Is Social Media a Public Forum?

“Is social media a public forum?” is no longer just a question for law professors. Every public servant, school board member, and government communications professional needs to know the answer because social media has become a part of daily resident service.

According to our 2025 State of Public Sector Social Media survey, 92% of agencies now consider social platforms essential to their communication strategies, and 53% use social accounts to address resident questions and service requests directly.

The way a social media account is used helps determine what governments can and cannot do with respect to blocking or muting users, deleting or hiding comments, and setting and enforcing moderation rules. When a page functions as a public forum, moderation actions may be subject to First Amendment scrutiny and could potentially constitute violations depending on the circumstances.

When Does Social Media Qualify as a Public Forum?

Social media accounts are not considered public forums by default, but courts have held that the way an account is used can cause it to be treated as one under the First Amendment. In 2024, the Supreme Court provided clearer guidance in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier.

In Lindke v. Freed, the Court explained that a public official’s actions on social media may constitute state actions when these conditions are met:

• The official has actual authority to speak on the government’s behalf on the subject matter in question.
• The official purports to exercise that authority in the relevant posts.

This two-part test has become the current framework for determining whether blocking a user on social media from a government account amounts to a First Amendment violation.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier concerned school board trustees who had blocked critics on social media. The Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit and asked judges to reconsider it using the precedent set by the Lindke decision.

For government social media managers, this means:

• Official agency accounts are typically treated as channels for official speech and public-facing government business.
• Personal accounts used for official updates, announcements, and resident engagement may be treated as official depending on how they’re labeled and used.
• Accounts that are clearly personal and used primarily for updates on an individual’s personal life are less likely to be treated as public forums.

What Is a Public Forum?

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but the forum where that speech takes place matters because different spaces follow different rules. In the 1983 decision, Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, the court divided forums into four categories:

• Traditional public forums: Places like public parks and sidewalks that are always open to public expression and assembly
• Designated public forum: Public property that isn’t always a public forum but becomes one when a government intentionally opens it up for official business
  • For example: A town council meeting held in a school auditorium
• Limited public forum: A type of designated forum where the government can set reasonable limits on topics and participation rules, but cannot discriminate based on viewpoint
  • For example: A council meeting where residents can speak on relevant agenda items for a pre-determined period
• Nonpublic forum: Government spaces reserved for official business, where speech can be more tightly regulated as long as rules are reasonable and don’t violate free speech protections
  • For example: Polling places, where significant limits on speech help protect the integrity of elections

Courts typically treat government-operated social media pages that invite resident interaction as a type of limited public forum. A government account can typically enforce rules against certain categories of content—spam, threats, advertisements—but courts have generally held that governments may not remove or block residents based solely on the viewpoints they express.

Social Media Management Best Practices for Public Officials

Moderation pressure is rising while social platforms are becoming more essential channels for public discourse and resident service. In our State of Public Sector Social Media report, 71% of agencies report using a proactive strategy to monitor, clarify, and correct misinformation on social media. The same report found 38% use a formal moderation policy, 30% don’t moderate at all, and 18% rely on “best judgment.”

Social teams are trying to protect public expression, keep channels usable, and reduce risk, all while juggling limited time and inconsistent standards.

1. Separate Personal and Professional Accounts as Clearly as Possible

Under Lindke, labeling and usage are more important than ever. If an account prominently lists an official title, is used to regularly make official announcements, and solicits public feedback on government matters, then actions like deleting comments or blocking users are more likely to be treated as state action tied to First Amendment rights.

Clear separation reduces ambiguity for residents and reduces risk for officials:

• Maintain clearly branded, official accounts for public business.
• Use consistent bios, images, and links that tie official accounts back to official websites and contact channels.
• Clearly label personal accounts as personal and avoid using them for official updates, decisions, or resident service.
• Provide written guidance so staff and elected officials understand what belongs where, including how to handle mixed-use accounts that already have an audience.

2. Avoid Conducting Official Work on Personal Accounts

When public servants use social media to communicate about work-related matters, those conversations can create public records obligations and long-term challenges for collection, retention, and responses to records requests. In Oregon, for example, the public records retention schedule defines “Correspondence Records” to include “letters, memoranda, and electronic communications such as email, instant/direct messages, text messages, and social media.”

Safer practices include:

• Using official channels for work-related messaging whenever possible
• Training staff to move work conversations out of personal direct messages and into official systems that can be retained and searched
• Addressing encryption and auto-deleting content in official policies

3. Be Mindful of Open Meeting Laws and Social Media Quorums

If a majority of a board or council is effectively debating public business in a comment thread, group chat, or private social media group, open meeting requirements may be triggered in many jurisdictions even when the conversation feels informal. Requirements vary by state.

Social media policies and training should address:

• Whether officials should comment on each other’s posts about pending matters
• How to handle group chats or invite-only groups where multiple officials are present
• How to redirect substantive debate back into an appropriate forum without shutting down resident engagement

Open meeting requirements vary by state. Officials should consult their jurisdiction’s specific requirements as they develop policies and introduce training programs.

4. Moderate Content with Viewpoint-Neutral Rules That Protect First Amendment Rights

If official accounts accept comments, you may have created a limited public forum. Under this framework, moderation rules should generally be viewpoint-neutral and consistently enforced to reduce legal risk.

Solid moderation policies do three things well:

• Define what is prohibited in clear, objective terms.
• Explain what actions may be taken and under what circumstances.
• Establish consistency, documentation, and escalation paths, so decisions are defensible and repeatable.

What Actions Can Public Officials and Agencies Take?

• Ignoring: No impact on a user’s ability to view or participate. It only changes what staff members choose to respond to.
• Muting: Often affects what the account owner sees, but does not necessarily stop the user from participating in public discourse.
• Hiding: Can limit the visibility of comments to others and is often treated like a form of moderation that requires policy-based justification.
• Deleting: Removes content, which can increase First Amendment scrutiny if the page is treated as a public forum, and the removal appears viewpoint-based.
• Blocking: Typically prevents a user from interacting with the account at all and may raise First Amendment concerns if implemented without clear justification tied to view-point- neutral policies.

In light of Lindke, blocking is best approached with particular care and should generally be tied to written, viewpoint-neutral moderation policies.

How Can Understaffed Agencies Evolve to Meet New Expectations and Regulations?

While legal scrutiny and resident expectations are evolving, staffing levels are remaining stagnant within many municipalities. 73% of agencies said they don’t have enough staff to meet their social media needs.

A workable path forward involves four components working together:

• Policies that are clear, public, and enforceable
• Training that turns policies into shared understanding across staff and leadership
• Workflows that define roles and escalation paths
• Tools that preserve the record, show context, and make decisions auditable

Use Tools to See and Defend Your Actions on Social Media

Because many government social media accounts are managed by multiple people over many years, it can be challenging to know who has been blocked, when they were blocked, and why.

Blocked Lists Alerts from CivicPlus^® Social Media Archiving provides visibility into who has been blocked across connected accounts and the context around these decisions. This supports practical governance by enabling staff to:

• Review blocked users across accounts
• Confirm whether the user’s behavior met the written moderation standard
• Decide to unblock or keep a block in place based on official policy
• Preserve an auditable record of decisions

While this does not eliminate the need for legal reviews, it provides valuable evidence in the event that actions on social media are challenged.

Archive Public Records from Public Forums

Whether or not an account is ultimately treated as a public forum, government social media activity is often treated as a public record under state-level laws. Specific requirements vary by jurisdiction. This creates retention and production obligations for content, including:

• Posts, comments, and replies
• Edits and deletions
• Reactions and shares
• Direct messages related to official business
• Moderation actions and related context

Our 2025 survey found that 60% of agencies now use archiving software, while 17.6% don’t archive at all or still rely on manual methods. Methods like capturing screenshots are increasingly risky because they often fail to preserve crucial metadata and context.

How CivicPlus Helps

Social Media Archiving automates retention and makes it easier to produce records by capturing activity in near real time, including posts, comments, and edits. Social Media Archiving is designed to provide core capabilities that support compliance and defensible moderation, including:

• Near-real-time capture across supported platforms, including edited and deleted content
• Preservation of key metadata and in-context records
• Centralized, searchable archives
• Export tools designed for records requests, audits, and legal review
• Blocked lists and alerts to help track and explain moderation decisions

Learn More About Staying Compliant and Transparent on Social Media

Check out our on-demand webinar on Social Media and the First Amendment for more practical guidance on protecting free speech rights while maintaining civil discourse across your municipality’s official accounts.

Disclaimer: 
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. CivicPlus makes no guarantees as to the accuracy or suitability of this material and disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on it. Use of this content does not create any attorney-client or advisory relationship. You should consult your own legal counsel before adopting or implementing any policies. CivicPlus may update or withdraw this material at any time without notice.