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

Crime

Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Two firefighters were killed and another wounded Sunday after a gunman opened fire on first responders tackling a blaze near Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The shooter was later found dead, and authorities believe the fire may have been set to lure crews into an ambush.

Key Details:

  • The ambush began around 2 p.m. local time as fire crews arrived at a brush fire and were met with sniper-style gunfire from a wooded area.
  • SWAT teams located the deceased suspect roughly five hours later, with a weapon nearby. His identity has not yet been released.
  • The Kootenai County Sheriff said the ongoing fire could not be addressed during the gunfight, calling the attack a “heinous direct assault” on first responders.

Diving Deeper:

A deadly ambush on Sunday afternoon left two Idaho firefighters dead and a third injured after they were shot while attempting to contain a brush fire on Canfield Mountain. The surprise attack reportedly began around 2 p.m., when bullets suddenly rained down on emergency crews from hidden positions in the wooded terrain near Coeur d’Alene.

Authorities now believe the blaze may have been deliberately set as bait. Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris described the situation as “an active sniper attack,” saying the scene quickly escalated into chaos with gunfire coming from multiple directions.

“We don’t know if there’s one, two, three or four [shooters],” Norris said in an early evening press conference. “I’m hoping that someone has a clear shot and is able to neutralize [the suspect], because they’re not showing any signs of surrendering.”

Roughly five hours after the first shots were fired, SWAT officers found a body next to a firearm along the Canfield Mountain Trail. Authorities have not confirmed whether the individual was the sole assailant, nor have they publicly identified the person. The FBI, along with state and local agencies, had been deployed to the scene to assist with the operation.

The two firefighters who died have not yet been named. The third, who sustained a gunshot wound, was transported to Kootenai Health and remains hospitalized. His current condition is unknown.

The firefight effectively halted efforts to contain the brush fire, which remained active late into Sunday. “It’s going to keep burning. We can’t put any resources on it right now,” Norris said during the standoff. Shelter-in-place orders were issued for the surrounding area, including the popular Canfield Mountain Trailhead, but those restrictions were lifted after the suspect was found dead.

Idaho Governor Brad Little reacted to the tragedy on social media, calling the ambush “a heinous direct assault on our brave firefighters.” He added, “Teresa and I are heartbroken. I ask all Idahoans to pray for them and their families as we wait to learn more.”

Federal and local officials are continuing to investigate the incident, including the origins of the fire and whether additional suspects may have been involved.

Continue Reading

International

President Xi Skips Key Summit, Adding Fuel to Ebbing Power Theories

Published on

First-ever BRICS absence deepens questions over internal CCP dissent

Chinese President Xi Jinping will skip the upcoming BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, the first time he has ever missed the gathering of major emerging powers—a development that will add to speculation that Xi’s power among elite Chinese Communist circles is being challenged by a faction publicly humiliated by Xi in 2022.

Beijing cited a “scheduling conflict,” according to multiple officials involved in summit planning, South China Morning Post has reported. But Xi’s absence—coming amid intensifying economic pressures and purges within the People’s Liberation Army—has triggered speculation that deeper internal political currents may be at play.

China’s delegation to Brazil will instead be led by Premier Li Qiang, marking the second time in under a year that Xi has delegated such a high-level multilateral forum. Observers note that Li also stood in for Xi at the G20 summit in India in 2023.

The BRICS platform is a key pillar of China’s push for a multipolar world, challenging the Western-led order.

The official explanation for Xi’s absence—that he has already met Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva twice in the past year—has done little to quell questions about the Chinese leader’s standing at home. Those concerns are being amplified by mounting signs of internal dissent within the Chinese Communist Party, as China’s economy falters and long-suppressed questions about Xi’s hardline tactics against the West, including mounting threats to invade Taiwan, gain traction with the reemergence of a sidelined political faction.

As detailed in a recent Jamestown Foundation analysis, Xi Jinping may be facing renewed political friction from within the Party’s elite ranks—specifically, the so-called Tuanpai, or Youth League faction, aligned with former president Hu Jintao and premier Wen Jiabao.

The history of the Xi-Hu rift is punctuated by a theatrical public humiliation: in October 2022, Hu Jintao was forcibly escorted from the closing session of the CCP’s 20th Party Congress. The moment was captured on live television and interpreted globally as Xi’s final symbolic purge of Hu’s faction. Hu, seated next to Xi Jinping, appeared to reach for documents on the table. Li Zhanshu, seated to Hu’s left, took the papers and placed them out of reach. Xi signaled, and two security staff approached Hu, gently lifting him from his seat and escorting him out. Hu appeared reluctant, attempting to retrieve the documents and briefly exchanging words with Xi. He also patted Premier Li Keqiang, a key figure in the Youth League faction, on the shoulder before leaving. The stunning incident lasted about 90 seconds.

Li died less than a year later, in October 2023, reportedly from a sudden heart attack while swimming in Shanghai. His unexpected death at age 68—soon after leaving office—was officially described as natural, but has fueled speculation among Chinese observers and dissidents, with some questioning the timing and circumstances.

Evidence of the Hu faction’s comeback emerged from the secretive Party retreat in Beidaihe in August 2023. According to Nikkei Asia, and later corroborated by additional sources, three senior Communist Party elders delivered pointed criticisms of Xi Jinping’s policies behind closed doors. All three had ties to the former Hu-Wen administration. Their intervention reportedly provoked visible frustration from Xi, according to individuals familiar with the meeting.

Hu pats Premier Li Keqiang, a key figure in the Youth League faction, on the shoulder, while being forcibly removed in a public purge. Li died in a swimming accident one year later.

In a possible gesture of appeasement—or vulnerability—Xi has more recently echoed terminology traditionally associated with Hu’s tenure. He invoked the phrase “scientific, democratic, and law-based policymaking,” a hallmark of Hu’s governing lexicon, signaling either rhetorical triangulation or a forced concession to resurgent internal pressures.

The most striking signal of renewed factional maneuvering is the quiet reemergence of Hu Chunhua, according to Jamestown’s analysis, the protégé of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao once viewed as a potential future president. Xi sidelined Hu Chunhua in 2022 by excluding him from the Politburo—an unprecedented break from succession norms. But in recent months, Hu has been deployed in high-level diplomatic missions typically reserved for top officials.

In April 2024, Hu led a Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference delegation to West Africa. The next month, he appeared at the Vietnamese Embassy to pay respects following the death of Vietnam’s former president—a role traditionally carried out by a Politburo-level official.

Xi’s sweeping anti-corruption purges in 2023—many of which targeted military figures linked to the Central Military Commission—have depleted some of his institutional backing. The Jamestown Foundation notes that these purges, rather than consolidating Xi’s grip, may have created new political openings for rivals.

Taken together with broader indicators of factional turbulence, Xi’s BRICS no-show feeds a growing intelligence narrative—shared by The Bureau’s expert sources in the United States and Taiwan—that China’s paramount leader, having consolidated power through sweeping purges, is now encountering mounting signs of blowback from within the Party.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X