From the Bench to the Feed: Conflict Between Public Official Accounts and the First Amendment

Authors

Betty Yu, University of Washington School of Law

Abstract

Imagine one day waking up, opening Facebook, and discovering that the official White House account blocked you because you left a comment expressing a viewpoint. In this case, your First Amendment right to free speech would most likely be violated. However, what happens if your local official blocks you or deletes your comments? Are your First Amendment rights violated? Well, it depends.

Historically, public officials have used public forums such as town halls to meet with citizens and answer questions. However, as social media platforms like X and Facebook have become increasingly crucial tools for communication, the distinction between personal and official social media content has blurred. These issues can fall under First Amendment violations, as seen in the Supreme Court ruling in Lindke v. Freed, which held that a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action only when it is carried out under actual or apparent governmental authority. The response to Lindke underscores the growing significance of social media platforms as modern public forums for First Amendment expression.

This Comment argues that the Lindke Court should have provided clearer guidelines to lower courts on distinguishing between personal and official accounts. Furthermore, social media platforms should implement transparent and neutral content moderation policies to balance the free speech rights of public officials and citizens. Finally, Washington State should adopt statutes that clearly define public officials’ social media use and when their actions could be classified as official.

First Page

1091

Recommended Citation

Betty Yu, Comment, From the Bench to the Feed: Conflict Between Public Official Accounts and the First Amendment, 100 Wash. L. Rev. 1091 (2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol100/iss4/10