SOCIAL MEDIA

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine when, if ever, a politician may block someone from engaging with their social media posts. In this case, James Freed, a city manager, blocked Kevin Lindke from his personal Facebook page and removed Lindke’s comments criticizing Freed’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lindke contends that, because Freed posted about his official duties on his private page, Freed acted as a state official on it and therefore infringed Lindke’s First Amendment rights by blocking him. Freed disagrees, arguing that because Freed blocked Lindke on his personal account rather than his official account, he was not acting as a state official. The Court’s decision could define the scope of politicians’ responsibilities as the use of personal social media for political activity becomes more popular.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether certain government officials impermissibly used their government speech to coerce social media companies to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. The Court will analyze (1) whether the respondents have standing; (2) whether the government’s conduct violated the Respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the granted injunction was properly written. Murthy argues that (1) the respondents do not have standing because their injuries are not traceable to the government; (2) the government officials used their permissible government speech that did not contain any threats; and (3) the injunction is unnecessarily broad and vague and would harm the government and the public’s access to information. Missouri counters that (1) the Respondents have standing because their injuries are directly traceable to government officials and can be redressed; (2) the government officials’ unrelenting pressure crossed the line into impermissible speech that violated the Respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) the injunction is properly tailored to the harms that the Respondents suffered. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of the government to communicate with private entities, First Amendment rights, and social media content moderation policies. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case addresses whether Texas House Bill 20, which prohibits social media platforms from censoring users’ expressions, violates the First Amendment. NetChoice, the petitioner, argues that social media platforms need not display all user-submitted content because they are not common carriers that may not selectively disseminate speech. NetChoice further contends that the bill is a content-based regulation of speech that interferes with social media platforms’ editorial discretion, without achieving any compelling state interest. Texas counters that social media platforms are common carriers that must host all users’ speech because they provide equal and open-access services to users. Texas also contends that the bill preserves social media platforms’ right to express their views on posted content, and neutrally applies to all user expressions irrespective of their content because it only permits removing content outside of First Amendment protection. This case will significantly impact social media corporations and state governments because it determines the extent of latitude big social media corporations have in implementing content mediation policy. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if public officials engaged in state action by blocking individuals from their social media accounts that were established without official governmental authority but were used for job-related communication with the public. Petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane argue that their social media pages are not public fora, and their act of blocking individuals from their social media accounts is not a state action because they used personal discretion when exercising control over their accounts and did not base their act on state obligation or authority. Respondents Christopher and Kimberly Garnier counter that the petitioners engaged in state action because even if the government did not explicitly authorize such actions, public officials’ actions related to their roles are equivalent to state actions. Given the widespread use of social media among elected officials, the outcome of this case has significant implications for communication between officials and the public on social media platforms. Furthermore, the Supreme Court will strive to establish a workable standard to determine when the public officials’ non-governmental social media activities can constitute state action, resolving conflicts among circuit courts’ differing standards.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources