here's a less hysterical take: 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.” 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.
You're not blocked from reading, are you? Everyone can read it, correct? You're just blocked from if you're spamming personal accounts with your hate, the same block function that every user has, correct? That had to make some rules. This was an interesting case that merited debate on this forum, because we have a lot of smart people here. Also, this ruling is the exact reason why the hysteria over SCOTUS taking up the Trump immunity case was misunderstood. There needs to be lines drawn/rules made (the appeals court missed it here) and once the lines are drawn, the ruling gets sent back to district level to then apply them to Trump. Then Trump can appeal again to say the were misapplied. That immunity case was always going to take a very long time.
Sorry, I'm not explaining it well. This social media blocking case decision just came out and it's not some partisan thing - it was a real interesting case that deserved its own thread. It's complicated and fun. The ruling in this social media case is the reason why I thought the hysteria over "SCOTUS took forever to decide to take grant cert in the Trump immunity case to delay the trial and give Trump a win" was just BS headlines. Any executive branch official with a justiciable concern, and the money to fight the battles, would have been given the same treatment as Trump, in regards to the immunity case. No, SCOTUS is not going to rule for Trump, saying presidents are immune from everything, including assassinating political rivals; however, SCOTUS needs to define the lines of what type of actions are criminally immune and what type of actions are not. Hysteria writers argued that SCOTUS should have done that a month or two ago (everyone else was slow too up to this point, including the prosecution). Here's the comparison point. With regards to the social media case, SCOTUS didn't say whether or not these lawmakers violated the constitution - they just answered a question. SCOTUS answers questions. Now it goes all the way back down to the district court to have a trial with these answers/rules in mind. The losing side can then appeal the verdict of the district court. Long story short - the legal system is slow AF if you have the time and money to keep going. Let's say Trump loses the election and has the immunity trial next year. That thing isn't going to take two weeks. And it will be appealed. It was never going to fit before this year's election, even if SCOTUS granted cert a month before.
I’ve not been following the Freed case but interesting stuff. I’m curious if say I ran for Mayor of Minneapolis and won but then put a Poster on ignore because they kept on bad mouthing the Timberwolves would that be a violation of free speech?
I skimmed the ruling, but I'll try. Before becoming mayor, you can block whoever you want on FB, Twitter, or whatever account that has a block feature. After you become mayor, the new model looks like you SHOULD have separate accounts, to make it legally easy. On your rocketsjudoka personal account, you can continue to block anybody for any reason. On your Mayor Rocketsjudoka account, you cannot block anyone for any reason (I'm sure there are some block exceptions/allowances for spam and whatnot), because you are announcing government stuff on your official mayor account. Now, if you just keep one account, I think the new rule is if you're doing government stuff on your personal account, then your personal account will have to be treated with government account rules. So you can't just block everyone for whatever reason.
To clarify I’m saying if I keep my current clutchfans account that isn’t a social media site about Minnesota but where issues relating to Minnesota like George Floyd have been discussed. if I discuss policy on here about Minneapolis on D&D but put in ignore a poster whose been bad mounting the Timberwolves in NBA Dish would that be a violation of free speech under his rule?
I don't think so. You can ignore anyone. That is not the same as blocking the other user from posting.
The ignore function on Clutchfans is the same as the block function on other social media sites. They can still post but I can't see their posts. To note the Timberwolves play in a city owned facility and like other pro-sports teams do get special benefits regarding things like taxes.
Then I don't know. That's my ignorance. I thought government employees blocking user they don't like were actually preventing posts from public users from actually showing up in the thread. I need to read up more on that.
Loophole is you can do 'gov stuff' but say this is my personal opinion and not the government's. We see that plenty of times with journalists on social media. The content here is mine and not the NYT's. If someone still complains, I guess the court then has to judge if you are being honest or not. Think of Trump's "personal" social media account when he was POTUS. Not so straightforward. "Had Freed’s account carried a label (e.g., “this is the personal page of James R. Freed”) or a disclaimer (e.g., “the views expressed are strictly my own”), he would be entitled to a heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption that all of the posts on his page were personal. " https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf
if the user can post, then I don't think their free speech protections have been violated. put another way, there is no constitutional requirement to *see* a post. I could be wrong.
If someone gets blocked and as a result, misses seeing an official announcement, they won't know they were blocked.
in my experience, blocking someone means you can't see their posts; it does not typically mean they can't see yours. at least, that's how I think it works on this bbs.
This is what I’m wondering about in my mayor of Minneapolis example. Let’s say I make a Post saying “the T-Wolves are playing great and the city loves them. We need to do everything we can to keep them on target Center” And another poster posts “TWolves suck! Townes and Edwards are frauds!” Would blocking that poster be considered a violation of their free speech rights? In other words if I deliberately prevent myself from seeing posts made by that poster that is critical about the Minnesota Timberwolves are their rights to express criticism to an elected official violated?
Not likely in that case. I believe the tests are: The mayor must actually have authority over the subject matter (here, the Timberwolves) from law or custom. Even if they have some authority, the plaintiff must show the specific post about the Timberwolves purported to exercise that official authority, rather than just offering a personal opinion. If the blocking functionality prevented access to both official and personal posts indiscriminately, that increases the likelihood it could be viewed as an impermissible exercise of official authority over speech.
1. Target Center is owned by the city of Minneapolis and the T-wolves get tax and other breaks from the city to play there. While I as an individual fan might be expressing an opinion. As mayor I might be in an official position to act on what steps are taken to keep the team at Target Center.
This ruling seems like it could lead to some very interesting outcomes and am Surprised it’s not getting as much interests as other rulings.
