Political Officials Cannot Block Critics on Social Media Pages Used for Official Information

[Boblin the Goblin]

SCOTUS rules in a unanimous decision that public officials who use social media pages to relay public information do no have the right to block people from commenting.

Even in the page is used for personal posts as well as official posts, blocking people from see or commenting has been ruled a violation of free speech.

Those officials can now be held liable for removing constitutional rights for doing so.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/public-officials-can-be-held-liable-for-blocking-critics-on-social-media/

[WarHeRo]

that's a surprise.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: WarHeRo

that's a surprise.

Not really.

If you are using a social media account as a avenue to relay official information, blocking someone from see or voicing an opinion is removing their right to criticize a government official.

This is while it is imperative to keep work and personal accounts 100% separate.

[Morkonan]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: WarHeRo

that's a surprise.

Not really.

If you are using a social media account as a avenue to relay official information, blocking someone from see or voicing an opinion is removing their right to criticize a government official.

This is while it is imperative to keep work and personal accounts 100% separate.

Yeah, this is based, I think, on the appearance of a Government's "Official Act" coming from what's on an "Official" page/site/twotter feed.

If it is "Official" then it MUST obey Constitutionally enforced law protecting Free Speech.

However, it does not have to provide a space for people to offer comments...

I don't know if twots can be universally turned off on twotter and I don't twot... But, if so, I imagine most "Official" communication accounts will enable that feature.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: Morkonan

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Not really.

If you are using a social media account as a avenue to relay official information, blocking someone from see or voicing an opinion is removing their right to criticize a government official.

This is while it is imperative to keep work and personal accounts 100% separate.

Yeah, this is based, I think, on the appearance of a Government's "Official Act" coming from what's on an "Official" page/site/twotter feed.

If it is "Official" then it MUST obey Constitutionally enforced law protecting Free Speech.

However, it does not have to provide a space for people to offer comments...

I don't know if twots can be universally turned off on twotter and I don't twot... But, if so, I imagine most "Official" communication accounts will enable that feature.

I think it is required to allow comments.

[MinionJoe]

Yeah, this case started back when Trump was blocking "journalists" when he was still on Twitter, and the journalists threw a fit about it.

To my knowledge, AOC still hasn't unblocked all the people she blocked around the same time. Maybe this court ruling will change that finally.

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

"Cannot," but still will, because nobody will enforce this.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle

"Cannot," but still will, because nobody will enforce this.

Doubt it.

When SCOTUS rules on something, no lawyer or judge in their right mind would try to go against it.

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle

"Cannot," but still will, because nobody will enforce this.

Doubt it.

When SCOTUS rules on something, no lawyer or judge in their right mind would try to go against it.

It's not going to make it in front of a lawyer or judge in 99.9% of cases.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Doubt it.

When SCOTUS rules on something, no lawyer or judge in their right mind would try to go against it.

It's not going to make it in front of a lawyer or judge in 99.9% of cases.

It's literally a cornerstone.

It will be the first thing in front of a judge or lawyer. Just like what happened with gay marriage being legalized.

Any state that tried to deny a marriage license had that ruling thrown at them. They could not fight it without being destroyed in federal court.

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

Автор сообщения: OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle

It's not going to make it in front of a lawyer or judge in 99.9% of cases.

It's literally a cornerstone.

It will be the first thing in front of a judge or lawyer. Just like what happened with gay marriage being legalized.

Any state that tried to deny a marriage license had that ruling thrown at them. They could not fight it without being destroyed in federal court.

A marriage license is like 10,000x more important than someone being blocked on social media. Nobody's going to have time for all the "waaaaah, so n so blocked me!"

I'm telling you, this is a nothing ruling and it will prove to be so, except for probably one mass case to single out someone that pisses off the party and then everyone will forget about it again.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Автор сообщения: OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle

Автор сообщения: SlowMango

It's literally a cornerstone.

It will be the first thing in front of a judge or lawyer. Just like what happened with gay marriage being legalized.

Any state that tried to deny a marriage license had that ruling thrown at them. They could not fight it without being destroyed in federal court.

A marriage license is like 10,000x more important than someone being blocked on social media. Nobody's going to have time for all the "waaaaah, so n so blocked me!"

I'm telling you, this is a nothing ruling and it will prove to be so, except for probably one mass case to single out someone that pisses off the party and then everyone will forget about it again.

They are both considered constitutionally protected rights.

Hence why I used that comparison.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

They'll just have to cope and seethe.

[Caldari Ghost]

good