Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Social Media Policy Linke V Fried topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supreme Court’s social‑media test reshapes board guidance for trustees' personal pages
Summary
After the Supreme Court’s recent decision in a case about a public official’s social media page, the district’s legal advisor told board members to separate personal and official accounts, add disclaimers and avoid acting as the board’s spokesperson on individual social posts.
The board’s attorney reviewed recent First Amendment case law on public officials’ social media accounts and recommended trustees adopt clear practices for their pages. Schwartz summarized the new two‑part test from the U.S. Supreme Court: to trigger liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken on social media, a public official must (1) have actual authority to speak for the government on the matter and (2) be exercising that authority when posting.
Nut graf: The decision raises a narrower path for plaintiffs seeking to hold an official liable for moderating content on a social page. Counsel advised trustees to avoid blocking or removing comments on any page that appears to be an official board forum, to mark personal pages as private or personal, and to post disclaimers making clear they do not speak for the board.
Schwartz walked trustees through recommended practices: keep personal and official pages separate; label official pages with a clear identifier (for example: “Joe Smith, District 2, Board of Education”); include a prominent disclaimer stating the page expresses personal views and does not represent an official board action; avoid removing comments selectively; and consider turning off comments entirely if moderation cannot be applied consistently. He also told the board that law permits uniform content rules—such as prohibiting threatening language, obscenity or personal data—from being applied to official pages so long as the rules are enforced consistently.
Trustees asked how to handle off‑topic or abusive posts, and counsel said administrators may remove material that clearly violates uniform rules (threats, pornography, doxxing) but should avoid viewpoint‑based removal. Board members discussed adding disclaimers to their pages; several said they would update their profiles after the briefing.
Ending: Counsel recommended that board members treat their personal social pages as potentially public, add disclaimers and consult legal counsel before taking actions that could be read as speaking for the board.
