ruled in 2021 for city manager Freed. He also won the appeals process the following year. Freed did not act in an official capacity when he blocked the critic, the judges in Lindke v. Freed, no. 22-611. He used the account to speak out on a variety of topics, some personally and some officially. Freed did not operate the site to perform any actual or apparent duty of his office, the court said. This case is now before the Supreme Court.
Precedent Donald Trump
The United States has long been concerned with the issue of blocking critics and freedom of expression on social media. For example, the then US President Donald Trump was accused of violating the right to freedom of expression by blocking critics from his Twitter account. In the Trump case, the New York Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that his Twitter account is a public forum from which he cannot ban people based on their views. Had the account been private, the court said, Trump could have blocked whoever he wanted. However, because he used the account in his official role as a government official, he was subject to the First Amendment.
Traditionally, US courts have ruled on whether or not government officials use their accounts for official purposes. Even a personal account that is used for official activities is therefore considered a public space in which criticism must be allowed. It is now up to the Supreme Court to finally clarify these questions.
(noun)
