For city officials across Georgia, social media has become an everyday tool for communicating with residents. Whether sharing updates, highlighting community events, or responding to concerns, these platforms offer an immediate way to engage with the public.
But recent court decisions make clear that this convenience comes with legal risk. What may feel like a personal account can, under certain circumstances, be treated as an official government forum subject to First Amendment protections.
In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in Lindke v. Freed. The case involved a city manager who used a Facebook page to share both personal content and information about city business. After he deleted comments and blocked a critical resident, the question became whether he acted as a private citizen or a government official.
The Court recognized that public officials retain their private speech rights, even when discussing their jobs. But it also made clear that officials cannot avoid constitutional limits when acting in an official capacity. The Court established that social media activity counts as government action only when the official has authority to speak for the government and is exercising that authority in the posts at issue.
If an official is speaking privately, they may control their page like any other user. But when they use social media to communicate in their official role, constitutional protections apply. Many accounts fall somewhere in between, and in those cases, courts will closely examine the content and purpose of specific posts.
A recent order from the Northern District of Georgia shows how this plays out when a city itself operates the account. In Booterbaugh v. City of Morrow, a resident alleged he was blocked from the city’s Facebook page after posting criticism of city leadership. The court found the page functioned as a limited public forum, meaning it was open for discussion but also potentially subject to certain rules.
As a result, the court ruled that the city’s social media policy was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. Regarding blocking the resident, the court found enough in the facts to allow for a First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed to trial.
While cities potentially may remove inappropriate of off-topic content, they cannot silence speech based on viewpoint. Criticism of government officials is protected, and blocking users or hiding comments because of that criticism can violate the First Amendment.
The case also highlights practical concerns. Multiple officials had access to the page, and there were questions raised as to whether officials has consistent training or oversight. This alleged lack of structure may have made it more difficult for the city to defend its actions and increased the risk of liability.
These decisions offer several clear lessons:
• The more an account is used for official purposes, the more likely it is to be treated as a government forum.
• Official pages should be managed carefully, with policies applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. And when multiple people manage a page, clear guidance and oversight are essential.
• Criticism of government officials, even when harsh or uncomfortable, is protected speech. Removing it simply because it is unfavorable can create significant legal risk.
Both Lindke and Booterbaugh highlight a secondary issue of which cities should be aware: Each of these cases ultimately turns on specific fact questions, which means that it is often a court that will decide the legality of any such pattern, practice or policy. Without carefully thinking through such patterns, practices and policies, cities leave themselves open to potentially costly litigation, which is not good for the city or its taxpayers.
Social media remains a valuable tool for engaging with residents, but it requires thoughtful use. By understanding when speech is considered official and by managing public-facing accounts thoughtfully, city leaders can continue to engage with their communities while respecting the constitutional boundaries that govern that interaction.
