US Supreme Court to hear cases on whether officials can block critics online

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court will weigh two cases regarding whether public officials in the United States can block critics online without violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the court said in an order list, reported Sputnik.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted petitions for writs of certiorari in two related cases, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed. The cases resulted in conflicting rulings from lower federal courts.

The petitioners in the first case, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, were members of a California school board who used their personal social media accounts to engage with the public.

The two officials eventually blocked respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier for allegedly spamming their posts with replies. The Garniers left comments alleging financial mismanagement and incidents of racism, according to court documents.

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of the Garniers, finding that the school board officials were participating in a public forum via social media.

In the second case, respondent James Freed, a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, similarly used social media to engage with the public. Kevin Lindke, the petitioner in the case and a resident of Port Huron, criticized the local government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Freed blocked Lindke and others, as well as removed their comments. The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of Freed, finding that he was acting in a personal capacity and not as a public official.

The Supreme Court will now determine whether public officials violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which prevents the government from restricting speech, by blocking individuals on social media.

The decision may be heard after the Supreme Court begins a new term in October. - BERNAMA