WASHINGTON D.C. (Michigan News Source)-Everyone has probably blocked someone on Facebook – maybe even a family member. But if you are a public official who is posting government information on your personal social media site, that might be considered “state activity” and you would have to follow different rules.

A First Amendment case from Michigan, Lindke v. Freed, is going to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after Port Huron City Manager James Freed blocked Port Huron resident Kevin Lindke from his personal page on Facebook.

MORE NEWS: Travel and Turkey: Planning Ahead Should Be on Everyone’s Plate This Thanksgiving

Freed created his Facebook page years before he became the city manager. Because the personal Facebook page that he started hit the 5,000 friends limit, he converted it to a Facebook page which allowed any member of the public to follow it. He posted both personal and government information on the page including an email to contact him at his job and the physical address of City Hall. He posted information about city programs and policies as well as personal posts about his family and dog, various home improvement projects and passages of scripture.

In March of 2020, Freed posted information about the COVID-19 pandemic including county health data, social distancing recommendations, media releases from the county health department and more. Lindke commented on Freed’s Facebook page several times from three different Facebook profiles. Two of the comments criticized Port Huron’s response to the pandemic. According to the court filing, on a photo that Freed had posted of the Mayor ordering takeout at a local establishment, Lindke commented that while city “residents (were) suffering,” its leaders were eating at a “pricey” restaurant “ during an “unprecedented time of the pandemic.” Another post said that Port Huron “deserves better.”

Freed responded to the posts by blocking all of Lindke’s accounts, denying him access to his page. He also deleted Lindke’s comments from the page and four other individuals had their comments deleted or their accounts blocked by Freed.

Lindke filed suit, alleging that Freed had violated the First Amendment by deleting his comments and blocking his accounts. The district court granted summary judgment for Freed, concluding that his Facebook activity was not state action and therefore was immune from First Amendment scrutiny. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, determining that Freed had not engaged in state action when he blocked Lindke’s accounts and deleted Lindke’s posts because the Facebook page was connected to the city manager’s personal account and not one operated by the office of the city manager.

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case because of the conflict with the approach of other courts of appeals in determining whether a public official’s use of social media constitutes state action.

Freed said in a statement. “Although we have won in every court where this has been argued and appealed, I never restarted my Facebook page because I want to protect my family and my kids. There are a lot of mentally unstable folks out there, and civility is all but gone through social media. I do miss connecting with friends, family, neighbors and former classmates.”

MORE NEWS: Branching Out: Michigan’s Tree Grant Grows Greener Than Ever