蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

Social media, the Supreme Court said , is 鈥渢he modern public square.鈥� For parents, it鈥檚 often the easiest way to engage with officials who run their children鈥檚 schools. 

On Tuesday, the court will consider whether those officials 鈥� in one case, board members for the San Diego-area Poway school district 鈥� can block constituents from responding to posts on platforms like Facebook and X.

鈥淕overnment accountability 鈥� goes down the toilet if officials can effectively 鈥榤ute鈥� their critics,鈥� said Cory Briggs, an attorney who represents Poway parents Christopher and Kimberly Garnier. 鈥淣obody is required to read the comments on social, but preventing them from being expressed in the first place ensures that nobody ever hears dissenting voices.鈥�

Michelle O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff, a current board member, and T.J. Zane, who served from 2014 to 2022, argue that they were acting as private citizens and, therefore, had a right to cut off the Garniers鈥� ability to reply. They complained that the couple essentially trolled them, repeatedly posting the same comments 鈥� in one instance, more than 200 times in a 10-minute period 鈥� and cluttered up their feeds.

But the Garniers say both O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff and Zane identified themselves as government officials and that, by all appearances, used social media as an extension of their board positions. Blocking them 鈥� no matter how annoying or off topic their posts might have been 鈥� was a violation of free speech and their First Amendment right to petition their government, according to . The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit agreed.

In an age when the public is far more likely to air concerns about government online than attend an official meeting, the case has major implications not just for how parents engage with school board members, but for how citizens in general interact with their elected leaders. It鈥檚 one of two cases before the court on Tuesday that pose the same question 鈥� whether an official鈥檚 use of a private social media account amounts to 鈥渟tate action.鈥�

involves a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, who blocked a resident after he complained about local efforts to prevent COVID transmission. In that case, the federal appeals court took the opposite view, saying the manager did not act 鈥渦nder the color of law.鈥� The split between the lower courts prompted the Supreme Court to take up the cases.

Like the Garniers, some First Amendment experts want the court to uphold the 9th Circuit鈥檚 decision. Katie Fallow, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said if an official discusses government business on social media, the First Amendment still applies, even if using the account isn鈥檛 a formal part of the job.

鈥淭hey use it to talk to the public about their policies and solicit input from constituents,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he question is, 鈥楧oes the public consider this to be the source of official pronouncements?鈥� 鈥�

Fallow has experience with the issue. The Knight Institute in 2017 because he blocked critics on Twitter. The Institute won the case at the appellate level, but the Supreme Court dismissed it because Twitter鈥檚 former owners in 2021 following the uprising at the U.S. Capitol. (Trump鈥檚 account has since .)

O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff and Zane 鈥� like Trump 鈥� opened their accounts before they took public office. 鈥淥nce elected, they keep using it,鈥� Fallow said. 鈥淭hey want their brand and their followers.鈥�

Neither O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff, Zane, nor their attorney agreed to an interview prior to oral arguments, but representatives for other elected officials have been closely following both cases. 

The California School Boards Association wrote in to the court that if the Garniers win, boards would have to 鈥減olice鈥� members鈥� social media accounts and could potentially face more litigation . During elections, the association added, incumbents would be limited in controlling unflattering posts while challengers would be free to restrict negative comments.

Board members need a 鈥減ractical test鈥� that clarifies 鈥渨hen social media activity transforms from personal to state action,鈥� the association wrote. Because of the 鈥渞apidly evolving nature鈥� of social media, the rules should apply across all current and future platforms, the brief said.

The filed a brief in the case because 鈥渇ederal government officials also use social media accounts,鈥� and whatever the court decides would apply to those officials and employees.

Years of conflict

The Garniers, who have three children in the district , have a troubled relationship with Poway officials that goes beyond social media posts. In 2013, Christopher, who once worked as a coach in Poway schools, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the district. Then in 2015, a judge granted the district a against him requiring that he stay away from his children鈥檚 school and its former principal. He was accused of making verbal threats, disrupting a meeting and pounding on car windows 鈥� allegations he denied.

Christopher, who is Black, argues that he was singled out because of his race and that the district treats minority students unfairly. It鈥檚 an issue that surfaced in comments his wife posted on the board members鈥� Facebook pages. According to court documents, Kimberly posted: 鈥淚 have children of color in the district, and I don鈥檛 want them going to school and seeing a noose.鈥� 

Christopher鈥檚 replies focused on both racial and financial matters. Following several of O鈥機onnor-Ratcliff鈥檚 posts, he wrote that the board members, among other officials, 鈥渞efuse to meet with our interracial family.鈥� In another lengthy Facebook reply, posted multiple times, Christopher argued that Black students in the predominantly white district were disproportionately suspended and that he didn鈥檛 receive all the discipline data he requested through a public records request.

He was an outspoken critic of former Superintendent John Collins, who to not reporting more than $300,000 in consultant income, a misdemeanor. Collins was sentenced to five years probation and had to repay the district $185,000. 

鈥淭rustees lack the intestinal fortitude to fire this man,鈥� Christopher replied in response to several posts from 2015. Briggs, the Garniers鈥� attorney, said his clients thought financial oversight had not improved since the board fired Collins in 2016.

鈥淗ow many times should constituents be allowed to express admittedly legit criticism of their elected representative鈥檚 performance?鈥� Briggs asked. 鈥淭he answer can only be: as many as it takes to get [them] to do better or to get [them] voted out of office.鈥�

鈥楽trange bedfellows鈥�

The case predates the pandemic. But the COVID era 鈥� with its virtual government meetings and restrictions on in-person gatherings 鈥� has only intensified the level of vitriol on social media.

Data shows that Americans who rely on social media for news tend to be younger and more likely to have school-age children. Forty percent were in the 30-49 age range, according to . Online threats of violence against public officials, meanwhile, have increased, , especially toward judges and prosecutors. But at the height of debates over mask mandates and vaccines, superintendents and school board members were also targets of online intimidation and bullying.

Jonathan Zachreson of Roseville City, California, has been on both sides of the issue. During the pandemic, he advocated for reopening schools and against a vaccine mandate for students. State Sen. Richard Pan, who wanted to for students, even blocked him on Twitter (now X).

Now Zachreson is on his town鈥檚 school board. After he was elected, he said the district advised members on the legal issues surrounding social media. To him, there鈥檚 no gray area.

鈥淓ither don鈥檛 talk about school business or don鈥檛 block people 鈥� it鈥檚 like one or the other,鈥� he said. 

But he added that as with public meetings, there should be limits on 鈥渄isorderly鈥� behavior, like spamming. The question, he said, is whether the Supreme Court will draw that line.

Andrew McNulty, a Denver attorney, said he can鈥檛 predict how the court 鈥� with a 6-3 conservative majority 鈥� will rule on the cases. He鈥檚 particularly interested because he represents a Denver Public School parent who filed last month against a board member who blocked her on Facebook.

鈥淭here鈥檚 so much conservative backlash about censoring speech,鈥� McNulty said. The court has also agreed to hear cases from on whether tech companies can be sued or penalized if they block or limit content. And it will consider in which Missouri and Louisiana accused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of conspiring with social media companies to suppress opposition to COVID vaccines, mask mandates and school closures. 

Until now, against Trump was the most high-profile case over the issue. But Democrats have also been sued for blocking critics. In 2019, progressive New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a former Republican state lawmaker and talk show host she blocked on Twitter. 

鈥淭he First Amendment makes strange bedfellows,鈥� McNulty said. 鈥淚t crosses the ideological spectrum.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.