Can a Public Official Block You on Social Media?
Recapping oral arguments in two cases about when and how the First Amendment applies when public officials use social media
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (traffic.megaphone.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about social media and the First Amendment. The cases involve questions surrounding when and whether a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraints—and if so, whether they can block individuals from their social media pages. In this episode, David Cole of the ACLU and Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join to break down the arguments in both cases, discuss the claims being made, and how the outcomes of the cases could contribute to further defining the scope of speech rights online. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Resources:
- Lindke v. Freed, Oral Argument (CSPAN)
- O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Oral Argument (CSPAN)
- Eugene Volokh, When Is Government Official's Blocking Commenter from Social Media Page "State Action"?, Volokh Conspiracy (June 2022)
- David Cole / Brief of the ACLU et al in support of respondents, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier
- David Cole / Brief of ACLU et al in support of petitioner, Lindke v. Freed
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.