Previous 1 / 18 Next

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LINDKE v. FREED CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 22–611. Argued October 31, 2023—Decided March 15, 2024 James Freed, like countless other Americans, created a private Facebook profile sometime before 2008. He eventually converted his profile to a public “page,” meaning that anyone could see and comment on his posts. In 2014, Freed updated his Facebook page to reflect that he was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, describing himself as “Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie and City Manager, Chief Administrative Officer for the citizens of Port Huron, MI.” Freed continued to operate his Facebook page himself and continued to post prolifically (and primarily) about his personal life. Freed also posted information related to his job, such as highlighting communications from other city officials and soliciting feedback from the public on issues of concern. Freed often responded to comments on his posts, including those left by city residents with inquiries about community matters. He occasionally deleted comments that he considered “derogatory” or “stupid.” After the COVID–19 pandemic began, Freed posted about it. Some posts were personal, and some contained information related to his job. Facebook user Kevin Lindke commented on some of Freed’s posts, unequivocally expressing his displeasure with the city’s approach to the pandemic. Initially, Freed deleted Lindke’s comments; ultimately, he blocked him from commenting at all. Lindke sued Freed under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that Freed had violated his First Amendment rights. As Lindke saw it, he had the right to comment on Freed’s Facebook page because it was a public forum. The District Court determined that because Freed managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, and because only state action can give rise to liability under §1983, Lindke’s claim failed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Held: A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Lindke v. Freed

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (linked Case Law): United States

Decision Date: Mar 14, 2024

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Remanded for Decision in Accordance with Ruling

Keywords

Content Moderation
Content Regulation / Censorship
Digital Rights
Political Expression
Public Officials
Social Media

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States of America

Case Number: 22-611

Case Summary: The United States Supreme Court held that public officials may prevent people from commenting on their social media pages when they act in their private or personal capacity. The case involved, on the one hand, James Freed —who was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, and frequently posted both personal and official information on his Facebook profile—, and Kevin Lindke, another Facebook user who commented on one of Freed’s posts expressing his disagreement with the city’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Freed deleted Lindke’s comments and blocked him. Lindke claimed that Freed’s Facebook was a public forum because he was a public officer. He argued that Freed engaged in viewpoint discrimination by deleting unfavorable comments and blocking the people who wrote them, thus violating his freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Freed responded that by posting on Facebook, he was acting in his personal and private capacity, not as a public officer. The Supreme Court held that a public official engages in state action only if they possessed the actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter and purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts. Further, the Court concluded that if these two conditions are not met, then the actions are not attributable to the State, and, thus, there can be no violation of the First Amendment, which necessarily requires governmental action. The Supreme Court did not solve the specific case but vacated the judgment and remanded it for further proceedings at the lower level.

Case Significance: In this case, the Supreme Court developed standards on how to differentiate whether public servants speak on social media in furtherance of their official responsibilities or exercising their own speech and rights. As the Court noted, the distinction is crucial for establishing possible liability under the First Amendment. On the one hand, by reaffirming public officers’ individual rights —to the point of holding that a government official can post about his job on social media in a private or personal capacity—, it can be argued that the ruling expands freedom of expression. However, on the other hand, this could also allow public servants to contract expression by deleting comments and blocking people from their profiles, which could hinder debates on matters of public interest.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: Jul 19, 2024

Primary Documents

Decision
English
Download View