As the 2024 election season comes to a close, government officials preparing for their upcoming terms might be wondering how they can use social media in connection with their official duties. The Knight Institute’s Social Media for Public Officials 2.0 is here to provide guidance on what practices are–and aren’t–constitutional, as well as tips for promoting free expression on your account. 

The Knight Institute wrote the first version of this guide in response to the Second Circuit’s decision in Knight Institute v. Trump, which held that then-President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked critics from a personal Twitter account that he used to carry out his duties as president. Following the Knight v. Trump decision, courts across the country grappled with the question of when a government official’s use of a social media account should be considered subject to the First Amendment, with some conflicting outcomes.

In March of this year, the Supreme Court sought to resolve those conflicts in deciding Lindke v. Freed, and created a two-part test to determine when a government official’s social media account should be considered official. The first part of the Lindke test asks whether the public official has authority to speak on behalf of the government. The second part of the test asks whether the official used social media to carry out that authority and looks to, among other things, the nature of the official’s posts and the appearance of the account.   

Social Media for Public Officials 2.0 breaks down how a court might determine whether you have the authority to speak on behalf of the government, as well as how your posts might inform a court’s decision of whether they were official or private speech. It also includes all of the still-relevant guidance from our original guide. 

If you’ve been blocked by a public official from that official’s government-run account, please email [email protected] to let us know.