TrendTrackersNews

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the circumstances in which a public official can be sued for blocking a constituent on social media. Two cases involving local officials who blocked Facebook users for their comments have been referred back to lower courts for further action.

In the initial case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a unanimous ruling providing a two-part assessment for deciding if a government official’s social media posts can be attributed to the government and potentially result in legal action. The case involves a city manager from Port Huron, Michigan.

According to the latest regulations, for an official to be considered a state representative online, they must have the legitimate ability to communicate on behalf of the government and must have actually exercised that authority when using social media. If these requirements are fulfilled, individuals on social media can take legal action against public officials who have blocked them, putting these government employees under the scrutiny of the First Amendment.

heard arguments in both cases, known as Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, in October, during which they tackled questions of how elected officials interact with their constituents in the digital age, and when those interactions may infringe on free speech rights. The legal battles raised an issue that arose during former President Donald Trump’s presidency, when he was sued by some Twitter users who were blocked from interacting with his account. A federal appeals court said Trump’s move was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court wiped away the decision

After his term ended, the case was dismissed on his behalf.

An additional viewpoint in the second instance, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, was not signed and did not include any recorded disagreements.

Katie Fallow, senior counsel of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, commented that the court’s acknowledgement of the necessity for public officials to adhere to the First Amendment when utilizing personal social media accounts for official purposes, such as former President Trump’s Twitter account, was a source of gratification. Fallow also noted the court’s correct ruling that public officials cannot shield themselves from First Amendment consequences simply by using personal accounts for official dealings.

Barrett mentioned in a footnote that a blocked user on certain social media platforms may not have access to any posts from the public official who blocked them, although the Supreme Court’s opinion did not address Trump’s social media use.

The legal disputes currently being reviewed by the highest court in the country.

The initial issue involved Kevin Lindke, a Port Huron resident, and James Freed, the city manager. It began with comments that Lindke made on Freed’s Facebook page expressing dissatisfaction with how the city handled the COVID-19 crisis. Freed had initially set his Facebook profile to private, but later made it public when he became city manager in 2014. The page had listed him as a notable individual and included links to a Port Huron website, email address, and City Hall as the location of the page.

In his profile picture, Freed displayed a city manager’s pin and utilized his page to communicate news about city initiatives, his role as city manager, and, at the beginning of 2020, updates pertaining to the pandemic. He also shared personal updates.

Freed and Lindke exchanged comments on the city’s COVID response on the Facebook page, but Freed ultimately deleted the constituent’s comments and blocked all three of Lindke’s Facebook profiles used for posting responses.

Afterwards, Lindke filed a lawsuit claiming that his freedom of speech was violated by Freed’s actions of deleting his comments and blocking his accounts.

The federal district court sided with Freed, determining that his actions on Facebook were not under government control and therefore did not need to be subject to First Amendment review. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals supported this ruling and established a “duty-or-authority test,” which states that social media activity would only be subject to constitutional scrutiny if it falls under governmental responsibilities or relies on government authority.

The court determined that Freed was acting on his own behalf and not on behalf of the state. He was not obligated by any law to manage a Facebook page as part of his job, and he did not utilize government resources, such as staff, to maintain it, according to the 6th Circuit. Additionally, the appeals court ruled that the Facebook profile did not pertain to the city manager’s office.

Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff, the current president of the Poway Unified School District Board of Education, and T.J. Zane, a former board member, were involved in the second case. They both created public Facebook pages when they were running for positions on the school board in 2014. Additionally, O’Connor-Ratcliff had a public Twitter page.

According to court documents, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, who lived in San Diego County and had three children in the school district, regularly engaged with the board members’ social media accounts. Their comments and responses were often repetitive and unresponsive to the posts and tweets. For example, Christopher Garnier posted the same comment on 42 of O’Connor-Ratcliff’s posts and replied with the same message to 226 of her tweets.

After receiving comments, O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane banned the Garniers from accessing their social media profiles, leading the couple to file a lawsuit. The Garniers contended that the board members had infringed on their First Amendment privileges by blocking them on social media, arguing that these platforms are considered public domains.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the Garniers, stating that O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane’s blockage of them was considered a form of government action. The court determined that the board members utilized their social media pages in an official capacity by including their titles, identifying themselves as government representatives, and displaying a school district email address (in O’Connor-Ratcliff’s case).

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court and determined that the Garniers’ constitutional right to freedom of speech had been infringed upon. O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane used their social media accounts as public platforms while performing their official duties, thus operating under the authority of their positions and using these platforms to communicate about their work.

in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 has opened up the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections.

The decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC by the Supreme Court in 2010 has paved the way for unrestricted corporate funding in political campaigns.

According to Judge Barrett’s opinion for the entire court, the difference between personal actions and government actions depends on the actual content, not just how they are labeled: Non-government entities can act with government authority, and government officials also have personal lives and constitutional rights.

She highlighted the importance of both the appearance and functionality of a social media profile in one aspect of the new test, but also emphasized that the ability of a public official to represent the government is essential.

According to the court’s statement, Lindke believes that Freed has the ability to acquire the authority of the state on his own. However, it is crucial that the presence of state authority is genuine and not just an illusion.

Barrett stated that any supposed restriction of speech by a government representative must be linked to the content of that individual’s jurisdiction.

In order to abuse their authority, one must first hold power.

Potential sources of that power may come from written laws that authorize an official to speak on behalf of the state, Barrett wrote, and in some cases, “the post’s content and function might make the plaintiff’s argument a slam dunk.”

The court emphasized the second aspect of the test, which requires a public official to “purport to use” state authority. In cases where a public employee does not utilize their speech to advance their official duties, it is considered to be their personal expression.

Barrett emphasized the significance of the “characteristics of technology” in determining whether an individual is considered a “state actor.” This is especially important due to the varying ways in which a person may engage with a social media account, such as being blocked or having their comments deleted.

“If blocking access to all pages is the sole choice, a government representative may not be able to stop an individual from leaving comments on their personal posts without facing potential legal consequences for restricting comments on official posts as well,” she stated. “By neglecting to maintain a distinct personal account for personal posts, a public official opens themselves up to greater potential liability.”

Melissa Quinn

Source: cbsnews.com