Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court in the lead case, said two things are required before officials may be sued by people they have blocked. The officials must have been empowered to speak for the government on the issues they addressed on their sites, she wrote, and they must have used that authority in the posts in question.<\/p>\n

The court did not apply the new standard to the cases before them, involving a city manager in Port Huron, Mich., and two members of a school board in California. Instead, it returned the cases to lower courts to perform that task.<\/p>\n

The cases were the first of several this term in which the Supreme Court is considering how the First Amendment applies to social media. The court heard arguments last month on whether states may prohibit large technology platforms from removing posts based on the views they express, and it will consider on Monday whether Biden administration officials may contact social media platforms to combat what they say is misinformation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

The cases on Friday were less significant than the others, and the tentativeness of the two rulings demonstrated the difficulty of applying old doctrines to new technology.<\/p>\n

In both cases, the question was whether the officials\u2019 use of the accounts amounted to state action, which is governed by the First Amendment, or private activity, which is not.<\/p>\n

The one involving the city manager, Lindke v. Freed, No. 22-611, concerned the public Facebook page of James R. Freed, which he used to comment on a variety of subjects, some personal and some official.<\/p>\n

Justice Barrett described the mixed messages on Mr. Freed\u2019s page. \u201cFor his profile picture, Freed chose a photo of himself in a suit with a city lapel pin,\u201d she wrote. \u201cIn the \u2018about\u2019 section, Freed added his title, a link to the city\u2019s website and the city\u2019s general email address. He described himself as \u2018Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie and City Manager, Chief Administrative Officer for the citizens of Port Huron, Mich.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Freed, the justice wrote, \u201cposted prolifically (and primarily) about his personal life.\u201d But he also posted information about his work.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

\u201cHe shared news about the city\u2019s efforts to streamline leaf pickup and stabilize water intake from a local river,\u201d Justice Barrett wrote. \u201cHe highlighted communications from other city officials, like a press release from the fire chief and an annual financial report from the finance department. On occasion, Freed solicited feedback from the public \u2014 for instance, he once posted a link to a city survey about housing and encouraged his audience to complete it.\u201d<\/p>\n

During the coronavirus pandemic, Mr. Freed wrote about the city\u2019s response. Those posts prompted critical comments from a resident, Kevin Lindke, whom Mr. Freed eventually blocked.<\/p>\n

Mr. Lindke sued and lost. Judge Amul R. Thapar, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said Mr. Freed\u2019s Facebook account was personal, meaning the First Amendment had no role to play.<\/p>\n

\u201cFreed did not operate his page to fulfill any actual or apparent duty of his office,\u201d Judge Thapar wrote. \u201cAnd he did not use his governmental authority to maintain it. Thus, he was acting in his personal capacity \u2014 and there was no state action.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Barrett wrote that \u201cthe question is difficult, especially in a case involving a state or local official who routinely interacts with the public.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

\u201cThe distinction between private conduct and state action,\u201d she added, \u201cturns on substance, not labels: Private parties can act with the authority of the state, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights. Categorizing conduct, therefore, can require a close look.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s treatment of the second case, in an unsigned three-page opinion, was even more cryptic, sending the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the one involving Mr. Freed.<\/p>\n

That case, O\u2019Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, No. 22-324, concerned the Facebook and Twitter accounts of two members of the Poway Unified School District in California, Michelle O\u2019Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane. They used the accounts, created during their campaigns, to communicate with their constituents about activities of the school board, invite them to public meetings, ask for comments on the board\u2019s activities and discuss safety issues in the schools.<\/p>\n

Two parents, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, frequently posted lengthy and repetitive critical comments, and the officials eventually blocked them. The parents sued, and lower courts ruled in their favor.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have little doubt that social media will continue to play an essential role in hosting public debate and facilitating the free expression that lies at the heart of the First Amendment,\u201d Judge Marsha S. Berzon wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. \u201cWhen state actors enter that virtual world and invoke their government status to create a forum for such expression, the First Amendment enters with them.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court, in a pair of unanimous decisions on Friday, added some clarity to a vexing constitutional puzzle: how to decide when elected officials violate the First Amendment by blocking people from their social media accounts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court in the lead case, said two things are required before<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":46339,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46338"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46338\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/46339"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manitimes.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}