Staff Reports
The Supreme Court, in a victory for free speech and common sense, has ruled that public officials are not violating the First Amendment by blocking users on social media. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a brilliant and courageous defender of the Constitution, wrote the opinion for Lindke v. Freed and made it clear that only when officials claim to be speaking on behalf of the government, does blocking users become a First Amendment issue.
#BREAKING: Supreme Court sets criteria for government officials blocking users on social media https://t.co/Crc2F4hrgh https://t.co/Crc2F4hrgh
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 15, 2024
The Court’s decision brings much-needed clarity to the issue of public officials’ social media use. As Justice Barrett rightly pointed out, it can be tricky to differentiate between official and personal speech on social media. This ruling ensures that officials will not be punished for expressing their own thoughts and opinions, as long as they’re not pretending to be speaking for the government.
In another fantastic move, the Court sent a similar case, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration using the new criteria. This shows that the Supreme Court is committed to protecting free speech and holding public officials accountable only when they are actually representing the government.
