IS SOCIAL MEDIA RAVAGING OR REINFORCING THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE?
By Alaina McWhirter
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.
Before social media, the people of the United States. This 鈥渞ight to criticize,鈥� as declared in , is a central tenet of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. Today, our nation has turned to . According to a , users receive their news from the social metaverse platform.. These ever-developing social media spaces facilitate public criticism of the government, and in turn, the government鈥檚 ability to limit this criticism is also concerningly convenient. Consequently, public officials have irrationally reacted to online critical speech and often resort to without considering the Constitutional violations such actions might amount to.
For example, while it is hard to believe that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former President Donald Trump would have anything in common, . Majority of those in the social media world may recall that both AOC and Trump notoriously intermingled personal remarks and official government business in their tweets, and as Justice Elena Kagan cited during oral arguments this week, 鈥�.鈥� Consequently, . .
Furthermore, in 2018, the State of Arkansas and State Senator Jason Rapert settled a lawsuit brought by American Atheists who alleged that . In August of 2022, the parties finally reached a settlement agreement that required Rapert to .
Cases like the above upturn when victims of the blocking and removal of comments view such acts as a form of censorship and viewpoint discrimination and subsequently as a violation of their First Amendment right to expression in a public forum. , the courts have obtained no definitive answer, and splits between the federal appeals courts have occurred.
, however, the Supreme Court heard for two cases testing the ability of public officials to block their critics on social media. both ask . In both cases, the plaintiffs have filed 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983 actions arguing that the act of blocking citizens from viewing or commenting on public officials鈥� social media accounts .
In , Lindke, a Port Huron, Michigan resident, commented negatively on the city manager, Freed鈥檚, . After viewing the comment, Freed deleted Lindke鈥檚 remarks and . Lindke sued Freed for blocking his comments on what was to be considered a 鈥済overnment鈥� Facebook page, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated, that this was not the first instance of this conduct by Freed, and that his removal and blocking of people and their comments have occurred for 鈥�.鈥�
In , two public school board of trustee members blocked two parents from their Facebook and Twitter accounts after they frequently posted comments critiquing the school district鈥檚 board of trustees. Both trustee鈥檚 accounts were created prior to their elections but were . The two trustees began to delete the critical comments by the Garniers and ultimately blocked the Garniers on Facebook and Twitter. The .
These issues have landed in the lap of the Supreme Court at a time when public officials across all local, state, and national governments have looked to social media as a . Furthermore, these cases present the Supreme Court with an opportunity to resolve the split between the federal appeals courts that has recently arisen . ? Or will the Court hold that using social media to communicate about official duties results in the social media page operating as a ? After close to three hours of oral arguments this week, the Justices focused on deciphering . The answer is in the Justices鈥� hands and an answer is expected by the end of June 2024. Obviously stated, this future ruling will greatly impact whether public officials can privatize their official social platforms and block their critics to ultimately give themselves a praise-worthy outward appearance. In the past, however, . While the resolution of these cases, in particular, is extremely desired, ; as Justice Clarence Thomas conceded early on that he is 鈥�.鈥�
Alaina McWhirter is a third-year law student at the William H. Bowen School of Law and also serves as an Executive Editor for the Arkansas Journal for Social Change and Public Service.