A legal case has caught considerable attention in the realm of First Amendment rights and social media platforms. Twitter user Rogan O’Handley, operating under handle @DC_Draino, challenges the California Government’s regulation over online content, arguing that it infringes his First Amendment rights.
In 2018, to combat misleading information about voting and the electoral process posted online, California established an Office of Election Cybersecurity. This office works in cooperation with social media companies to identify posts that might violate the platforms’ own guidelines on misinformation. Kalvis Golde, writing for the SCOTUSblog, reports that during the 2020 election cycle approximately 98% of nearly 300 posts flagged by the Office of Election Cybersecurity were removed by Facebook and Twitter.
The matter at the heart of this dispute started when O’Handley, an active political commentator on Twitter, called for an audit of California ballots after the 2020 election. His claims of election fraud were flagged by the Office of Election Cybersecurity. Twitter responded by adding a warning label to O’Handley’s tweet and issuing a “strike” against his account.
Four strikes later and following the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Twitter suspended O’Handley’s account, which was only reactivated this year. In response, O’Handley, also an attorney, filed a lawsuit against both Twitter and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, on grounds that they acted together to restrict his First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit, however, didn’t bear fruits for O’Handley. As per the case file, both a federal district court in California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed his claims. It’s worth noting, these courts drew a line between California flagging and Twitter’s acting. Asserting that while California exercised governmental authority by flagging the tweet, it didn’t restrict O’Handley’s speech. Conversely, Twitter, whilst limiting O’Handley’s speech, did so following its own guidelines, not acting on behalf of the state.
O’Handley now has his eyes set on the Supreme Court. In his appeal, he argues that the distinction drawn between state action (flagging the tweet) and private action (Twitter’s disciplinary response) isfutile. He asserts that Twitter would not have scrutinized his content had the state not flagged it in the first place. His plea to the court seeks to reinstate his lawsuit and provide evidence that California exercises coercive authority over online content.
How the Supreme Court will rule on this case and its consequences for future interactions between the state and private digital platforms is a keenly watched development in the arena of First Amendment Rights.