The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that public officials who post work and policy messages on their personal social media accounts are using those accounts for official business, and thus may be held liable if they block critics on those accounts. But the decision is not final: Instead, there’s a new test that the high court wants lower courts to consider.
There were two decisions on the same basic issue, but having been appealed to the Supreme Court though two different appeals courts.
One was the California case of O’Connor-Ratclif v. Garnier, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that school board members who blocked annoying parents from personal Facebook and Twitter accounts had violated the constituents’ First Amendment rights, because the elected officials were using their personal accounts to speak about the school board’s work.
In the other case, Lindke v. Freed, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Port Huron, Michigan’s city manager was not violating a citizen’s First Amendment rights when blocking someone from his personal page, even though he, too, used his personal page to comment on city business.
The high court agreed unanimously to send the Lindke v. Freed case back to the Sixth Circuit for reconsideration. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, penning the decision, said it was a difficult decision, “especially in a case involving a state or local official who routinely interacts with the public … Freed did not relinquish his First Amendment rights when he became city manager.”
The court likewise sent the O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to the Ninth Circuit for another look.
Both courts will be using the new Supreme Court test when reviewing their similar cases: Did the officials engage in governmental action on their personal social media pages if they had “actual authority to speak on behalf of the state on a particular matter” and “purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts” that were at the center of the lawsuit.
Barrett also said, “A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated personal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability.”
This week in Anchorage, former Sen. Lora Reinbold was in court defending herself against an Alaskan who said she was blocked from her official Facebook page.
“Alaska State Senator Lora Reinbold is suppressing free speech,” said the lawsuit filed in 2021 by the Northern Justice Project on behalf of Bobbie McDow, who has criticized Reinbold, of Eagle River, for her stance against forced masking policies during the Covid pandemic. The nonjury trial was in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Matthews on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, with Reinbold acting as her own attorney in her defense.
In January, Matthews ruled in a similar case of Rep. Kevin McCabe of Big Lake, who had been sued by valley resident Mark Kelsey over being blocked from McCabe’s Facebook page.
On two of three counts, the judge ruled that McCabe was acting in his official capacity when he blocked Kelsey; he ruled that McCabe’s official page was a public forum. The third question — did McCabe discriminate against Kelsey’s point of view — will go to trial after the legislative session. Kelsey is also represented by the Northern Justice Project.
Chris Constant and Forrest Dunbar have blocked 2/3rds of Alaska, you don’t see activist lawyers suing them. Hmmm, curious…
If I was an elected member I wouldn’t even possess a private social media account. One I’d be too busy hard work serving as a public servant. Two I’d delegate social media accounts and communication to Staff. that would be wise and smarter then the elected member don’t get in trouble talking too much nor be accused of improper conduct while their staff member put in charge over social media maintain professionalism and communication for the constituents of the elected representing the district including any other constituents who want to know about that elected member.
I always say this elected members shouldn’t even have private social media accounts.
“……If I was an elected member I wouldn’t even possess a private social media account…….”
When I was an employed official (neither elected or appointed) I would not have a social media account, and I still don’t. More, I’m incredibly amazed that they’re used by such officials in their political warfare against each other. I remember that this was started by Sarah Palin, and at the time I thought that it was incredibly dangerous, even though I understand that she did it because the official news media was twisting news coverage against her. This is part and parcel of the complete downfall of news media into informational warfare. There is only one direction for this theater of the cold war, and there is no recovery until after the hot war.
It would help everyone if the entitled generations would stop trolling – it would be okay and even well received if those disagreeing with McCabe’s & Reinbold’s positions would respectfully address the issue at hand instead of screaming. This idea applies to the lefty members too. We can have civil debate, but cancel culture and tantrums are not productive nor acceptable. I believe in free speech, but if you can’t yell “fire” falsely in a crowded movie theater (cliche’ example…) because it causes panic elected officials should be able to block the uncivil. No one likes to be screamed at, or lied to, or lied about.
Rich, your point is understood except for one thing. Please provide a precise definition of the word “uncivil” in this context, and precisely how it would be applied in each and every circumstance.
Comments are closed.