Research summary
Research summary
Topic summary
Holdings that reject the proposition, each with the opinion cited.
Important claims and supporting citations
If an official operates a Facebook page in an official capacity, blocking a constituent is state action that violates the First Amendment unless it survives strict scrutiny.
Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a public official's social media activity constitutes state action subject to the First Amendment only if the official possessed actual authority to speak on the government's behalf and purported to exercise that authority on social media.
In O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a Ninth Circuit decision regarding school board trustees blocking parents on social media, requiring reconsideration under the Lindke framework.
The Supreme Court noted that blocking a user on Facebook prevents them from commenting on all of the official's posts, not just those concerning official business.
Government institutions have a substantial interest in protecting the expression of unpopular ideas, as they function as 'nurseries of democracy' that must tolerate sharp constituent critiques.
Blocking a constituent from an official channel as a reprisal for dissent constitutes a First Amendment retaliation violation.
The Supreme Court prohibits government officials from using standardless discretion to exclude speakers, as this creates an intolerable risk of arbitrary censorship.
Public officials cannot justify blocking constituent comments on the basis of offensiveness, as the First Amendment protects the freedom to express unpopular viewpoints.
View all claims (text)
Claims
Claim text is for reading and citation. Bulk copying and AI training need a licensed maps data API key. Markdown
Blocking a constituent from an official channel as a reprisal for dissent constitutes a First Amendment retal…
Blocking a constituent from an official channel as a reprisal for dissent constitutes a First Amendment retaliation violation.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court prohibits government officials from using standardless discretion to exclude speakers, as t…
The Supreme Court prohibits government officials from using standardless discretion to exclude speakers, as this creates an intolerable risk of arbitrary censorship.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court established in West v.
The Supreme Court established in West v. Atkins that a public official acts under color of state law when exercising power possessed by virtue of state law.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court has established that viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discriminatio…
The Supreme Court has established that viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination that the government must abstain from in regulating speech.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium, known
When a government entity operates and controls a forum for speech, it is bound by the First Amendment and can…
When a government entity operates and controls a forum for speech, it is bound by the First Amendment and cannot discriminate among speakers based on viewpoint.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
Government institutions have a substantial interest in protecting the expression of unpopular ideas, as they…
Government institutions have a substantial interest in protecting the expression of unpopular ideas, as they function as 'nurseries of democracy' that must tolerate sharp constituent critiques.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
42 U.S.C.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a federal damages and injunctive remedy against persons who, under color of state law, deprive citizens of constitutional rights.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
If an official operates a Facebook page in an official capacity, blocking a constituent is state action that…
If an official operates a Facebook page in an official capacity, blocking a constituent is state action that violates the First Amendment unless it survives strict scrutiny.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium, known
In Cornelius v.
In Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed that government regulation cannot be an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker's view, even in nonpublic or limited public forums.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
Public officials cannot justify blocking constituent comments on the basis of offensiveness, as the First Ame…
Public officials cannot justify blocking constituent comments on the basis of offensiveness, as the First Amendment protects the freedom to express unpopular viewpoints.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court held in Police Department of Chicago v.
The Supreme Court held in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
Under U.S.
Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a public official's social media activity constitutes state action subject to the First Amendment only if the official possessed actual authority to speak on the government's behalf and purported to exercise that authority on social media.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium, known
Precluding a speaker from accessing a public forum for future expressive activities is considered an impermis…
Precluding a speaker from accessing a public forum for future expressive activities is considered an impermissible prior restraint with a heavy presumption against constitutionality.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
In O'Connor-Ratcliff v.
In O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a Ninth Circuit decision regarding school board trustees blocking parents on social media, requiring reconsideration under the Lindke framework.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium, known
Matal v.
Matal v. Tam (2017) established that giving offense is considered a viewpoint under First Amendment jurisprudence.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
In Lugar v.
In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., the Supreme Court established that conduct constitutes state action where the deprivation results from the exercise of a state-created right or privilege and the party charged can be described as a state actor.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court ruled in Perry Education Ass'n v.
The Supreme Court ruled in Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n that speaker exclusions in traditional and designated public forums must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court affirmed in Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County v.
The Supreme Court affirmed in Board of County Commissioners, Wabaunsee County v. Umbehr that the government cannot condition access to a forum or public benefit on the sacrifice of speech rights.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
City of Lakewood v.
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. (1988) is a binding Supreme Court precedent regarding the prohibition of standardless official discretion.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known
The Supreme Court noted that blocking a user on Facebook prevents them from commenting on all of the official…
The Supreme Court noted that blocking a user on Facebook prevents them from commenting on all of the official's posts, not just those concerning official business.
Labels: Source-linked, Medium, known
The Supreme Court held in Packingham v.
The Supreme Court held in Packingham v. North Carolina that cyberspace and social media are among the most important places for the exchange of views.
Labels: Source-linked, Low, known