When smashing the “block” button could be illegal

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a pair of cases challenging whether elected officials in the US are allowed to block constituents on their personal social media accounts. So you should probably keep your ex blocked – ordinary citizens are in the clear.

The cases involve locally-elected officials from California and Michigan, who stand accused of violating the First Amendment because they blocked some constituents on Facebook and Twitter after they left critical comments and replies on the officials’ public posts.

🗣 The arguments: At issue is whether social media posts from elected officials represent real-life town hall discussions – where First Amendment protections apply to all attendees/users – or whether they’re more akin to personal conversations held in private.

• The officials are arguing their social media accounts were created for personal use, meaning they didn’t engage in any government action when blocking other users – so the First Amendment isn’t at issue.
• The blocked users are claiming that, even though the social media accounts weren’t created by a government entity, they still identify the officials as public figures and were sometimes used to communicate in an official capacity. Thus, their posts essentially represent a public square where the First Amendment is in effect.

👀 Looking ahead… The Supreme Court is expected to levy a final decision in both cases by June 2024.

🏛️ Zoom out: If Washington DC were a restaurant, yesterday's special would've had a base of social media and salt. In addition to the Supreme Court news, a bipartisan group of senators (2R, 2D) unveiled a bill that would restrict US children between the ages of 13 and 18 from accessing social media without parental consent. It would also ban social media platforms from using algorithms to serve content to Americans under 18 years old.