Supremes tweak free speech limits

| March 16, 2024

The Supreme Court decided Friday that there are indeed some internet limitations on free speech. But not like it sounds, they are restricting the ability to curtail it.

The decision was based on two lower court cases from California and Michigan in which it was ruled that public officials could block or ban critics on social media.

In unanimous decisions in two cases from California and Michigan, the justices set a new standard for determining if public officials acted in a governmental capacity when blocking critics on social media – a test to be applied in lawsuits accusing them of violating the First Amendment.

First Amendment protections for free speech generally constrain government actors, not private individuals. Under the new test, officials are considered to have engaged in governmental action 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.”

The justices threw out decisions by lower courts in the two cases involving lawsuits brought under the First Amendment by people who were blocked after posting criticisms on the social media accounts of local officials. The justices directed the lower courts to revisit the cases based on the new standard.

Blocking users is a function often employed on social media to stifle critics. Reuters

You may recall the hoo-rah when former President Trump blocked critics on X. That case was declared moot when he left office.

Basically, this seems to say if the government official is speaking/writing on a governmental matter or on something they had spoken on before as a government spokescritter, the Supremes are saying responses are free speech and blocking or banning the critics is not allowed. Essentially, for such governmental critters, it revokes their ability to use the “ban hammer” at will. Both the ACLU and the Cato Institute spoke in favor of the decision.

Small decision, possibly big implications.

 

Category: America, Supreme Court

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
5JC

Money says it happens anyway. Somebody tries to keep it secret, gets caught and only pays the price if they lean the wrong way.

ANCRN

More unanimous decisions from the court? I wonder what people think when we get all 9 justices acting in unison against them?

Mason

Going by the reaction to the recent ruling on the Trump ballot ban, they think the supremes are illegitimate and the proletariat much rise up in la revolucion.

5JC

They will keep saying they’re corrupt like they are now. However, undermining an institution only works if they have reason to care about it. As lifetime appointees they really don’t GAF.

KoB

Not to worry, despots. Soon as oblowme and Soroious start their (s)elected 4th term next year, they will get rid of that pesky Constitution AND the SCOTUS. Free speech will then get very costly.

5JC

Don’t threaten me with a good time. I’ve been hearing these promises for decades now.

Hack Stone

First they came for the Fourth Amendment, and I said nothing…

You know how the rest goes. How long before they revoke the 3rd Amendment? 🥴

Hack Stone

The Woke Left: Just because the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution does not mean that it cannot be revoked.

Also the Woke Left: You can’t ban abortions, they are a constitutional right.

Coming up on 250 years of doing things the correct way, then the Woke came along and ruined it for everyone.

rgr769

Yes, many communist countries have written constitutions that assert certain rights to their citizens. But they routinely violate those rights, as those constitutions are just pieces of paper. Their legal systems only do the bidding of their totalitarian governments.

Odie

It makes people head go boom when you ask them to point to where it’s written that they have a constitutional right for abortion, and even more fun when you inform them that since 1973 (?), nobody that I’m aware of has brought it up for a vote to amend the constitution.

Army-Air Force Guy

Kinda funny how they are vehement anti-originalists unless it comes to the 2A, then their perfectly fine with it.

Anna Puma

Shorter version from the Supreme Court – “You’re public officials doing government work. Nut up and suck it up buttercup. Or go home.”