A bill has been passed by Colorado lawmakers that allows politicians to block social media users, including constituents, from their “private” accounts. This comes just weeks after the US Supreme Court announced an investigation into the legality of such actions, sparking a national debate. As social media becomes more prevalent as a tool for politicians to make official announcements, air grievances, and argue over policies, it blurs the line between personal accounts and public forums. However, there is little legal precedent for such issues, resulting in a litany of lawsuits, including the one against former President Donald Trump.
The bipartisan sponsors of the legislation argue that it draws a clear line between public and private lives, likening it to a public town hall, where individuals can be removed for harassment or causing a disturbance. Republican Rep. Matt Soper, a sponsor of the bill, believes it’s the first bill of its kind in the US and a step forward in dealing with the “wild, wild West of our generation.”
The plan would allow politicians to block users for any reason, but critics believe it might limit the public’s access to their legislators and hinder debate.
U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and former President Trump have both encountered legal challenges for blocking social media users on their Twitter accounts. A lower court ruled that Trump breached the First Amendment rights of his critics by blocking them, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, partly because of Trump’s account suspension from the platform in 2021.
The federal court ruling in favor of Port Huron, Michigan’s city manager in 2022, who was sued for removing offensive comments from a public Facebook page, is the basis for the proposed legislation in Colorado. Three factors determine if an official’s social media account is private: if the official isn’t obligated to have the account, if taxpayer money isn’t used to sustain it, and if the holder can maintain the account after leaving office. However, the criterion usually doesn’t include the account’s content. For example, an elected official could post about their work, announcements, political discussions, and bills they support or oppose on a personal page.
Passing Colorado’s law would appear to protect Trump’s right to block social media users on his personal Twitter account, which he employed to make policy announcements and communicate with the public before and after his presidency, but not on the official accounts of the U.S. president, such as @POTUS or @WhiteHouse, which are managed by staff and passed down from administration to administration.
Democratic lawmaker Leslie Herod, one of the bill’s sponsors, claims that every part of elected officials’ lives is not public and that the law’s intent is to keep individuals who harass or intimidate from restricting the free speech of those who engage in good-faith debate online. However, Tim Regan-Porter, CEO of the Colorado Press Association, disagrees, stating that social media posts can offer a clearer understanding of an official’s decision-making process or the reasons behind it.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis hasn’t released any statement on the matter yet.
