BLOCKING HATERS MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Two years after the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against former President Trump for blocking users on Twitter, two new lawsuits have emerged, and the same legal question is being posed in each case: Is the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause violated when public officials block social media followers?
Recently, two California school board members, who prevented some parents from commenting on the members' Facebook pages, were sued. While in another case, Michigan City Manager James Freed was sued for blocking a resident who used Facebook to criticize Freed’s plan to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
The legal issue at the heart of these cases is whether public officials’ social media accounts are considered “public forums,” subject to First Amendments protections. The answer could significantly impact how public officials use social media use and clarify the scope of constitutional protections.
If their accounts are found to constitute “public forums,” then officials will be prohibited from blocking people, as that would violate the commentators’ First Amendment rights. But if judges determine otherwise, public officials will be able to censor reactions and commentary with wild abandon; leaving constituents (and other readers) with a grossly distorted perspective of the issues or matters addressed in those pages.
One thing is certain. Since social media continues to play an increasingly important role in information dissemination and public discourse, the need for clear guidelines on how these forums may be utilized by our political leaders and other government officials is now far greater than ever before.
# # #
SOURCE MATERIALS