Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Freed (D) created a private Facebook profile that he shared only with “friends.” When D began nearing the platform’s 5,000-friend limit, he converted his profile to a public “page.” Facebook did not require Freed to satisfy any special criteria either to convert his Facebook profile to a public page or to describe himself as a public figure. D was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, and he updated his Facebook page to reflect the new job. D added his title, a link to the city’s website, and the city’s general email address. He described himself as “Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie, and City Manager, Chief Administrative Officer for the citizens of Port Huron, MI.” D posted prolifically (and primarily) about his personal life. He uploaded hundreds of photos of his daughter. He shared about outings like the Daddy-Daughter Dance, dinner with his wife, and a family nature walk. He posted Bible verses, updates on home-improvement projects, and pictures of his dog, Winston. D posted information related to his job including mundane activities, like visiting local high schools, as well as splashier ones, like starting the reconstruction of the city’s boat launch. He shared news about the city’s efforts to streamline leaf pickup and stabilize water intake from a local river. He highlighted communications from other city officials, like a press release from the fire chief and an annual financial report from the finance department. D solicited feedback from the public-for instance, he once posted a link to a city survey about housing and encouraged his audience to complete it. Readers frequently commented on his posts, sometimes with reactions (for example, “Good job it takes skills” on a picture of his sleeping daughter) and sometimes with questions (for example, “Can you allow city residents to have chickens?”). D often replied to questions regarding city issues. He occasionally deleted comments that he thought were “derogatory” or “stupid.” D posted personal and city information about the Wuhan Flu. Lindke (P) visited D’s page and posted the city’s pandemic response was “abysmal” and that “the city deserves better.” D posted a photo of himself and the mayor picking up takeout from a local restaurant, P complained that while “residents [we]re suffering,” the city’s leaders were eating at an expensive restaurant “instead of out talking to the community.” D deleted and ultimately blocked P. P sued D under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that D had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted summary judgment to D because D's account was private. D managed his Facebook page in his private capacity, so P’s claim failed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit’s approach to state action in the social-media context differs from that of the Second and Ninth Circuits, which focus less on the connection between the official’s authority and the account and more on whether the account’s appearance and content look official. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co