Here's a breakdown of the key aspects based on recent Supreme Court rulings, particularly the Lindke v. Freed case decided on March 15, 2024:

When Deleting Comments or Blocking Users Constitutes "State Action" and Potentially Violates the First Amendment:

According to the Supreme Court, a public official's social media activity constitutes "state action" (meaning it can be considered an action of the government) only if both of the following conditions are met:

1. The official possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on the subject matter of the post. This authority must be rooted in written law, custom, or usage. It's not enough that the official's job could theoretically include making official announcements; it must be an actual part of their entrusted duties.

The official purported to exercise that authority when speaking on social media. This means the official was acting in their official capacity or in furtherance of their official responsibilities when making the post that received the comment.

Factors to Consider:

Nature of the Account: If the account is clearly designated as an official government account (e.g., a city department's Facebook page), then actions on that page are more likely to be considered state action. Accounts that are passed down to whoever holds a particular office are also likely government accounts.

Content and Function of the Post:The content of the specific post where the comment was deleted or the user was blocked is crucial. If the post relates to the official's governmental duties and the official is using the page to announce policies, provide information, or solicit feedback related to their official role, then it's more likely to be state action.

Appearance of the Page: While not definitive, the appearance of the social media activity can be relevant. However, the Court emphasized that the appearance of an official platform alone is not sufficient to establish state authority if that authority doesn't actually exist.

Blocking vs. Deleting: The Court noted that blocking a user has broader implications than deleting a single comment. Blocking prevents the user from interacting with all posts on the page, including potentially official ones, which increases the risk of First Amendment liability if the page is used for government business. Deleting a comment on a purely personal post (e.g., about a pet) is less likely to be considered state action.  

Mixed-Use Pages: Many public officials use their personal social media accounts for both personal and professional communication. This "mixed-use" increases the complexity of determining when their actions constitute state action. The Court advised officials to keep personal posts on clearly designated personal accounts to reduce the risk of liability. Disclaimers such as "this is my personal page" or "views expressed are my own" can create a strong presumption that the posts are personal.  

When Deleting Comments or Blocking Users is Likely Permissible:

Personal Accounts and Posts: If a public official is clearly acting in their private capacity on their personal social media account and the posts are about personal matters unrelated to their official duties, they generally have the same rights as any other private citizen to delete comments or block users.

Non-Protected Speech: Public officials can delete comments that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as those containing true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, or obscenity (as defined by the Supreme Court).

Content-Neutral Policies: Government entities and elected officials can establish content-neutral social media policies that apply equally to all users. For example, they might turn off comments entirely or restrict comments to a specific topic on a particular post. However, they cannot allow some comments on a topic while deleting others based on viewpoint.  

Legal Implications and Remedies:

If a public official is found to have engaged in state action by unlawfully deleting comments or blocking a user based on their viewpoint, they could be sued for violating the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Potential remedies could include requiring the official to unblock the user or refrain from deleting comments based on viewpoint.  

In summary, the ruling emphasizes a fact-specific analysis to determine whether a public official's social media activity constitutes state action. The key is whether the official had the authority to speak on behalf of the government on the subject of the post and whether they were purporting to exercise that authority when they acted on the comment or user. Public officials with "mixed-use" accounts face a higher risk of liability and are advised to keep their personal and official communications separate online.