Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly’s Post

Supreme Court rules on when public officials... Article, March 19, 2024 DINSMORE - Justin M. Burns and Keeley B. Gogul The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a warning to public officials regarding their use of social media. In a recent unanimous decision, the Court explained that public officials’ posts on social media can be considered “official” if they are related to government business, and that blocking or muting commenters on these posts could be a violation of the First Amendment. The Court’s analysis and warnings indicate that, in many cases, public officials can avoid First Amendment violation issues by properly labeling their personal social media pages and distinguishing them from their official pages1. This ruling is significant because it clarifies the legal status of public officials’ social media accounts and the extent to which they can be held accountable for their actions on these platforms. It also highlights the importance of free speech and the need to protect it, even in the context of social media. 1: JD Supra 2: MSN From Microsoft Start Partners #DINSMORE #MSN #TheFederalistSociety #SupremeCourt Supreme Court rules on when public officials...

The Supreme Court recently ruled on a First Amendment case involving public officials' use of social media. The case originated when James Freed, City Manager of Port Huron, blocked a citizen's comments on his personal Facebook account. The Court clarified that a public official's social media activity is considered state action only if they have authority to speak for the state. This ruling could impact communication norms for public officials using personal social media accounts for official purposes. https://ow.ly/PZQz50QUMCr #SCOTUS #FirstAmendment #SocialMedia #LegalNews

State legislatures run circles around Congress and Pluribus News runs sprints and marathons to keep up. This is just from one week on one beat — mine. We are tracking the market-moving trends, writing the stories and making sense of the patchwork. If you haven’t locked into us yet, now’s the time. There … is … so … much … happening … in … the … states! Utah legislators pass revised social media laws: https://lnkd.in/gi8qz3Zu DeSantis vetoes under-16 social media ban: https://lnkd.in/gmr_Unyp Ad opt-out bill introduced in California: https://lnkd.in/gE_mmeTj Porn filter bills pushed by anti-exploitation groups: https://lnkd.in/gdAQX-mw Supreme Court weighs Fla., Texas social media censorship: https://lnkd.in/gsJeqk6q

Supreme Court decision highlights potential clash between state regulation and First Amendment rights. https://lnkd.in/gT22HU2F The future of social media moderation in question. SCOTUS throws social media content moderation laws back to lower courts. Lower courts must consider broader First Amendment impact. #SocialMediaLaw #DigitalTransformation #ContentRegulation

The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a landmark ruling that clarifies the fine line between public officials' private speech and state action on social media. This decision addresses whether public officials can block constituents from their social media accounts in a digital age where social media platforms serve as key communication channels. Through the cases of O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, the Court established criteria to determine when such actions constitute state action, setting a precedent that will affect how public officials engage online. This ruling impacts the relationship between public figures and the public and sets guidelines for what constitutes official speech on social media. Explore the significant implications for public officials and constituents by reading these pivotal cases' details. Follow the link to our detailed article for an in-depth analysis and insights into the Supreme Court's decision. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gArG7nfq #BuelowVetter #Wisconsin #WisconsinAttorney #TheSolutionStartsHere #SupremeCourt #SocialMedia #PublicOfficalsAndSocialMedia #CourtRuling #CircuitSplit

We exist in a place and time when we all must be aware of potential litigious responses to our public words and actions. Social media presents yet another space in which we must stay vigilant of possible pitfalls. Grateful for Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo’s helpful summary of the US Supreme Court opinion in Lindke v. Freed. “…Parts of the Lindke opinion suggest precautions public agencies and officials should take to protect against similar lawsuits, including disclaimers on personal social media accounts. For example, the Court stated that if Freed’s Facebook account included a disclaimer stating it was his personal account, he would be entitled to a “heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption” that his activities were not state action. Officials may also speak on subject matters outside their jurisdiction with minimal risk of engaging in state action. The Court also noted an important distinction between blocking users and deleting individual comments on social media. A public official may engage in state action with respect to some, but not all the posts on their social media account. Deleting comments only on personal posts unrelated to government duties likely would not risk liability. However, blocking a user from commenting on any and all posts could constitute state action and create a risk of liability…” There’s more to this than what I’ve posted. Read this piece!!!

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have recently affirmed the dismissal of multiple false advertising cases, making clear that any ambiguity on the front of a package can be resolved by reference to the back label. The rulings give defendants a powerful tool to fight claims of deceptive labeling and have the potential to discourage plaintiffs from bringing suit based on a product’s front label.   In an article for Law360, Patterson Belknap Counsel Julie Simeone and Associate Megha Hoon review several of these rulings and explore takeaways for courts faced with future false advertising cases.   https://lnkd.in/e3zVT66k

Social media in local government is here to stay. In Lindke, Justice Barrett crafts the test for when government officials may violate civil rights with their own social media use. #law #constitutionallaw #socialmedia #unitedstatessupremecourt #USSC #municipal #city #county #agency #government #politics #facebook #instagram #tiktok #linkedin

The recent Supreme Court case on whether government officials can block critics on social media has captured my attention since last summer when I first learned about it in my Business Law Class at the University of Connecticut School of Business. The case raises an important question: is blocking social media critics a violation of First Amendment rights? Stay tuned for updates on this fascinating legal battle. #SupremeCourt #FirstAmendment #SocialMediaRights

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Lindke v. Freed marks a pivotal moment for local governments and social media use, clarifying when elected officials act as state actors under the First Amendment. This clarity comes from an objective test focusing on the official's authority and intent in their posts. It balances elected officials' free speech rights with citizen rights, providing guidance for local leaders on First Amendment application to their social media accounts. The ruling emphasizes the substance over appearance in social media activity, ensuring public officials can engage personally without overstepping their bounds, yet outlines how governmental authority and resources usage can indicate state action. https://lnkd.in/gPUATH3z