Supreme Court Examines First Amendment Implications of Public Officials Blocking Citizens on Social Media

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. During a Tuesday hearing, the Supreme Court considered whether public officials should be required to include disclaimers on their personal social media accounts and discussed various tests for determining when public officials blocking critics on personal social media accounts violates the First Amendment. The justices heard arguments from lawyers representing the petitioners and respondents in two cases involving public officials who blocked citizens on their personal social media accounts. In the first case, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that school board members Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane had violated the First Amendment when they blocked two parents, Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, on Facebook and Twitter after they posted long, often repetitive criticisms of the board. In the second case, Lindke v. Freed, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that James Freed, a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, hadn’t violated the First Amendment when he blocked Port Huron resident Kevin Lindke on Facebook after Lindke criticized his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Sixth Circuit held that there was no state action because Freed was operating the page on his own, not as part of his role as city manager, and he wasn’t using government funds to operate the page. O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane’s petition to the Supreme Court asked it to decide: “Whether a public official engages…Supreme Court Examines First Amendment Implications of Public Officials Blocking Citizens on Social Media