The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases which could ultimately determine whether government officials have the ability to block their critics on social media. In California and Michigan, citizens are alleging that their First Amendment right to free speech was violated when officials banned them in response to critical comments on social media. In one of the cases, couple Christopher and Kimberly Garnier believe that two members of the Poway Unified School District wrongly blocked them on Facebook and Twitter. The officials argue that their accounts are personal and were created and maintained without any involvement from the district.
In previous instances, lower courts have decided differently. A federal judge sided with the Garniers in 2021, stating that the officials were using their social media accounts in an official capacity to communicate with their constituents. In Michigan, a federal court ruled in 2021 for city manager James R. Freed, stating that he did not act in an official capacity when he blocked the critic. This case is now before the Supreme Court.
The issue of blocking critics and freedom of expression on social media has been a topic of discussion for some time. Former US President Donald Trump was accused of violating the right to freedom of expression by blocking critics from his Twitter account. In the Trump case, the New York Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his Twitter account is a public forum from which he cannot ban people based on their views.
Traditionally, US courts have ruled on whether government officials use their accounts for official purposes. Even a personal account that is used for official activities is considered a public space where criticism must be allowed. The Supreme Court will clarify these questions in the upcoming cases.
