The Supreme Court has found itself mixed up in a debate around what constitutes free speech for elected officials, with no clear way out. Here’s the full story.
First Amendment Boundaries
The Supreme Court faced two cases that explored the boundaries of First Amendment rights for government officials using social media.
The cases of O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed raised a myriad of questions, from cat photos to casual grocery store discussions, alongside various proposed legal standards.
Similar Disputes
Yet, none of these seemed likely to offer a straightforward framework to guide public officials on their online behavior. Both cases share similarities.
Block, Stock and Two Smoking Cases
In O’Connor-Ratcliff, two California school board members blocked constituents on social media platforms, leading to lawsuits against them.
In Lindke, a Michigan city manager similarly blocked a member of the public on Facebook, resulting in legal action.
“Viewpoint Discrimination”
Typically, disputes concerning an individual’s choice to block another user on social media wouldn’t usually reach federal courts.
However, First Amendment regulations for public officials are stringent, hardly allowing “viewpoint discrimination.”
Constitutional Conundrum
Blocking someone due to differing opinions or preventing opposing views from appearing alongside their posts can raise substantial constitutional issues.
On the Clock?
In these cases, the core issue isn’t whether the officials violated the First Amendment but whether they acted within their authority as government officials when they blocked the offended parties.
Public or Private?
The Constitution only constrains government officials when they exert state authority. However, distinguishing between state action and private action online is an intricate challenge.
The Supreme Court has struggled with this matter for quite some time.
No Easy Answer
The Court acknowledged this challenge in the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison in 1974.
At the time, they stated, “The question whether particular conduct is ‘private,’ on the one hand, or ‘state action,’ on the other, frequently admits of no easy answer.”
Reservations
The Court expressed reservations about utilizing legal tests for offline situations in the online world.
Some advocated for considering that social media accounts belong to the officials themselves and not the government.
Social Media Space
However, the justices questioned this notion since social media platforms are virtual spaces with no physical property.
Some wondered whether it would be more fitting to view all social media accounts as the property of the platform provider rather than the individual or government entity linked to the account.
A Flexible Approach
Lower courts in these cases proposed different legal tests. The Ninth Circuit suggested a flexible approach, examining whether a government official seemed to be operating within the scope of their duties when posting online.
Rigid Testing
In contrast, the Sixth Circuit proposed a more rigid test that examined whether the official acted in accordance with an official “duty” or “authority” when posting online.
“Customary Duties”
Though most justices appeared to favor the Sixth Circuit’s approach, it brought its own set of problems, particularly concerning “customary duties.”
Online and Offline
Elected officials, for example, often engage with constituents both online and offline, discussing their jobs and government activities.
Determining which of these interactions constitute on-the-job communications and which do not has proven to be challenging.
Business or Pleasure?
Moreover, courts must address situations where government officials use the same social media accounts for both official business and personal content.
Fighting Like Cats and Dogs
Complex questions arose, such as whether blocking a constituent who posted negative comments about cat photos constituted a First Amendment violation.
A Daunting Task
Establishing a clear and definitive legal test for distinguishing between state and private actions online is proving to be a daunting task.
The outcome could have implications for public officials’ use of social media, limit constituents’ communication channels with the government, and potentially lead to a surge in lawsuits against online trolls if the Court fails to provide a clear legal framework.
Easy Solution
Online, the debate around what it considered state and private actions was also heating up.
One poster seemed to think they had solved the problem, posting, “Pretty easy solution. Public officials should be required to have a ‘work’ social media account and a ‘private’ one if they happen to use that platform as a private person.”
Lack of Trust
Other commenters found it unlikely the current Justices would be of much help, with one commenter posting, “How can anyone trust the Supreme Court after all the nonsense involving Thomas, and all the lies during the vetting hearings of the nominated judges prior to their appointments?”
Who Judges the Judges?
Another poster was even more cutting in their sarcastic response, stating, “They’re just waiting to find out what their wealthy benefactors want.”
President Biden’s Close Call” – First Lady’s Quick Thinking Rescues Him in a Public Mishap, Leaving Reporters Aghast
The First Lady of the United States, Jill Biden, emerged as the unlikely savior for her husband, President Joe Biden, as he faced a relentless barrage of questions regarding impeachment during his first public appearance following the startling announcement made by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. “President Biden’s Close Call” – First Lady’s Quick Thinking Rescues Him in a Public Mishap, Leaving Reporters Aghast
Supreme Court Shuts Down Challenge to Trump’s 2024 Presidential Eligibility Under 14th Amendment
In recent legal developments, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied several challenges to Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for the White House in 2024 based on the 14th amendment. Supreme Court Shuts Down Challenge to Trump’s 2024 Presidential Eligibility Under 14th Amendment
Trump’s Unprecedented and Shocking Confession Aired on LIVE TV – Is This the End of His Political Career?
In his Meet The Press interview, Trump may have unknowingly admitted to committing some serious crimes during the 2020 election campaign. Trump’s Unprecedented and Shocking Confession Aired on LIVE TV – Is This the End of His Political Career?
Trump’s Favored Judge Delivers Shocking Verdict, Sealing Trump’s Fate in a Controversial Turn of Events
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon recently issued an order clarifying the rules for handling classified information in former President Donald Trump’s ongoing legal battle about government documents found in his Mar-a-Lago estate, and some see it as a clear indication that Trump will be losing this case. Trump’s Favored Judge Delivers Shocking Verdict, Sealing Trump’s Fate in a Controversial Turn of Events
Top Democrat Abandons Biden’s Ship: Contemplates 2024 Challenge, Shaking Up Party Dynamics
Representative Dean Phillips, a prominent Democrat, has resigned from House Democratic leadership, citing his lack of belief in President Joe Biden’s candidacy for the 2024 elections. Top Democrat Abandons Biden’s Ship: Contemplates 2024 Challenge, Shaking Up Party Dynamics
The post “How Can Anyone Trust the Supreme Court?” – Supreme Court Justices Tackle the Thorny Issue of Online Free Speech Challenges first appeared on Mama Say What?!.
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / icedmocha. The people shown in the images are for illustrative purposes only, not tactual people featured in the story.
