DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Public officials have new rules about blocking you on social media, SCOTUS decides
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-16 | by ( Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

SCOTUS on Friday established new rules for the social media accounts of public officials. AdvertisementThe US Supreme Court on Friday handed down a decision establishing new rules for how public officials must behave on social media. Accounts clearly marked as personal, even if run by a state official, are granted more leniency and protection under the First Amendment. Advertisement"The distinction between private conduct and state action turns on substance, not labels: Private parties can act with the authority of the State, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights," she continued. The issue of allowing public officials to block users on social media has been heard by the court before, when in 2017, Trump was challenged by the Knight Foundation over his choice to block critics on Twitter.

Persons: SCOTUS, —, Amy Coney Barrett, Kevin Lindke, James Freed, Freed, Lindke, Lucy, Husband, Jessie, Barrett, Trump, Friday's, Gary Lawkowski Organizations: Service, State, Knight Foundation, Twitter, Dhillon Locations: Detroit, Port Huron , Michigan, Port Huron , MI

☆ In shadow of Trump tweets, Supreme Court outlines when officials can be sued for social media use
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-15 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +5 min

The court ruled unanimously that officials can be deemed "state actors" when making use of social media and can therefore face litigation if they block or mute a member of the public. The court held that conduct on social media can be viewed as a state action when the official in question "possessed actual authority to speak on the state's behalf" and "purported to exercise that authority." While the officials in both cases have low profiles, the ruling will apply to all public officials who use social media to engage with the public. The cases raised the question of whether public officials' posts and other social media activity constitute part of their governmental functions. The court is wrestling with a whole series of social media-related free speech issues in its current term, which runs until June.

Persons: WASHINGTON —, Donald Trump's, Amy Coney Barrett, —, Barrett, Trump, Elon Musk, Michelle O'Connor, Ratcliff, T.J, Zane, Christopher, Kimberly Garnier, O'Connor, Christopher Garnier, James Freed, Kevin Lindke, Freed Organizations: Twitter, Poway Unified School District, of, Circuit, Southern District of, Port, U.S Locations: Southern California, Michigan, California, San Francisco, Southern District, Southern District of California, Port Huron City

The Authority of Law statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court at the start of the new term in Washington, U.S., October 2, 2023. The Supreme Court is tasked with deciding whether the public officials engaged in a "state action" in blocking critics from social media accounts or were merely acting in their personal capacity. The justices also are due to decide other important cases involving speech on social media during their current nine-month term. One involves a challenge to Republican-backed state laws limiting the ability of social media platforms to remove or moderate content deemed objectionable or misinformation. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that Zane and O'Connor-Ratcliff had presented their social media accounts as "channels of communication with the public" about school board business.

Persons: Evelyn Hockstein, Joe Biden's, Donald Trump's, Michelle O'Connor, Ratcliff, T.J, Zane, Christopher, Kimberly Garnier, O'Connor, Kevin Lindke, James Freed, Lindke, Freed, John Kruzel, Andrew Chung, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S, Supreme, REUTERS, WASHINGTON, Twitter, Facebook, Meta, Republican, Poway Unified School District, Circuit, Appeals, City, Thomson Locations: Washington , U.S, California, Michigan, Poway , California, Port Huron, Francisco, Cincinnati, New York

Blocking users is a function often employed on social media to stifle critics. The justices, hearing about three hours of arguments, focused on spelling out the circumstances for deciding whether public officials were acting in their personal capacity when blocking critics or engaged in a "state action." Conservative Justice Samuel Alito cited a hypothetical town manager who puts a municipal seal on his own social media page and tells citizens to express their views. Under this test, Mooppan argued, the social media activity of his clients was not governmental. Some justices asked whether requiring public officials to include disclaimers on their personal pages making clear their social media activity is not governmental would help disentangle their private and public capacities.

Persons: Samuel Alito, Alito, Hashim Mooppan, Mooppan, Elena Kagan, Donald Trump, " Kagan, Evelyn Hockstein, Trump, Joe Biden's, Michelle O'Connor, Ratcliff, T.J, Zane, Christopher, Kimberly Garnier, Kevin Lindke, James Freed, Freed, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, Victoria Ferres, Ferres, John Kruzel, Andrew Chung, Will Dunham Organizations: WASHINGTON, U.S, Supreme, Twitter, Facebook, Conservative, Liberal, REUTERS, Poway Unified School District, Circuit, Appeals, City, Thomson Locations: California, Michigan, Poway , California, Port Huron, Washington , U.S, San Francisco, Cincinnati, New York

At issue is whether a public official's social media activity can amount to governmental action bound by First Amendment limits on government regulation of speech. The Garniers sued O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane in federal court, claiming their free speech rights under the First Amendment were violated. Zane and O'Connor-Ratcliff each had public Facebook pages identifying them as government officials, according to the Garniers' court filing. O'Connor-Ratcliff also had a public Twitter profile. Circuit Court of Appeals last July agreed, finding that the school board members had presented their social media accounts as "channels of communication with the public" about school board business.

☆ Supreme Court takes up legal spat over public officials blocking people on social media
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-24 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +4 min

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 19: The Supreme Court of the United States, on Wednesday, April 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. But the legal dispute is the same: Can blocking someone on social media give rise to a free speech violation under the Constitution's First Amendment? It's a recurring question that has arisen at all levels of government as elected officials increasingly use social media to interact with voters. The appeals court concluded that the elected officials were acting in their official capacities and that social media accounts are akin to a public forum. The court also rejected the officials' argument that their social media pages were not official channels for members of the public to communicate with the government.

Search resuls for: "Kevin Lindke"

6 mentions found