Can a Public Official Block You on Social Media?

We the People

National Constitution Center

History, News Commentary, News

4.6 • 1K Ratings

🗓️ 3 November 2023

⏱️ 60 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about social media and the First Amendment. The cases involve questions surrounding when and whether a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraints—and if so, whether they can block individuals from their social media pages. In this episode, David Cole of the ACLU and Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join to break down the arguments in both cases, discuss the claims being made, and how the outcomes of the cases could contribute to further defining the scope of speech rights online. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Lindke v. Freed, Oral Argument (CSPAN) O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Oral Argument (CSPAN) Eugene Volokh, When Is Government Official's Blocking Commenter from Social Media Page "State Action"?, Volokh Conspiracy (June 2022) David Cole / Brief of the ACLU et al in support of respondents, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier David Cole / Brief of ACLU et al in support of petitioner, Lindke v. Freed Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about social media and the First Amendment.
0:07.0	The question is when and whether the First Amendment prevents public officials from blocking users on their Facebook accounts.
0:14.0	Hello friends, I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center
0:19.0	and welcome to We The People, a weekly show of constitutional debate.
0:23.0	The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit, chartered by Congress to increase awareness
0:28.4	and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.
0:32.2	In this episode of We The People will break down the arguments in both of the cases the Supreme Court heard
0:38.0	and discuss how they might shape the future of free speech online.
0:41.0	Joining me to discuss this crucially important question are two of America's leading
0:45.8	experts on the First Amendment.
0:48.6	David Cole is National Legal Director of the ACLU.
0:52.3	He's litigated many cases before the court including the
0:55.0	recent Mahoney Area School District versus B. L. that involved student speech and
1:01.3	social media. He's the author of 10 books including
1:03.9	most recently engines of liberty, how citizens movement succeed. He filed briefs in
1:08.9	both of the cases we're talking about today, Lindke v.
1:11.5	freed and O'Connor Radcliffe. Garnier, David, it is wonderful to welcome you back
1:16.4	to We The People.
1:17.4	Always great to be with you, Jeff.
1:20.3	And Eugene Volick is Gary T Schwartz, Distinguished Professor of Law
1:23.6	at UCLA School of Law.
1:25.6	He teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from National Constitution Center, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of National Constitution Center and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.