In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of public authorities to ban users under certain conditions on social media. Legislators in Michigan and California faced criticism for allegedly barring Facebook users who expressed disapproval of their policies, prompting this resolution. The majority decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, clarifies the circumstances under which public officials may control their social media presence and when they are deemed to be online actors for the state. Still, another connected opinion went unsigned and without disagreement.
An issue of whether public officials’ social media accounts should be considered private or as an extension of the government arose in the aforementioned instances, which brought important First Amendment considerations. This differentiation is especially important now that politicians often interact with citizens via social media.
When it comes to the attribution of official statements on social media, this decision sets a standard that other government officials must follow. The court stressed that public officials’ statements could be challenged under the First Amendment if they are seen as the official stance of the state. The ultimate decision on the applicability of this criterion to individual cases rests, however, with the subordinate courts.
This decision was based on two cases: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, which dealt with California school board members who barred parents who were critical of their district, and Lindke v. Freed, which dealt with a Michigan city manager who barred a resident who was critical of the state’s reaction to the epidemic. Even while there were some shared legal concerns, the details of each case were uniquely different.
T.J. Zane and Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff silenced parents who spoke up about racial tensions in the Poway Unified School District case. In a 9–0 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the parents that the government officials’ social media accounts were places of free speech.
James Freed, the municipal manager of Port Huron, Michigan, removed a Facebook post from an individual who had criticized the responses of the city to the epidemic. By concluding that Freed was not functioning in his official position while administering his page, the 6th US Court of Appeals sided with him.
This decision brings clarity to the limitations that the First Amendment places on public officials’ ability to engage with their people on social media.
