In a recent case that shines a spotlight on the intersection of social media usage and First Amendment rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a judgment stating that the city of St. Louis violated the First Amendment. This violation occurred when former President of the Board of Aldermen, Lewis Reed, decided to block a user on his Twitter account following a hostile tweet.
This case, known as Felts v. Green, is particularly notable not only for its interpretation of the First Amendment in the context of social media, but also due to the fact that Reed’s position as President of the Board of Aldermen meant that his actions were considered to be representative of the city’s actions. This decision suggests that even something as minor as blocking a social media user could have significant repercussions if a public official does it.
As stated in the Eighth Circuit’s decision, Reed’s Twitter account, created in 2009, was set to public and could be accessed by anyone not blocked by the account owner. Blocking prevents users from seeing the account, interacting with its posts, or participating in any comment threads.
Curiously, Reed’s decisions to unblock the user after a complaint was filed and resign from his position did not moot the case. The rationale given was the extent of Reed’s powers as President of the Board of Aldermen, which ensconced him as the city’s final decisionmaker on behalf of the city’s Monell liability, social media interactions included.
This case stands as an example of the complex intertwining of social media user rights and First Amendment considerations, and it sets an interesting precedent for how public figures’ use of social media is legally interpreted. For more detailed information on this ruling, you can find details in the original article on Law.com.