The digital age has altered the methods of interaction between government officials and the citizenry. Social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, have become preferred communication tools for officials looking to connect with constituents, announce updates, and engage in public debates.
However, with this transition also comes an often-blurred boundary between personal free expression and performance of government function-a theme that has led to intriguing legal questions. One of those questions landed before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Lindke v. Freed, which explored situations in which a city manager’s actions on Facebook may have violated a critic’s First Amendment rights in that the critic had been barred from commenting on the official’s page.
The question signalizing the Court’s consideration is whether the public official could declare the use of the social media platform private and thus devoid of First Amendment constraints, or such action was sufficiently representative to be deemed government action and be therefore-constitutionally-protected. The Court clearly ruled on the restrictions of public officials in blocking access to the social media profile and the authority that is granted them by virtue of their office.
Background on Lindke v. Freed
The case originated from the criticism that Lindke made against the local government. He posted comments on the Facebook page of Freed, the City Manager, who was responsible for overseeing the operations of the city. The Facebook page was meant to be used by Freed for both personal messages and for city-related posts. The emphasis for the most part, of course, was on his private life, but at times vignettes and bulletins were posted by Freed in connection with his responsibilities as the City Manager.
Freed deleted comments after Lindke had criticized him on this page and finally blocked Lindke from the page altogether. Lindke then sued, claiming that Freed’s Facebook page was a public forum and that by blocking him, Freed violated Lindke’s right to free expression under the First Amendment. Lindke contended that as a government official, Freed could not use the power of his office to block members of the public from a public forum, which he viewed as suppressing free speech.
Core Questions: Is Social Media a Public Forum? The heart of the matter lay this exigent question: Does a government official’s use of social media for public purposes constitute a public forum under First Amendment doctrine? It is First Amendment doctrine that guarantees free speech and prohibits government entities from interfering with that right in certain contexts. So, by logic, the First Amendment only applies to government actors, not to private individuals. Thus, the question at the heart of this dispute was, Was Freed’s Facebook activity done as a government official or as a private citizen?
In an opinion drafted by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court decided that whilst free speech in public forums is protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment is only invoked when the official is speaking in an official capacity. Justice Barrett further stated that whether or not a public official’s social media use will be considered state action is a very complex question, meriting a very careful examination of the facts and context of the official activity.
The Court further held that the First Amendment restrains governmental officials, but only when they act within the scope of their duties. If Freed were to be posting personal tidbits of every day, he’d be private, free to block or delete comments as he pleased. But in respect to posts that were about his duties as City Manager, Freed would be acting in his official capacity as a governmental official, and blocking Lindke could therefore be seen as an infringement on Lindke’s free speech in a public forum.
“Mixed Use” and the Need for Further Examamination
In the Lindke case, the Court observed that Freed’s use of Facebook was neither completely personal nor totally governmental. It was, instead, a “mixed-use” platform for his personal updates and official information. This muddied the waters as to drawing a simple line between private conduct and state action. To further delineate this, the Court showed how two major areas would need to be examined in future proceedings:
Actual authority of Freed to speak for the state
Did Freed, in posting on Facebook, exercise his state authority?
The Court noted that for Freed’s activity on social media to rise to state action, there would have had to exist a clear breakthrough indication on his part of exercising his authority as a public official when doing so with regard to city matters. Further, that Freed was actively posting about his role as City Manager would create a possibility that in communicating with the public on Facebook, Freed was doing so in his official capacity.
The Court’s ruling, therefore, was not on whether Freed’s conduct was violative of Lindke’s First Amendment rights but sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration. The lower court would need to adopt the factors instructed by the Supreme Court in determining first whether Freed’s conduct on Facebook was actually state action, and if so, whether it constituted an infringement of Lindke’s constitutional rights.
The broader context of this is the Garnier case. The Lindke case is not the only one. Another recent case on this subject was Garnier v. O’Connor-Ratcliff, involving whether public officials may block social media followers. According to the Ninth Circuit Court, the ruling was that the public official wins, and blocking a critic from a government official’s social media page does not violate the First Amendment. After Lindke, however, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling and remanded the matter for consideration.
These decisions reflect the view that the Court is scrutinizing how social media is used by public officials and desires to make clearer when their behavior constitutes state action and potentially abridges constitutional rights.
Social Media and Other Entities in the Future
As more government officials employ this method of communication, the legal ramifications of their online actions will only become more pressing and important. The Lindke v. Freed decision provides a lot of guidance for public officials and the public alike. Social media presents public officials with a great tool to express views, yet they run the risk of violating First Amendment law when doing so in the context of seeking to carry out official functions.
Truly, Lindke v. Freed shows that context is simply key in discussing social media interaction by any public official, an area where personal free speech is weighed against common good. Courts must keep some scrutiny on social media as an evolving public square, delineating its domain: when these officials are able to restrict access versus when their actions infringe upon the people’s rights to free speech.
