Supreme Court Weighs In On Whom Public Officials Can Block On Social Media

The U.S. Supreme Court has RULED.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has spoken.

When it comes to the personal social media profiles pages of public officials, the decision was telling.

The court weighed in on the question of who has “actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter” as well when someone has “purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts.”

Barrett went on to explain more details about the recent decision.

“For social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority -- he must also purport to use it,” said Barrett.

The ruling is tied to the recent case of Michigan city manager James Freed, who was attacked online by Michigan resident Kevin Lindke

Lindke wrote comments criticizing Freed on Freed’s personal Facebook page which Freed then deleted.

Barrett says that “Lindke must show more than that Freed had some authority to communicate with residents on behalf of Port Huron. The alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within Freed’s bailiwick.”

Another California case has also touched on the topic in a similar scenario.

The high court referenced that matter, saying “Because the approach that the Ninth Circuit applied is different from the one we have elaborated in Lindke, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in that case.”

Notably, the Biden administration took the side of the public officials in both relevant cases, supporting their online blocking of critics.

It is just another example of a double standard set up by liberals who love to follow the "do as I say, not as I do” motto.

Do you think the SCOTUS ruling is appropriate?

How would you have ruled in both cases?

To read more about this story, click on the source here.