Connect with us

International

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

Published

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.” 

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

Energy

Fresh Off Their Major Victory On Gas Export Terminals, Enviros Set Sights On New Target: Oil Exports

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

Months after President Joe Biden handed environmentalists a major win by pausing new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, activist groups are beginning to turn their attention to deepwater oil export hubs.

A coalition of 19 climate activist organizations — including the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Sunrise Movement’s New Orleans chapter — wrote a Thursday letter to Biden, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Maritime Administration Administrator Adm. Ann Phillips urging the administration to halt approvals of proposed deepwater crude oil export facilities. The letter signals that the environmental lobby is turning its attention to a new target after the White House opted to pause new LNG export hub approvals in January following a considerable activist campaign.

“The undersigned urge the White House and Department of Transportation (DOT) to halt and reevaluate its licensing review of proposed deepwater crude oil export facilities to update and ensure the validity of the agency’s “national interest” determinations and related Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) project review,” the activist groups wrote. “The licensing of massive deepwater crude oil exports leads to disastrous climate-disrupting pollution and environmental injustices and would lock in decades of fossil fuel dependence that undercut the pathway to a clean energy economy.”

Oil Export Terminals Letter by Nick Pope on Scribd

“At minimum, we ask the Administration to update its outdated analysis under the DWPA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the harms generated by expansive oil exports on the climate, as well as consequences for environmental justice communities along the Gulf Coast, and for the national interest in energy sufficiency,” they continued.

American oil exports are “key” to global supply, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting changes in global energy markets, according to Bloomberg News. The U.S. became a net oil exporter in 2020 for the first time since 1949, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and global oil demand is expected to grow through at least 2028, according to the International Energy Agency.

“It’s hard to call yourself a Climate President when more fossil fuels are being produced and exported by the U.S. than ever before,” James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement. “Approving massive oil export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico not only exacerbates our deadly fossil fuel addiction, but also blatantly disregards the health and wellbeing of environmental justice communities in the region. This administration is acting less like a beacon of hope and more like an enabler of dirty energy. It is time for a course correction towards real climate action.”

Biden handed environmental activists a huge victory when he paused approvals for new LNG export terminals in January, instructing his administration to closely examine the climate impacts of proposed facilities alongside economic and security considerations. The LNG pause stands as one of Biden’s biggest decisions on climate through his first term, and activists applauded the move while elected Republicans and the oil and gas industry have strongly opposed it.

Well-funded environmental organizations and young voters figure to be key bastions of support for Biden in the 2024 election cycle as he attempts to secure a second term in office and prevent the return of former President Donald Trump. While the Biden administration has spent more than $1 trillion and pushed stringent regulations to advance its sweeping climate agenda, most voters remain most concerned about the economy, inflation and immigration, with a much smaller share identifying climate change as the top issue facing the country, according to recent polling data.

Neither the White House nor the DOT responded immediately to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

illegal immigration

Texas governor, GOP blast Biden’s latest immigration plan

Published on

From The Center Square

Six months ahead of the November election, President Joe Biden is reportedly planning on proposing an “aggressive new immigration strategy” after more than at least 11 million foreign nationals have illegally entered the country during his tenure.

Democrats are preparing to launch an “aggressive new immigration strategy” ahead of the election, NBC News reported. Biden administration officials met with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and others to discuss ways to “force votes that Republicans would be likely to oppose,” on immigration and border security, according to the report.

The president is also “considering invoking a sweeping presidential authority to enact a broader restriction on asylum ahead of the election in November,” CBS News reported.

The strategy includes proposing a new asylum rule that claims to bar asylum seekers within days of illegal entry. It only applies to those who appear to be a “national security or public safety threat,” which is already federal law, according to reports.

U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, blasted the proposed asylum rule saying it “appears to be an unserious, politically motivated attempt to address a significant problem the Biden administration itself created. The proposed rule will only apply to illegal aliens who are believed to be either a national security or public safety threat. The rule will not impact or reduce the millions of illegitimate asylum claims being filed by economic migrants. The department currently cannot properly vet the vast majority of illegal aliens crossing the border, as numerous tragic reports from our communities make clear. The Biden administration, however, would have us believe that vetting under this rule will somehow be effective.”

The House committee noted that under the Biden administration, the asylum claim backlog exploded. Through the second quarter of fiscal 2021, pending asylum claims and those in the category of “withholding of removal” totaled 398,928, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data. By the first quarter of fiscal 2024, the backlog rose to 1.11 million, according to the most recent data. The new proposed rule, if implemented, would not have any impact on the existing backlog.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security does not have the resources or staff to adequately vet the unprecedented number of illegal border crossers continuing to enter the U.S, Green argues. Likewise, other governments do not share information about citizens coming from their countries with DHS, making it difficult to determine if someone is a national security threat or not, officials tell to The Center Square.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also criticized the proposal, saying, “President Biden inherited the most secure border with the lowest illegal immigration since last century. With the stroke of a pen, he proudly ended those secure border policies and opened the border to more than 11 million illegal immigrants from more than 150 different countries – including known terrorists, murderers, and rapists. Now, desperately grasping to salvage his failed presidency, President Biden attempts the most minimal action possible, hoping to mask the crisis he created.”

Abbott said Biden could have implemented border security measures years ago or not halted existing policies in place under former President Donald Trump. He said whatever the proposal is will “do nothing to slow the record-breaking” illegal entries but instead “sidesteps actually enforcing the laws already enacted by Congress.”

Abbott also said the president and his administration at every turn have fought Texas’ border security measures, known as Operation Lone Star.

“President Biden attacks Texas for simply doing what Congress compelled him to do,” he said. “Texas is building a border wall, installing hundreds of miles of razor wire and buoy barriers, and deploying thousands of Texas National Guard soldiers and Department of Public Safety troopers [to the border]. Our efforts have led to a substantial decline in illegal immigration into Texas while it remains on the rise in other border states. Operation Lone Star is working, and President Biden would do well to follow our lead, or get out of the way.”

Since Abbott launched OLS, Texas law enforcement officers have apprehended more than 509,000 illegal border crossers and made more than 42,300 criminal arrests, with more than 37,500 felony charges.

Under the Biden administration, record number of apprehensions of illegal border crossers were broken every year. In fiscal 2021, a record 1.9 million were apprehended, the highest number in U.S. history at the time. The number excluded those who evaded capture known as gotaways.

That record was broken in fiscal 2022, creating a new record of more than 2.7 million. This was again broken in fiscal 2023, surpassing 3.2 million, excluding gotaways.

In the first six months of fiscal 2024, a new record was broken of more than 1.7 million illegal border crossers, the greatest number for this time period in U.S. history, The Center Square reported.

Since fiscal 2021, a record 11 million foreign nationals reportedly illegally entered the U.S., including at least two million gotaways, The Center Square has reported. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA., said on Wednesday the total number was likely closer to 16 million.

Continue Reading

Trending

X