Elected officials in Colorado can now ban individuals from accessing their social media pages for any reason under a bipartisan bill passed Monday. This is a first-of-its-kind law and has drawn criticism from First Amendment supporters.
But with a decisive U.S. Supreme Court decision looming, will the new law be effective?
HB23-1306, signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis, aims to draw a line between public and private agency social media pages. Under the law, public pages (such as pages that link directly to your office or are powered by public resources) cannot prevent anyone from interacting with them. But that’s now possible with private accounts, those that predate an official’s election and are separate from official actions.
First Amendment experts and the bill’s supporters say it is the first law of its kind in the United States. This follows a standard set by a federal appeals court that ruled in 2022 that Michigan city managers can ban frequent critics from their personal Facebook pages.
The bill’s sponsors, Republican Rep. Matt Soper and Sen. Bob Gardner, and Democratic Sen. Leslie Herrod and James Coleman, said the proposal would remove unruly audiences from town halls. Or, they argued, it would be like removing unwelcome visitors from the general public. Official’s vestibule. Officials assume there will be more scrutiny when running for office, but Herod said in late April that social media is the “wild west” and the bill is an attempt to introduce some rules. Ta.
“The Founding Fathers didn’t think of that,” she said of social media. “If someone comes to the (House of Commons) gallery and shouts an obscenity, we can ask them to leave. If they come to our City Hall, we can do the same. So social media — we have to find a way to manage it.”
The bill received bipartisan support during a contentious Congress. Over the objections of the ACLU, it passed unanimously in April among the most ideologically diverse House committees (though subsequent votes were more partisan).
Polis, a frequent tweeter, did not respond to requests for comment on the bill before it was passed. In a letter accompanying his signature Monday, he said he understands the lawmakers’ intent and believes the law provides a “reasonable distinction” between public and private accounts. .
“But I also want to ensure that elected officials do not view the existence of this law as a safe haven for activities permitted under this law because of ongoing litigation.” I think so,” he wrote.
Polis was referring to a case scheduled for hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court that will determine whether public officials can block people on social media. There have been a number of lower court decisions on this point, and the lower court that forms the basis of Colorado’s new law says it’s OK to ban personal accounts. Another from California sided with parents whose school board members’ accounts were blocked.
The high court is expected to consider the issue in the coming months, which could invalidate Colorado’s law. This state also has its own history. Two state lawmakers have lost a lawsuit over blocking people on social media. In both cases, taxpayers footed the bill. U.S. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert won a lawsuit against someone she blocked on her private page.
As they await a final answer from the Supreme Court, First Amendment advocates are concerned about the discretion Colorado lawmakers have given themselves. They argued that when elected officials discuss public activities and policies, the line between public and private accounts becomes blurred.
“Colorado’s new law allows public officials to choose to use personal social media accounts to carry out their duties and are free to block critics from those accounts as long as they do not use government resources to operate the accounts. ” said Katie Farrow, senior counsel at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. “The likely outcome is that more and more elected officials will insist that their social media accounts are private, even if they are functionally indistinguishable from official accounts. It fundamentally undermines the principles of
The law is described as a way to address online abuse, but it could also apply to people with whom elected officials disagree, said Jeffrey, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.・Mr. Roberts argues. It’s certainly true that the average civilian can feel free to block people on social media. But officials’ briefings often function as “public forums,” Roberts said, and Polis wrote that those officials “have a higher standard for being available to the public.”
“You can act to regulate highly outrageous behavior, but it’s different when someone disagrees with you and silences it,” Roberts said. “That’s something to be really careful about.”
It’s unclear whether anyone will challenge Colorado’s law before the Supreme Court resolves the issue, or whether that challenge will matter in the face of the higher-level case. Roberts said his organization typically does not intervene directly through litigation, but does monitor litigation. The ACLU, which testified against the bill during the session, referred to that testimony when asked for comment this week.
©2023 MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.