WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday regarding the issue of free speech rights in the digital age. The cases from California and Michigan revolve around the question of whether public officials can legally block others on social media platforms, a tactic often used to silence critics.
Lower courts have reached different conclusions in these cases, highlighting the legal uncertainty surrounding the application of the First Amendment’s limits on the government’s ability to restrict speech in the context of social media. Currently, arguments are ongoing at the Supreme Court.
The main question before the justices is whether blocking critics from public officials’ social media accounts constitutes “state action” or if it is merely an action taken in their personal capacity. The First Amendment restricts government actors but not private individuals.
The first case involves two public school board trustees from Poway, California who are appealing a lower court’s ruling that favored parents who sued them after being blocked from the officials’ personal accounts on X (formerly known as Twitter) and Facebook (owned by Meta Platforms).
The second case features a Michigan man who is appealing after a lower court rejected his lawsuit against a Port Huron city official who blocked him on Facebook.
In both cases, President Joe Biden’s administration has sided with the public officials, while free speech advocacy groups have urged the justices to support the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court previously faced a similar issue in 2021 with former President Donald Trump’s attempt to block critics on Twitter, but the case was deemed moot after his departure from office.
The Supreme Court is also set to address other important cases involving speech on social media in its current term. One of these cases challenges Republican-backed state laws that limit social media platforms’ ability to remove or moderate objectionable or misleading content. Another case aims to prevent the Biden administration from encouraging such content moderation.
In the California case, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, elected trustees of the Poway Unified School District, are involved. They blocked Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, parents of three students, after the couple posted numerous critical comments about issues like race and school finances.
Zane and O’Connor-Ratcliff both had public Facebook pages identifying them as government officials. The parents sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated.
A federal judge in California ruled in favor of the parents, which was later upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit argued that when state actors enter the virtual world and use their government status to create a forum for expression, the First Amendment applies.
In the Michigan case, Port Huron resident Kevin Lindke sued when City Manager James Freed blocked him from his public Facebook page following critical comments about the COVID-19 pandemic. Lindke alleged that Freed violated his First Amendment rights. Freed’s account also identified him as a public figure.
In 2021, a federal judge ruled in favor of Freed, a decision that was then supported by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 6th Circuit concluded that Freed’s blocking of Lindke did not constitute an official act.
(Reporting by John Kruzel and Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
