2
0

Public officials can now be held PERSONALLY liable for blocking critics on social media


 invite response                
2024 Mar 16, 6:09pm   237 views  6 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (56)   💰tip   ignore  

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/go-getters-saturday-march-16-2024


ScotusBlog ran a very encouraging legal story yesterday headlined, “Public officials can be held liable for blocking critics on social media.” It was very bad news for lefty local officials.

In another blockbuster 9-0 opinion supporting the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that elected officials and bureaucrats who post about their work — even on their personal social media accounts — are acting on behalf of the government. And so can be held personally liable for violating the First Amendment when they ‘block’ their critics, even from their personal accounts.

The Court created a new test: An official is said to be acting in his official capacity, even on his personal social media, whenever (1) he has the power to speak on behalf of the state and (2) he is actually doing that, talking about their job or politics or whatever. The decision says it doesn’t matter whether it’s on his official government account or his personal account.

Many lefty officials have been avoiding First Amendment liability by talking a blue streak on their personal accounts and not using their official government platforms. Now the Supreme Court — 9-0! — has cut that off.

Even better, the Supreme Court’s solid support for the First Amendment in this case also signals that it will reach the right result in the Missouri v. Biden case about the federal government’s fascistic involvement with the big social media companies.


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


Comments 1 - 6 of 6        Search these comments

1   Ceffer   2024 Mar 16, 11:28pm  

More Constitutional skeets for the Soros Fecal Impactions who have been paid to have delusions of grandeur of their abusive legislative and executive powers instead of acting as Guardians and backstops for the Constitution.

It's more lawfare, since this should never have to be decided over and over again by the courts.
2   UkraineIsTotallyFucked   2024 Mar 17, 11:45pm  

Shrillary regular posts on X with restrictions on who can reply.

If she ever goes back onto office, she can thus be sued.
3   UkraineIsTotallyFucked   2024 Mar 18, 7:06pm  

Question: What if they mute them instead?
4   GNL   2024 Mar 18, 8:25pm  

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says

Question: What if they mute them instead?

Sounds like a work around depending on how the rule/law is written.
5   PeopleUnited   2024 Mar 19, 5:16am  

We entered a new age with Covid-19 where governments hid the fact they created a virus and then trotted it out as a Trojan Horse to justify lockdowns, mandates and perhaps worst of all lies, and suppression of dissent.

The Supreme Court won’t right the wrong that is the growing police state and world government.
6   Patrick   2024 Mar 19, 9:02am  

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says

Question: What if they mute them instead?


I think the public could still see muted comments even if a corrupt official chooses to ignore them, and that's the goal.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions