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 podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

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.

Change Is Hitting The NBA & It's On The Lakers To Adapt