Case Study: Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff , 136 F.4th 1181, 1187 (9th Cir. 2025); Lindke v. Freed , 601 U.S. 187 (2024)
This type of claim should be discussed with students because this new law was only recently developed by judges with the prevalence of social media over the last ten years. This is an important tool to use if we are able to educate people about how the First Amendment applies to social media. When a public school official or school board member uses a social media account to communicate about official business, (even if labeled a "personal" account) access to that forum is a right protected by the First Amendment. If you are blocked from accessing the forum or your comments are deleted because they disagree with your viewpoint, it is likely illegal. Members of the Board of Trustees of the Poway Unified School District in San Diego, California had personal Facebook and Twitter accounts that they used to post about school board meetings, district policies, hiring decisions, and other official business. The Garniers, parents of students in the district, began posting comments on the board members' social media pages. The board members deleted the Garniers' comments and ultimately blocked them entirely from commenting on or interacting with their pages. The Supreme Court held that a public official's social media page functions as government speech, and deleting comments or blocking users based on viewpoint is unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit applied the decision and held that the Poway school board members had violated the First Amendment. This type of violation is especially important for Jewish parents because of how school board social media censorship actually plays out in the antisemitism context. School board members who use their pages to post about pro-Palestinian content and then delete or block Jewish parents who respond with pro-Israel comments are engaging in illegal viewpoint discrimination.
Why This Violates the Law First Amendment — Viewpoint Discrimination in a Public Forum (42
U.S.C. § 1983): When a public official uses a social media account for official business, the interactive features of that account become a public forum. Deleting comments or blocking users based on their viewpoint violates the First Amendment. Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff , 136 F.4th 1181 (9th Cir. 2025); Lindke v. Freed , 601 U.S. 187 (2024). A school board member who censors parents based on viewpoint may be held personally liable under § 1983. What families should take from this: If a school board member deletes your comments or blocks you on social media because of your Jewish viewpoints, screenshot everything before and after the deletion. Document what you posted, when you posted it, and when it was removed or when you were blocked. Identify other comments on the same page that expressed opposing viewpoints and were not deleted. The comparison establishes viewpoint discrimination.