In a recent development at the Supreme Court, two cases regarding the limits of free speech online have left the justices perplexed, according to a report by Vox. The cases, O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed, focus on whether government officials who use social media platforms have the authority to block users and whether such actions violate the First Amendment.

The arguments presented in these cases brought forth a myriad of complex questions, ranging from discussions about cat pictures to the challenge of outlining legal rules. The Supreme Court justices seemed to grapple with the task of determining what public officials can and cannot do online, leaving them stumped on how to apply the First Amendment's provisions.

Both cases involve instances where public officials, in California and Michigan respectively, blocked individuals on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, resulting in lawsuits against them. While disputes over social media blocking typically do not reach federal courts, the strict rules governing government officials' actions under the First Amendment make these cases particularly significant.

The central issue before the Supreme Court, however, revolves around whether blocking individuals on social media constitutes "state action" within the scope of a government official's authority. The Constitution solely restricts government officials when they are exercising state powers, rather than when they are engaging in private activities. This presents a challenge in the realm of social media, as distinguishing between state and private action becomes increasingly complex.

The justices spent considerable time questioning the proposed mechanisms for sorting between state and private action put forth by lawyers in the cases. The argument made by Hashim Mooppan, representing the school board members in O'Connor-Ratcliff, and the Biden administration, emphasized that the social media accounts in question belonged to the defendants personally and not the government. However, the justices seemed skeptical, with Chief Justice John Roberts questioning the application of traditional property concepts to virtual spaces.

Justice Clarence Thomas raised a crucial point about the ownership of personal Facebook pages, proposing that they may belong to social media companies rather than individuals or government entities. This further complicates the question of state action and private action online.

Notably, the lower courts had varying approaches to the issue. The Ninth Circuit, handling O'Connor-Ratcliff, preferred a more flexible test, considering whether the government official appeared to be acting within the scope of their job when engaging on social media. On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit adopted a more rigid test, focusing on whether the official acted in accordance with an official duty or authority while posting online.

Although the majority of justices leaned towards the Sixth Circuit's approach, it became evident that this framework also presented challenges and left several questions unanswered. The definition of "customary duties" that unofficially guide elected officials in their online communications emerged as one such problem. Determining which communications qualify as on-the-job interactions proved difficult, given the absence of explicit laws or rules regarding officials' online presence.

The question of how to handle situations where government officials use their social media accounts for both personal and official purposes arose during the arguments. Justices contemplated scenarios where blocking an individual due to negative reactions to personal content would also restrict access to government-related information, potentially violating the First Amendment.

The difficulty in formulating a clear-cut legal test to distinguish between state and private action online poses significant challenges for public officials, citizens, and the courts. The lack of clarity can deter government officials from effectively using social media platforms, disrupt communication between constituents and their government, and create opportunities for frivolous lawsuits.

As the Supreme Court grapples with these complex cases, it remains evident that finding simple solutions is far from easy. The consequences of these cases carry wide-ranging implications and underscore the urgent need for clear guidelines regarding free speech and government officials' online conduct.