The US Supreme Court ruled on officials' use of social networks

The US Supreme Court noted this on Friday Government officials can be prosecuted in certain circumstances for blocking people who criticize them on the networks.although in a different case these workers were also allowed to veto certain people.

the judge Amy Coney Barrett In his writing, he stressed that public officials use their personal accounts to make official statements They may not be free to delete comments About those messages or directly from Prevent those who criticize them.

“Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between private behavior and state action. (…) When a public official uses social media, it is certainly necessary to evaluate it closely to rank it“, confirmed the judge.

In one of the cases that reached the court. James FreedCity Manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used the page Facebook Which he created while he was in college Communication with citizensAlthough he also used it to narrate details of his life.

One resident put in this account Criticism of the city's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Farid blocked him and deleted his comments. In a lower court, the director found his decision supported.

“A public employee who does not keep personal letters in a clearly designated location exposes himself to greater potential liability.“The Supreme Court confirmed that it did not agree with the previous court’s decision and allowed the case to go ahead.

To the highest, Speeches by government officials may be subject to First Amendment scrutinywhich protects freedom of expressionOnly when they have the authority to speak on behalf of the state and intend to exercise that authority.

A similar case affected the former US president Donald Trump (2017-2021) and the current candidate again for the presidency Block users on X (Then Twitter).

A New York court agreed with him, but by the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, Trump had already relinquished power and the court dismissed the case in April 2021, deeming it already somewhat irrelevant.

Outstanding issues related to social networks have a nuance More partisan. The judges evaluate Laws passed in Florida and Texas Which prevents large social media companies from removing messages because of the opinions they express.

Technology companies assert that the laws violate their constitutional rights to freedom of expression. The laws reflect the position of many Republicans that the platforms disproportionately censor conservative viewpoints.

(With information from agencies)