Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Supreme Court unanimously rules that public officials can be sued for blocking critics on social media

Published

11 months ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett Justice noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an ‘ambiguous’ status because they mix official announcements with personal content.

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that government officials who post about work-related topics on their personal social media accounts can be held liable for violating the First Amendment rights of constituents by blocking their access or deleting their critical comments.  

In a 15-page opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the personal social media accounts of public officials often present an “ambiguous” status because they mix official announcements with personal content.

The court ruled in two cases where people were blocked after leaving critical comments on social media accounts of public officials.   

The first case involved two elected members of a California school board — the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees — who blocked concerned parents from their Facebook and Twitter accounts after leaving critical comments.  

The court upheld the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the board members had violated the parents’ free speech rights.    

The second case before the court concerned James Freed, Port Huron, Michigan’s city manager who had blocked constituent Kevin Lindke from commenting on his Facebook page after deleting his remarks about the city’s COVID-19 pandemic policies.  

Lindke believed that Freed had violated the First Amendment by doing so and sued Freed.  

Freed maintained that he launched his Facebook page long before becoming a public official, arguing that most of the content on his account concerned family-related matters.  

Justice Barrett explained: 

Like millions of Americans, James Freed maintained a Facebook account on which he posted about a wide range of  topics, including his family and his job. Like most of those Americans, Freed occasionally received unwelcome comments on his posts. In response, Freed took a step familiar to Facebook users: He deleted the comments and blocked those who made them.     

For most people with a Facebook account, that would  have been the end of it. But Kevin Lindke, one of the unwelcome commenters, sued Freed for violating his right to free speech. Because the First Amendment binds only the government, this claim is a nonstarter if Freed posted as a private citizen. Freed, however, is not only a private citizen but also the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan — and while Freed insists that his Facebook account was strictly personal, Lindke argues that Freed acted in his official capacity when he silenced Lindke’s speech.

When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media. 

In the end, the high court sent Lindke’s case back to the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court for a second look.  

Perhaps reflecting continued ambiguity following the court’s ruling, both defendant Freed and plaintiff Lindke declared victory. 

“I am very pleased with the outcome the justices came to,” Freed told ABC News in a statement. “The Court rejected the plaintiff’s appearance test and further refined a test for review by the Sixth Circuit. We are extremely confident we will prevail there once more.”  

Lindke was more effusive and told ABC News that he was “ecstatic” with the court’s decision.   

“A 9-0 decision is very decisive and is a clear indicator that public officials cannot hide behind personal social media accounts when discussing official business,” said Lindke.  

Legal experts called attention to the persistence of gray area in the law regarding social media due to the narrowness of the court’s decision. 

“This case doesn’t tell us much new about how to understand the liability of the 20 million people who work in local, state, administrative or federal government in the U.S. … just that the question is complicated,” Kate Klonick, an expert on online-platform regulation who teaches at St. John’s Law School, told The Washington Post.  

Katie Fallow, senior counsel for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,  told the Post that the court’s ruling does not sufficiently address public officials’ widespread use of personal “shadow accounts,” which constituents often perceive as official.  

Fallow said the court was “right to hold that public officials can’t immunize themselves from First Amendment liability merely by using their personal accounts to conduct official business.”  

We are disappointed, though, that the Court did not adopt the more practical test used by the majority of the courts of appeals, which appropriately balanced the free speech interests of public officials with those of the people who want to speak to them on their social media accounts. 

According to The Hill, the Biden administration and a bipartisan group of 17 states and National Republican Senatorial Committee sided with officials, arguing in favor of their blocks, while the ACLU backed the cons 

Friday’s ruling is only the first of several this term that deal with the relationship between government and social media.

“On Feb. 26, the justices heard argument[s] in a pair of challenges to controversial laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate large social-media companies,” explained Amy Howe on Scotusblog.com.  “And on Monday the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute alleging that the federal government violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove false or misleading content. Decisions in those cases are expected by summer.” 

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
conflict / 17 mins ago

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Health / 34 mins ago

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

National / 2 hours ago

Andrew Scheer exposes the Mark Carney Canadians should know

conflict

Hamas, Palestinians paraded dead babies coffins through streets before handover to Israel

Published on February 22, 2025

By

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Hamas paraded the caskets of Israeli hostages, including what they claimed were the bodies of a mother and two young children, through the streets of Gaza before handing them over to the Red Cross. Videos show crowds cheering as armed terrorists carried the coffins as part of a prisoner exchange with Israel.

Key Details:

  • Videos from Khan Younis, Gaza, show Hamas and other terrorists parading four caskets, including those of two young children, before handing them to the Red Cross.
  • Crowds cheered as the terrorists, armed and unmasked, carried the coffins, with celebratory music playing in the background.
  • The deceased were identified as members of the Bibas family, including the youngest hostages from the October 7 attack.

 

Diving Deeper:

During a ceremony in Khan Younis, Gaza, Hamas paraded the caskets of Israeli hostages through the streets, including what they claimed were the bodies of a mother and her two small children. The display occurred before the remains were handed over to the Red Cross as part of a prisoner exchange agreement with Israel. Crowds of Gazans were seen cheering and celebrating as the coffins were carried by armed terrorists.

Videos from the event show masked militants loading a casket into a Red Cross aid truck, while another militant, adorned with symbols of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, filmed the procession. Another video shows adults and children waving and celebrating as Hamas fighters, armed and in trucks, paraded through the streets. Reuters footage also captured members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP) helping carry a casket, highlighting the involvement of multiple terrorist factions in the display.

Hamas presented the bodies as those of the Bibas family, who were captured during the October 7 attack. The children, aged four years and less than one year, were among the youngest hostages taken during the brutal assault that triggered the ongoing 15-month conflict. The fourth body was identified as 83-year-old Oded Lifshitz, according to Jewish News Syndicate. Hamas has repeatedly blamed the deaths on Israeli airstrikes, though no evidence was provided to support the claim.

Israel and Hamas are currently observing a temporary ceasefire agreement, facilitating the exchange of civilian hostages for Palestinian prisoners. Despite the ceasefire, Hamas has continued to celebrate the October 7 attacks, which resulted in the largest mass killing of Jewish people since the Holocaust. During the ceremony, a stage displayed a poster depicting Israel as a “Nazi Army,” underscoring Hamas’s longstanding agenda of hostility towards the Jewish state.

The shocking parade of caskets, accompanied by celebratory music and cheering crowds, has drawn international condemnation and further underscored the brutal nature of Hamas’s actions. As the exchange process continues, the emotional toll on the families of the victims remains immeasurable.

Continue Reading

Health

RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B

Published on February 22, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

‘Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted from having sex with multiple partners in gay sex, or from sex workers, or intravenous drug use,’ explained the new HHS head. ‘Why would you give that to a baby?’

In a widely-viewed video shared on social media, the new U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., asserted that the majority of vaccines — including those he sees as unjustifiably being mandated for infants — have been developed primarily to create profits for Big Pharma.    

“Most of the vaccines after 1989 were added not for public health reasons but for pharmaceutical profit reasons,” said Kennedy.    

“Why are we vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B?” he asked. 

“Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted from having sex with multiple partners in gay sex, or from sex workers, or intravenous drug use,” he said, reemphasizing, “Why would you give that to a baby?” 

According to Kennedy, Pharmaceutical giant Merck was directed by both the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to develop the Hepatitis B vaccine for “those vulnerable populations.”    

He explained that when those populations showed little interest in the vaccine, “Merck went back to the agencies and said ‘You told us to develop this vaccine, but nobody’s buying it.”  

“The CDC said, ‘Don’t worry’” recounted Kennedy, “we’ll just recommend it for children and we’ll force everybody to buy it.”     

“So, that’s how it got on the [childhood vaccine] schedule,” he said, declaring, “There’s no medical justification.”   

There’s no downstream liability, there’s no front-end safety testing – that saves them a quarter billion dollars – and there’s no marketing and advertising costs, because the federal government is ordering 78 million school kids to take that vaccine every year.  

What better product could you have? And so there was a gold rush to add all these new vaccines to the schedule that we don’t need. Most of these vaccines are unnecessary. Many of them are for diseases that are not even casually contagious.  

It was a gold rush, because if you get onto that schedule, it’s a billion dollars a year for your company.  

And in many cases, NIH is earning the royalties. 

According to Kennedy, more obscene than the huge profits being horded by Big Pharma are the vast number of negative side-effects from all those untested vaccines. 

“Neurological diseases” have “exploded,” he said. 

“ADHD, sleep disorders, language delays, ASD, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, ticks, narcolepsy. These are all things that I never heard of,” said Kennedy. “Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation according to CDC data to one in every 34 kids today.” 

Kennedy is known for vehemently opposing vaccines without proper knowledge for those taking them, a stance he adopted after the mothers of vaccine-injured children implored him to look into the research linking thimerosal to neurological injuries, including autism. He went on to found Children’s Health Defense, an organization with the stated mission of “ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure,” largely through vaccines. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X