If the mayor has specific authority related to the Timberwolves granted by law (or long standing custom) and was exercising that authority in the post, it's more likely to violate the critic's free speech.
Another question. The “block” function is as initially created as a way to address cyber bullying and stalking. It’s since morphed into a way of just protecting someone from seeing posts they don’t agree with and make them uncomfortable. Under this ruling would it meant that elected officials not only have to see posts they don’t agree with but can also be cyber bullied? For example the ex spouse of an official would be able to continue to make post harassing the official on the official’s social media account?
This is what I’m getting t. That I as a fan of the T-Wolves posting on Clutchfans could not “ignore” a poster who hates the team if I’m also the mayor of Minneapolis.
Yep, that's how I read it. To clarify, I don't think the ruling considered this scenario. It seems quite reasonable that blocking harassment, cyberbullying, stalking, etc., can be exceptions, especially since I believe laws against harassment, stalking, and threats may also apply to online behaviors.
Not necessarily. Assuming you already have official authority related to the T-Wolves as part of your official duties, it still depends on whether you are making posts in your 'official capacity' as the mayor and not just a personal post as a fan. When you aren't sure, you can say, 'Views expressed are my own, my personal opinion.' I think gov officials will simply start having that disclaimer on their personal accounts with a separate official gov account (and a link to it from their personal account).
I think this is wrong per the ruling. This indicates that because blocking on FB is broad (preventing access to all posts), a court would have to consider if preventing a blocked user from seeing and commenting on any official government posts constitutes state action restricting free speech. I interpret that as you being prevented from exercising your speech (reactions/comments) on posts that you cannot see. "One last point: The nature of the technology matters to the state-action analysis. Freed performed two actions to Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) Opinion of the Court 15 which Lindke objected: He deleted Lindke’s comments and blocked him from commenting again. So far as deletion goes, the only relevant posts are those from which Lindke’s comments were removed. Blocking, however, is a different story. Because blocking operated on a page-wide basis, a court would have to consider whether Freed had engaged in state action with respect to any post on which Lindke wished to comment. The bluntness of Facebook’s blocking tool highlights the cost of a “mixed use” social-media ac count: If page-wide blocking is the only option, a public of ficial might be unable to prevent someone from commenting on his personal posts without risking liability for also preventing comments on his official posts.3 A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated per sonal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability."
Are you sure about this last part? I think you quoted an amicus earlier, not the decision. I still haven't read it yet, but intend to.
It's awful biased when the Supreme Court rushed to a decision in the ruling that Trump could appear on the ballot, yet delays the arguments for the immunity case for late April. Why so long? Well, then they can delay a decision by the end of June or sooner. Then, Trump will delay trial once again saying they need time to defend their case. It all reeks of bias, in doing all they can to help that sleazebag avoid justice. Trump has made it a habit to evade justice by delaying justice throughout his career. He reeks of corruption.
I've explained this already. It's not a 2-week and done trial. For the sake of the Constitution, let's assume Trump loses the election. Then there will be a federal trial about his actions after SCOTUS rules this summer on the rules of executive official immunity (how far it goes and for whom and for what type of acts). It's going to be a very long district court trial. After the ruling, which Trump should lose (assuming he's not president) because that's what the evidence is pointing towards, then Trump can appeal the ruling, based on the argument that his specific actions fit into the SCOTUS defined categories of immune. Again, it's not the public's right to a speedy trial, it's the defendant's, per the US Constitution. Trump's delays are the same as anyone else in his shoes arguing for executive branch immunity. As for the Colorado ruling, I actually lean towards SCOTUS getting it partially right and partially wrong, and that they were afraid to make waves. There's more to that thought, but I might be free later this week to dive into it. David French had a good NYT column that I mostly agree with about why SCOTUS messed up.
