The media has long been essential in safeguarding the public interest in a well-functioning democracy. As reported in the New York Times, starting in November, 2023, and extending for several months, the US Supreme Court is hearing a number of cases that promise to resolve First Amendment issues surrounding social media platforms and their role in the hosting and influencing public online discourse.

One unique aspect of these cases is that they do not counterpoise free speech with outside values, such as national security and equality. Rather, they center on “conflicts internal to free speech” and the need to protect speech that allows democracy to flourish.

One case involves Southern California parents who filed a lawsuit when they were blocked from commenting on the Facebook pages of school board members, after they made hundreds of posts concerning racism at community schools. A similar case involves a resident of Michigan who was locked out of commenting on the Facebook page of a Port Huron city manager, after posting comments critical about the city’s COVID response.

With social media having become a vital conduit for public discourse, these First Amendment cases are not incidental, but focus on the way in which officials make use of government power. At issue is the potential of public officials artificially suppressing dissent and turning “democratically important spaces” into what are essentially echo chambers. On the flip side, public officials claim that they have the First Amendment right, as does any citizen, in utilizing the blocking function included in social media pages to block unwanted users from their accounts.