The cases forced the court to deal with the competing free speech rights of public officials and their constituents, all in a rapidly evolving virtual world.
They are among five social media cases on the court’s docket this term.
“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Barrett said.
Two parents, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, left critical comments and replies to posts on the board members’ accounts and were blocked.
Circuit Court of Appeals said the board members had violated the parents’ free speech rights by doing so.
Zane no longer serves on the school board.
The court’s other social media cases have a more partisan flavor.
The justices are evaluating Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.
Next week, the court is hearing a challenge from Missouri and Louisiana to the Biden administration’s efforts to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
Washington (AP) — The Supreme Court, which considered the matter for the first time in a case involving former President Donald Trump, decided unanimously on Friday that public officials may occasionally face legal action for removing their detractors from social media.
Officials who use their personal accounts to make public statements may not be able to remove comments about those statements or block critics completely, according to a court opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
State officials, however, have private lives and their own constitutional rights, according to Barrett. “.
The court made decisions in two cases involving lawsuits brought by people who were blocked after posting critical remarks on the social media accounts of a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, northeast of Detroit, and members of the school board in Southern California. They bear similarities to a case involving Trump and his choice to ban critics from his now-deleted personal Twitter account, X. Following Trump’s resignation in January 2021, the justices dismissed the case.
Due to the cases, the court was forced to consider the conflicting free speech rights of citizens and public officials in a virtual world that was changing quickly. Five social media cases are scheduled to be heard by the court this term, including these ones.
The high court rejected both of the appeals courts’ divergent conclusions regarding the blurring of the lines between personal and official accounts, sending the cases back to the lower courts to follow the criteria the justices established on Friday.
According to Barrett, it can be challenging to discern whether a government official’s social media posts about matters related to their job are official or private.
Barrett stated that in order for officials to be seen as effectively representing their governments, they must be authorized to speak on behalf of those governments and intend to use that authority. They must accept criticism in these situations, she wrote, or else they run the risk of legal action.
In one instance, James Freed, who was named the city manager of Port Huron in 2014, conversed with the public and narrated the specifics of his everyday life via the Facebook page he initially set up while still in college.
A local named Kevin Lindke made multiple comments on the page in 2020 from three different Facebook profiles, criticizing the city’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lindke’s comments were removed by Freed, who also blocked all three accounts. In Lindke’s lawsuit, the 6th U. s. The Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Freed, pointing out that he mentioned his roles as “husband, father, and city manager” on his Facebook page. “.
Two elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California were at issue in the other case. Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane communicated with the public through their personal Twitter and Facebook accounts. After making critical remarks and responding to posts on the board members’ accounts, two parents—Christopher and Kimberly Garnier—were blocked. The 9th U.S. S. The Board Members’ right to free speech had been infringed, according to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Zane is no longer a school board member.
Other social media cases before the court have a more partisan bent. The justices are considering legislation that was passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas that forbids major social media platforms from removing posts due to the opinions they represent. The laws, according to the tech companies, violate their First Amendment rights. Republicans believe that conservative opinions are disproportionately censored by the platforms, which is reflected in the laws.
Next week, the Biden administration’s attempts to counter contentious social media posts about COVID-19 and election security will be challenged in court by Missouri and Louisiana. The states contend that the Democratic administration has been pressuring the platforms to suppress conservative viewpoints in an unconstitutional manner.
The cases decided on Friday include O’Connor v. Garnier, 22–324; Lindke v. 22–611 Freed.
