The United States Supreme Court heard a case this week that has important implications for constitutional law in the age of social media. The case involves the question of whether it is constitutional for public officials to block critics from their social media accounts. The case has implications for how elected officials engage with the public online, as well as for the public’s ability to exercise its First Amendment rights.
At issue in the case is a dispute between the Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, and several critics who charged Bevin with corruption and mismanagement in his administration. The critics alleged that Bevin had blocked them from his Facebook and Twitter accounts, preventing them from engaging with Bevin’s posts, participating in comments threads, or otherwise engaging with the public official over social media.
In arguing before the Supreme Court, Bevin’s lawyers contended that Bevin’s social media accounts were private accounts, and as such, Bevin had a right to restrict who could access them. The critics countered that Bevin’s social media accounts were not private, but rather public forums established for the purpose of communicating with constituents, and as such, the blocking of critics represented a violation of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this question will set a precedent for other public officials across the country. If the court determines that blocking critics from a public official’s social media account is indeed a violation of the First Amendment, then elected officials across the country will be forced to rethink their policies on how they engage with constituents on social media.
The impact of the court’s ruling would also be felt beyond public officials themselves. As noted by The American Civil Liberties Union in its amicus brief in the case, a ruling protecting the right of critics to access public officials’ accounts would “protect the right of the public to express itself about matters of public importance, a right that lies at the heart of the First Amendment.”
Whether or not the Supreme Court ultimately finds in favor of Bevin or his critics remains to be seen, but either way, the court’s ruling will likely have far-reaching implications for our system of government, and how public officials engage with the public in the digital age.
