The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.
The Supreme Court’s March 15, 2024 decision clarified that government officials engaging in social media censorship may be subject to legal action only if they have actual authority and exercise it when censoring. The ruling emphasizes actual authority and its exercise in online censorship.
Supreme Court Decision on Censoring Citizens by Government Officials on Social Media
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court rendered an opinion regarding the censorship of citizens by government officials on social media. The Court stated that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on their social media page is engaged in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts.
Understanding Section 1983
Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of any state law, deprives someone of a federal constitutional or statutory right. It is designed as a protection against acts attributable to a State, not those of a private person. The distinction between private conduct and state action turns on substance, not labels. Therefore, private parties can act with the authority of the State, and state officials have their own constitutional rights, including the First Amendment right to speak about their jobs and exercise editorial control over speech and speakers on their personal platforms.
Determining State Action in Social Media Activity – Supreme Court
In the case of a public official using social media, a close examination is necessary to categorize the conduct. Precedent articulates principles to distinguish between personal and official communication in the social media context. A public official’s social media activity constitutes state action under §1983 only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking on social media.
The Test’s First Prong
The first prong of the test requires that “the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right be fairly attributable to the State.” This means that the official must be “possessed of state authority” to post city updates and register citizen concerns, and the alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within the official’s bailiwick.
The Official’s Use of State Authority
For social media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority but must also purport to use it. The ambiguity surrounding a public official’s social media page requires a fact-specific undertaking in which the posts’ content and function are the most important considerations.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision outlines the criteria for determining state action in the context of a public official’s use of social media, emphasizing the importance of actual authority and the exercise of that authority when engaging in censorship and speech on social media platforms.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.
Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News