https://sputnikglobe.com/20230425/us-supreme-court-to-hear-cases-on-whether-officials-can-block-critics-online-1109807481.html
US Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Whether Officials Can Block Critics Online
US Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Whether Officials Can Block Critics Online
Sputnik International
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.
2023-04-25T00:14+0000
2023-04-25T00:14+0000
2023-04-25T00:11+0000
americas
us supreme court
first amendment
us
critics
public
free speech
social media
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e5/07/01/1083285915_0:160:3073:1888_1920x0_80_0_0_872bd27a8e4fc0a8e18bf2681975de75.jpg
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 favor 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 favor 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.
americas
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
2023
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
us supreme court, scotus, blocking critics online, public officials, first amendment, us constitution
us supreme court, scotus, blocking critics online, public officials, first amendment, us constitution
US Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Whether Officials Can Block Critics Online
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - 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.
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 favor 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 favor 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.
