DENVER (AP) — Colorado lawmakers have introduced a bill to the governor’s desk that would allow politicians to block social media users from their private accounts, just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider to what extent it is legal.
The bipartisan measure passed Thursday by Colorado’s Democratic-controlled Legislature allows lawmakers to block people for any reason they want. The rule would not apply to the accounts of some politicians, such as one of Gov. Jared Polis’ Twitter accounts, @GovofCO.
The idea has sparked a national debate as social media becomes an increasingly popular tool for politicians to conclude arguments in 280-character tweets, touting their successes, airing their grievances and announcing official business, all of which blur the line between personal and public accounts. forums
That fuzzy line has already spurred a litany of lawsuits, including one against former President Donald Trump, but legal precedent remains thin.
The bill makes a change in the delineation between public and private accounts: A politician’s social media page is public if it is necessary for office or uses taxpayer money, is managed by an official’s staff, for example. Public accounts can be those that are passed from one official to another, such as @WhiteHouse, used by both Trump and President Joe Biden.
The legislation effectively defines a private account, which could block others, as a page not supported by government resources and not necessary for the office. It can be maintained after a politician leaves office, such as @realDonaldTrump.
Bipartisan sponsors of the legislation argue that it’s merely drawing a line between public and private life and liken it to a town hall: If two constituents started yelling at each other or harassing or intimidating bystanders, they would be properly removed.
“(It’s getting) the same treatment from the physical world to the social media world,” said Rep. Matt Soper, a Republican and one of the bill’s sponsors. Soper said it appears to be the first bill of its kind in the country and argued it is a step forward in fighting “the wild, wild west of our generation.”
The bill would allow a politician to block a user “for any reason,” and critics fear it would curb public access to their representatives and limit their ability to express opinions and participate in debate.
“The United States Supreme Court recognized that social media is a tool for ‘speaking and listening in the modern public square’ and that it offers ‘perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his voice heard.'” , he said. Catherine Ordoñez, policy advisor for the ACLU of Colorado, at a committee hearing on the bill.
“Lawmakers who follow the text of this bill will regularly violate the First Amendment rights of people who interact with their social media accounts,” Ordoñez said.
US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Trump, on his longstanding @realDonaldTrump account, have faced lawsuits for blocking other Twitter users. A lower court ruled that Trump violated the First Amendment whenever he blocked a critic to silence a viewpoint, but in 2021 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, citing in part that Trump’s account had been suspended from the platform
Greene settled his case, a common outcome of such litigation. At least two similar lawsuits in Colorado were also settled, leaving the issue without legal precedent.
The Colorado bill is based on a 2022 federal court ruling that sided with the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, who was sued for blocking someone and removing their posts from a Facebook page. Facebook used to communicate with the public. That case now heads to the Supreme Court, which won’t hear the case until the fall.
The legislation sets the criteria for determining whether an elected official’s account is private, but generally does not include the content of the account. On a private page, for example, an elected official could still post largely about their work, bills they supported or opposed, announcements, or political discussions.
“If I’m in a bar and I decide to talk to my friend about a bill I’m running… Does that make my conversation public?” argued Rep. Leslie Herod, a Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors. “As an elected official, every part of our lives is not public.”
Herod argued that the intent of the law is largely to prevent some who might harass or intimidate from curbing the free speech of others who participate in good faith online.
Tim Regan-Porter, CEO of the Colorado Press Association, pushed back, arguing that what politicians say about their work as elected officials is relevant to the public and, by extension, to reporters.
“It’s not just what the law says, but what the intent was, why they chose to do it and what parties might have influenced them,” he said, “and pronouncements on social media can give a clearer understanding of what happened in a decision.”
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis did not immediately respond to questions about his position on the bill.
___
Jesse Bedayn is a staff member of the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a national nonprofit service program that places reporters in local newsrooms to report on undercover issues.
