* I need help taking this advice and adding it into my paper but also don't copy it so it does not get plagiarized.

Advice: This is not a criminal case. It's a civil case. The member of the public is angry because his comments were deleted from a public official's personal Facebook page. He's suing in civil court, saying that his First Amendment rights were violated, because he thinks the Facebook page is governmental, not personal. The Court disagrees and finds that the page is personal, not a government page.

Linke Vs. Freed Case

By: Beth Yanez

9/16/24

There are two parties in the Linke vs Freed case. The first one is the plaintiff named Linke who was blocked by the public officials on social media. The second one is Freed that was the public official who managed the social media account in question. They both was interested in the outcome because Lindke is likely concerned about the enforcement of certain legal rights or claims, while Freed may be focused on defending against those claims or asserting their own rights.The courts main dispute was social media and who's the owner of the account whether it is personal or business.

Some of the points the court covered are First amendment by having and amendment's application this made it where it limits the government's ability to exclude constituents from public forms.What is the account used for? and final ruling. When covering these points, the court covered the first amendment because if the account would be deemed to be public. By being public means that there is adherence to the code of ethics in the reporting of financial statements for companies. Freed was a software provider and has a critical role of making sure that these accounts do not have legal and ethical requirements. Overall Freed help build peoples people's confidence and trust in financial stainability that they deal with. The court considers if any actions are taken by the account holder. Some of the actions they are looking for is blocking users or deleting comments. By doing this kind of thing it violates the first amendment.

The court also examined what was the account used for, determining whether it was for personal use or government use. The final point that the court considered was whether the social media account violated constitutional rights. The resolution that the court reached was that it did not go to the state level. Meaning that there were not any charges pressed against him.The two-step test that Justice Amy Coney Barrett sets out is determining whether a certain condition or threshold is met. This could involve assessing whether a law or action falls within a certain category or meets a specific criterion. The second step is to apply a further analysis or balancing test if the first step is satisfied. This might involve weighing interests, considering exceptions, or applying a more detailed scrutiny. The reason the decision in the case is unanimous they chose this because it was used more for personal purposes than government purposes.The court cited three cases one being Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. That happened in 2000, Rendell - Baker v. Kohn that happened in 1982 and Blum v. Yaretsky that happened in 1982.

I personally agree with the result in the majority opinion because if there was more of his personal stuff on social media then what was said to be this is a problem that could be solved in the future by not making the same mistakes over by combining personal life and government life together.