After SCOTUS Ruling: Can Mayor Q Still Block Social Media Critics?!?

Probably.

The now there's more of "a framework" for lower court to make a decision that might need to be updated as social media continually evolves.  

TKC is not a lawyer . . . We were actually pre-med . . . But it seems that the "personal account" defense MIGHT continue to serve as a way for any politico to bypass the letter and spirit of what SCOTUS said today. This benefits politicos on the low-end but might not work for politicos on the national level who want to garner more influence with a large-scale online presence.

Critics are calling this a victory. However, this is the best news passage we found today and it shows a more complex ruling that puts the burden back on lower courts . . . Check-it:

"In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the first case, which involves a city manager from Port Huron, Michigan, the court laid out a two-pronged test for determining when a public official's speech on social media is attributable to the government and can therefore lead to litigation.

"Under the new standard, an official is deemed a state actor online only if that official had 'actual authority to speak' on the government's behalf, and 'purported to exercise' that authority when speaking on social media. Social media users may then sue public officials for blocking them if those conditions are met, subjecting the government employees to First Amendment scrutiny.

"The court said the standard that it laid out in its opinion differs from those applied by lower courts in the two cases involving public officials who blocked constituents on social media, and it sent the disputes back for additional proceedings consistent with its decision."

Read more via www.TonysKansasCity.com link . . .

Supreme Court lays out new test for determining when public officials can be sued for blocking users on social media

The Supreme Court outlined in a unanimous opinion a new test for when a public official can be sued for blocking users on social media.

Supreme Court rules that public officials can block social media followers in some circumstances | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that public officials may block people on social media in certain limited circumstances in response to two challenges involving officials in Michigan and California who blocked followers who were critical of them on Facebook and X.

Supreme Court outlines when officials can be sued for blocking people on social media

Former President Donald Trump's frequent use of Twitter lurked in the background as the justices weighed whether an official's activities online can constitute government action.

Supreme Court: Blocking People on Facebook Can Violate the First Amendment | National Review

This is a bad result, and it is disappointing that it attracted no dissent across the Court's ideological lines.

Supreme Court tosses rulings on public officials' social media blockings

The Supreme Court clarified when public officials can block critical constituents from their personal profiles without violating their constitutional protections in a unanimous decision on Friday. After hearing appeals of two conflicting rulings - one filed against school board members in Southern California and another filed against the city manager of Port Huron, Mich.

Developing . . .