The Trump administration is continuing its dangerous push to surveil and suppress foreign students’ social media activity. The State Department recently announced an unprecedented new requirement that applicants for student and exchange visas must set all social media accounts to “public” for government review. The State Department also indicated that if applicants refuse to unlock their accounts or otherwise don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity.

The administration is penalizing prospective students and visitors for shielding their social media accounts from the general public or for choosing to not be active on social media. This is an outrageous violation of privacy, one that completely disregards the legitimate and often critical reasons why millions of people choose to lock down their social media profiles, share only limited information about themselves online, or not engage in social media at all. By making students abandon basic privacy hygiene as the price of admission to American universities, the administration is forcing applicants to expose a wealth of personal information to not only the U.S. government, but to anyone with an internet connection.

Why Social Media Privacy Matters

The administration’s new policy is a dangerous expansion of existing social media collection efforts. While the State Department has required since 2019 that visa applicants disclose their social media handles—a policy EFF has consistently opposed—forcing applicants to make their accounts public crosses a new line.

Individuals have significant privacy interests in their social media accounts. Social media profiles contain some of the most intimate details of our lives, such as our political views, religious beliefs, health information, likes and dislikes, and the people with whom we associate. Such personal details can be gleaned from vast volumes of data given the unlimited storage capacity of cloud-based social media platforms. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeled with dates, locations, and descriptions”—all of which and more are available on social media platforms.

By requiring visa applicants to share these details, the government can obtain information that would otherwise be inaccessible or difficult to piece together across disparate locations. For example, while visa applicants are not required to disclose their political views in their applications, applicants might choose to post their beliefs on their social media profiles.

This information, once disclosed, doesn’t just disappear. Existing policy allows the government to continue surveilling applicants’ social media profiles even once the application process is over. And personal information obtained from applicants’ profiles can be collected and stored in government databases for decades.

What’s more, by requiring visa applicants to make their private social media accounts public, the administration is forcing them to expose troves of personal, sensitive information to the entire internet, not just the U.S. government. This could include various bad actors like identity thieves and fraudsters, foreign governments, current and prospective employers, and other third parties.

Those in applicants’ social media networks—including U.S. citizen family or friends—can also become surveillance targets by association. Visa applicants’ online activity is likely to reveal information about the users with whom they’re connected. For example, a visa applicant could tag another user in a political rant or posts photos of themselves and the other user at a political rally. Anyone who sees those posts might reasonably infer that the other user shares the applicant’s political beliefs. The administration’s new requirement will therefore publicly expose the personal information of millions of additional people, beyond just visa applicants.

There are Very Good Reasons to Keep Social Media Accounts Private

An overwhelming number of social media users maintain private accounts for the same reason we put curtains on our windows: a desire for basic privacy. There are numerous legitimate reasons people choose to share their social media only with trusted family and friends, whether that’s ensuring personal safety, maintaining professional boundaries, or simply not wanting to share personal profiles with the entire world.

Safety from Online Harassment and Physical Violence

Many people keep their accounts private to protect themselves from stalkers, harassers, and those who wish them harm. Domestic violence survivors, for example, use privacy settings to hide from their abusers, and organizations supporting survivors often encourage them to maintain a limited online presence.

Women also face a variety of gender-based online harms made worse by public profiles, including stalking, sexual harassment, and violent threats. A 2021 study reported that at least 38% of women globally had personally experienced online abuse, and at least 85% of women had witnessed it. Women are, in turn, more likely to activate privacy settings than men.

LGBTQ+ individuals similarly have good reasons to lock down their accounts. Individuals from countries where their identity puts them in danger rely on privacy protections to stay safe from state action. People may also reasonably choose to lock their accounts to avoid the barrage of anti-LGBTQ+ hate and harassment that is common on social media platforms, which can lead to real-world violence. Others, including LGBTQ+ youth, may simply not be ready to share their identity outside of their chosen personal network.

Political Dissidents, Activists, and Journalists

Activists working on sensitive human rights issues, political dissidents, and journalists use privacy settings to protect themselves from doxxing, harassment, and potential political persecution by their governments.

Rather than protecting these vulnerable groups, the administration’s policy instead explicitly targets political speech. The State Department has given embassies and consulates a vague directive to vet applicants’ social media for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles,” according to an internal State Department cable obtained by multiple news outlets. This includes looking for “applicants who demonstrate a history of political activism.” The cable did not specify what, exactly, constitutes “hostile attitudes.”

Professional and Personal Boundaries

People use privacy settings to maintain boundaries between their personal and professional lives. They share family photos, sensitive updates, and personal moments with close friends—not with their employers, teachers, professional connections, or the general public.

The Growing Menace of Social Media Surveillance

This new policy is an escalation of the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration-related social media surveillance. EFF has written about the administration’s new “Catch and Revoke” effort, which deploys artificial intelligence and other data analytic tools to review the public social media accounts of student visa holders in an effort to revoke their visas. And EFF recently submitted comments opposing a USCIS proposal to collect social media identifiers from visa and green card holders already living in the U.S., including when they submit applications for permanent residency and naturalization.

The administration has also started screening many non-citizens’ social media accounts for ambiguously-defined “antisemitic activity,” and previously announced expanded social media vetting for any visa applicant seeking to travel specifically to Harvard University for any purpose.

The administration claims this mass surveillance will make America safer, but there’s little evidence to support this. By the government’s own previous assessments, social media surveillance has not proven effective at identifying security threats.

At the same time, these policies gravely undermine freedom of speech, as we recently argued in our USCIS comments. The government is using social media monitoring to directly target and punish through visa denials or revocations foreign students and others for their digital speech. And the social media surveillance itself broadly chills free expression online—for citizens and non-citizens alike.

In defending the new requirement, the State Department argued that a U.S. visa is a “privilege, not a right.” But privacy and free expression should not be privileges. These are fundamental human rights, and they are rights we abandon at our peril.

Originally posted to the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

The federal government is using social media surveillance to target student visa holders living in the United States for online speech the Trump administration disfavors. The administration has initiated this new program, called “Catch and Revoke,” in an effort to revoke visas, and it appears to be a cross-agency collaboration between the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Justice. It includes a dedicated task force and the use of AI and other data analytic tools to review the public social media accounts of tens of thousands of student visa holders. Though the full scope remains unclear, current reports indicate that the administration is surveilling for “pro-Hamas” sentiment, “antisemitic activity,” or even just “conduct that bears a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture.” At the time of publishing of this blog post, the federal government has already revoked over 1600 student visas for a variety of reasons.

This social media surveillance program is an alarming attack on freedom of speech and privacy—for both visa holders here in the United States and their American associates.

A Dangerous Erosion of Free Speech

While there is some nuance in the interplay between freedom of speech and immigration law, one principle is evident: foreign nationals who currently reside in the U.S.—including student visa holders—are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court stated in Bridges v. Wixon (1945) that “[f]reedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”

First Amendment-Protected Political Speech

Revoking student visas based, in part, on what students have said publicly on social media is especially constitutionally problematic given that the Trump administration is targeting core First Amendment-protected political speech. As the Supreme Court stated in Mills v. Alabama (1966), a central purpose of the First Amendment is to “protect the free discussion of governmental affairs,” whether on political issues, public officials, or how the government should operate.

The administration is targeting non-citizen students for “pro-Hamas,” antisemitic, and even just pro-Palestinian speech. Yet what falls under these categories is vague and not clearly defined. For example, the administration detained a Georgetown University researcher due to social media posts that are critical of Israel, but do not express support for Hamas.

More importantly, even controversial or offensive speech falls within the protections of the First Amendment. There are several categories of speech that do not enjoy First Amendment protection, including true threats of violence, inciting imminent violence, and providing material support for terrorism. However, short of rising to that level, the student speech targeted by the administration is protected by the First Amendment. Worse still, the administration is broadly going after students who simply appear to be “social activists” or are engaged in speech that is generically “anti-American.”

Such an overbroad social media surveillance and visa revocation program—one that sweeps in wholly lawful speech—strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment was intended to protect against.

Chilling Effect

Social media surveillance motivated by the government’s desire to punish political speech will chill (and certainly has already chilled) student visa holders from speaking out online.

The Supreme Court stated in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that a government policy that causes individuals “to feel some inhibition” in freely expressing themselves “is at war with the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open’ debate and discussion that are contemplated by the First Amendment.” More recently, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor expressed in a concurring opinion that “[a]wareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms” guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In other words, student visa holders are more likely to engage in self-censorship and refrain from expressing dissenting or controversial political views when they know they’re being surveilled. Or they may choose to disengage from social media entirely, to avoid the risk that even seemingly harmless posts will affect their visa status and their ability to continue their education in the United States.

Student visa holders may also limit whom they connect with on social media, particularly if they fear those connections will have political views the current administration doesn’t like. The administration has not expressly stated that it will limit its surveillance only to the social media posts of student visa holders, which means it may also look at posts made by those in the students’ networks. This, too, undermines the First Amendment. The freedom to associate and express political views as a group—“particularly controversial ones”—is a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech, as the Supreme Court stated in its landmark NAACP v. Alabama (1958) decision.

American Citizens Impacted

Because student visa holders’ social networks undoubtedly include U.S. citizens, those citizens may also be subject to social media scrutiny, and therefore will also be chilled from freely speaking or associating online. Government agents have previously held visa holders responsible for the activity of their social media connections. Knowing this, a U.S. citizen who has a non-citizen friend or family member in the U.S. on a student visa might hesitate to post criticisms of the government—even if fully protected by the First Amendment—fearing the posts could negatively impact their loved one. A general climate of government surveillance may also lead U.S. citizens to self-censor on social media, even without any foreign national friends or family.

A Threat to Digital Privacy

Social media surveillance, even of publicly available profiles and especially with automated tools, can invade personal privacy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government’s collection and aggregation of publicly available personal information—particularly when enhanced by technology—can implicate privacy interests. The government can obtain personal information it otherwise would not have access to or that would usually be difficult to find across disparate locations.

Social media aggregates personal information in one place, including some of the most intimate details of our lives, such as our health information, likes and dislikes, political views and religious beliefs, and people with whom we associate. And automated tools can easily search for and help find this information. Even people who choose not to post much personal information on social media might still be exposed by comments and tags made by other users.

Constitutional Harms are Exacerbated by Automated Tools

The Trump administration is reportedly deploying artificial intelligence and other automated tools to assist in its review of student visa holders’ social media posts. While facts are still coming to light, any form of automation is likely to amplify speech and privacy harms to student visa holders.

By the government’s own assessment in another context—evaluating the admissibility of visa applicants (discussed below)—social media surveillance has not proven effective at assessing security threats.

Human review of public social media posts is itself prone to problems. Social media posts are highly context-specific, and government officials often have trouble differentiating between sarcasm, parody, and exaggeration from unlawful support for controversial causes. This leads to mistakes and misinterpretations. For example, in 2012 an Irish citizen was turned back at the border because DHS agents misinterpreted two of his Twitter posts: one, that he was going to “destroy America” – slang for partying – and two, that he was going to “dig up Marilyn Monroe’s grave” – a joke. These mistakes are even more likely when the posts are not in English or when they contain cultural references .

Human review augmented by automated tools is just as bad. Automated tools also have difficulty understanding the nuances of language, as well as the broader context in which a statement was made. These algorithms are also designed to replicate patterns in existing datasets, but if the data is biased, the technology simply reinforces those biases. As such, automated tools are similarly prone to mistakes and misinterpretations. Yet people often defer to automated outputs thinking they are correct or fair simply because a computer was used to produce them. And in some cases, decision-makers may even use these tools to justify or cover their own biases.

Most concerning would be if automated systems were permitted to make final visa revocation decisions without any human review. As EFF has repeatedly stated, automated tools should never get the final say on whether a person should be policed, arrested, denied freedom, or, in this case, stripped of a student visa and forcibly barred from completing their education.

Government Social Media Surveillance is Not New—and is Expanding

That the Trump administration is using social media surveillance on student visa holders residing in the United States is a disturbing apparent escalation of a longstanding trend.

EFF has long sounded the alarm on the civil liberty harms of government social media surveillance. In particular, since 2019, visa applicants have been required to disclose all social media accounts they have used in the last five years to the U.S. government. That policy is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit, Doc Society v. Pompeo, in which EFF filed an amicus brief.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently upped the ante by ordering officials to deny visas to new or returning student applicants if their social media broadly demonstrates “a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles).” Notably, Rubio indicated this standard could also apply to current student visa holders. The State Department also announced it will review the social media of any visa applicant who has been to Gaza since 2007.

The Trump administration has also proposed dramatically expanding social media scrutiny by requiring non-citizens already legally residing in the U.S. to disclose social media accounts on a variety of forms related to immigration benefits, such as people seeking lawful permanent residency or naturalization. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component of DHS, also announced it would look for “antisemitic activity” on social media to deny immigration benefits to individuals currently in the country.

Protecting Your Accounts

There are general steps you can take to better protect your social media accounts from surveillance. Understand, however, that the landscape is shifting rapidly and not all protections are foolproof. Law enforcement may be able to get a warrant for your private information and messages if a judge is convinced there is preliminary evidence supporting probable cause of criminal activity. And non-governmental individuals and groups have recently used other forms of technology like face recognition to identify and report student activists for potential deportation. You should conduct your own individualized risk assessment to determine what online activity is safe for you.

Still, it never hurts to better secure your online privacy. For your current social media accounts, consider locking them down:

• Make public accounts private and ensure only approved connections can see your content. Note that if your past public posts have already been copied and saved by an outside party, making your account private will not undo this. It will, however, better protect your future posts.
• Some platforms make certain information publicly viewable, even if you’ve made your account private. Other information may be public by default, but can be made private. Review each platform’s privacy settings to limit what information is shared publicly, including friend lists, contact information, and location information.
• You should also review your friends or followers list to ensure you know every person you’ve approved, especially when making a once-public account private.

If you create a new social media account:

• Query whether you want to attach your legal name to it. Many platforms allow you to have a pseudonymous account.
• When setting up the account, don’t provide more personal information than is necessary.

EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense guide provides additional information on protecting your social media accounts from a variety of actors. If you’re not sure what information is publicly available about you on social networks or other sites, consider doing some research to see what, if anything, others would find.

By targeting international students for broad categories of online speech, this administration is fostering a climate of fear, making students anxious that a single post or errant “like” could cost them their U.S. visa or even lead to detention and deportation. This will, ultimately, stifle political debate and silence dissent–for non-citizens and citizens alike–undermining the open dialogue crucial to democracy.

Originally published to the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Across the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has already begun increasing enforcement operations, including highly publicized raids. As immigrant communities, families, allies, and activists think about what can be done to shift policy and protect people, one thing is certain: similar to filming the police as they operate, you have the right to film ICE, as long as you are not obstructing official duties.

Filming ICE agents making an arrest or amassing in your town helps promote transparency and accountability for a system that often relies on intimidation and secrecy and obscures abuse and law-breaking. 

While it is crucial for people to help aid in transparency and accountability, there are considerations and precautions you should take. For an in-depth guide by organizations on the frontlines of informing people who wish to record ICE’s interactions with the public, review these handy resources from the hard-working folks at WITNESS and NYCLU. 

At EFF, here are our general guidelines when it comes to filming law enforcement, including ICE: 

What to Know When Recording Law Enforcement

• You have the right to record law enforcement officers exercising their official duties in public.
• Stay calm and courteous.
• Do not interfere with law enforcement. If you are a bystander, stand at a safe distance from the scene that you are recording.
• You may take photos or record video and/or audio.
• Law enforcement cannot order you to move because you are recording, but they may order you to move for public safety reasons even if you are recording.
• Law enforcement may not search your cell phone or other device without a warrant based on probable cause from a judge, even if you are under arrest. Thus, you may refuse a request from an officer to review or delete what you recorded. You also may refuse to unlock your phone or provide your passcode.
• Despite reasonably exercising your First Amendment rights, law enforcement officers may illegally retaliate against you in a number of ways including with arrest, destruction of your device, and bodily harm. They may also try to retaliate by harming the person being arrested. We urge you to remain alert and mindful about this possibility.
• Consider the sensitive nature of recording in the context of an ICE arrest. The person being arrested or their loved ones may be concerned about exposing their immigration status, so think about obtaining consent or blurring out faces in any version you publish to focus on ICE’s conduct (while still retaining the original video).

Your First Amendment Right to Record Law Enforcement Officers Exercising Their Official Duties in Public

You have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement, which federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized and affirmed. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record law enforcement. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right. EFF has advocated for this right in many amicus briefs.

Federal appellate courts typically frame the right to record law enforcement as the right to record officers exercising their official duties in public. This right extends to private places, too, where the recorder has a legal right to be, such as in their own home. However, if the law enforcement officer is off-duty or is in a private space that you don’t have a right to be in, your right to record the officer may be limited. 

Special Considerations for Recording Audio

The right to record law enforcement unequivocally includes the right to take pictures and record video. There is an added legal wrinkle when recording audio—whether with or without video. Some law enforcement officers have argued that recording audio without their consent violates wiretap laws. Courts have generally rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that the Illinois wiretap statute violated the First Amendment as applied to audio recording on-duty police.

There are two kinds of wiretaps laws: those that require “all parties” to a conversation to consent to audio recording (12 states), and those that only require “one party” to consent (38 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal statute). Thus, if you’re in a one-party consent state, and you’re involved in an incident with law enforcement (that is, you’re a party to the conversation) and you want to record audio of that interaction, you are the one party consenting to the recording and you don’t also need the law enforcement officer’s consent. If you’re in an all-party consent state, and your cell phone or recording device is in plain view, your open audio recording puts the officer on notice and thus their consent might be implied.

Additionally, wiretap laws in both all-party consent states and one-party consent states typically only prohibit audio recording of private conversations—that is, when the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Law enforcement officers exercising their official duties, particularly in public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither do civilians in public places who speak to law enforcement in a manner audible to passersby. Thus, if you’re a bystander, you may legally audio record an officer’s interaction with another person, regardless of whether you’re in a state with an all-party or one-party consent wiretap statute. However, you should take into consideration that ICE arrests may expose the immigration status of the person being arrested or their loved ones. As WITNESS puts it: “[I]t’s important to keep in mind the privacy and dignity of the person being targeted by law enforcement. They may not want to be recorded or have the video shared publicly. When possible, make eye contact or communicate with the person being detained to let them know that you are there to observe and document the cops’ behavior. Always respect their wishes if they ask you to stop filming.” You may also want to consider blurring faces to focus on ICE’s conduct if you publish the video online (while still retaining the original version)

Moreover, whether you may secretly record law enforcement (whether with photos, video or audio) is important to understand, given that officers may retaliate against individuals who openly record them. At least one federal appellate court, the First Circuit, has affirmed the First Amendment right to secretly audio record law enforcement performing their official duties in public. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit recently upheld Oregon’s law that generally bans secret recordings of in-person conversations without all participants’ consent, and only allows recordings of conversations where police officers are participants if “[t]he recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants in the conversation.” Unless you are within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island), it’s probably best to have your recording device in plain view of police officers.

Do Not Interfere With Law Enforcement

While the weight of legal authority provides that individuals have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement, courts have also stated one important caveat: you may not interfere with officers doing their jobs.

The Seventh Circuit, for example, said, “Nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety.” The court further stated, “While an officer surely cannot issue a ‘move on’ order to a person because he is recording, the police may order bystanders to disperse for reasons related to public safety and order and other legitimate law enforcement needs.”

Transparency is Vital

While a large number of deportations is a constant in the U.S. regardless of who is president or which party is in power, the current administration appears to be intentionally making ICE visible in cities and carrying out flashy raids to sow fear within immigrant communities. Specifically, there are concerns that this administration is targeting people already under government supervision while awaiting their day in court. Bearing witness and documenting the presence and actions of ICE in your communities and neighborhoods is important. You have rights, and one of them is your First Amendment-protected right to film law enforcement officers, including ICE agents.

Just because you have the right, however, does not mean law enforcement will always acknowledge and uphold your right in that moment. Be safe and be alert. If you have reason to think your devices might be seized or you may run the risk of putting yourself under surveillance, make sure to check out our Surveillance Self-Defense guides and our field guide to identifying and understanding the surveillance tools law enforcement may employ.

Originally published to the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

After several years of litigation across the federal appellate courts, the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion has finally crafted a test that lower courts can use to determine whether a government official engaged in “state action” such that censoring individuals on the official’s social media page—even if also used for personal purposes—would violate the First Amendment.

The case, Lindke v. Freed, came out of the Sixth Circuit and involves a city manager, while a companion case called O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier came out of the Ninth Circuit and involves public school board members.

A Two-Part Test

The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring individuals’ speech in public forums based on the viewpoints that individuals express. In the age of social media, where people in government positions use public-facing social media for both personal, campaign, and official government purposes, it can be unclear whether the interactive parts (e.g., comments section) of a social media page operated by someone who works in government amount to a government-controlled public forum subject to the First Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Another way of stating the issue is whether a government official who uses a social media account for personal purposes is engaging in state action when they also use the account to speak about government business.  

As the Supreme Court states in the Lindke opinion, “Sometimes … the line between private conduct and state action is difficult to draw,” and the question is especially difficult “in a case involving a state or local official who routinely interacts with the public.”

The Supreme Court announced a fact-intensive test to determine if a government official’s speech on social media counts as state action under the First Amendment. The test includes two required elements:

• the official “possessed actual authority to speak” on the government’s behalf, and
• the official “purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.”

Although the court’s opinion isn’t as generous to internet users as we had asked for in our amicus brief, it does provide guidance to individuals seeking to vindicate their free speech rights against government officials who delete their comments or block them outright.

This issue has been percolating in the courts since at least 2016. Perhaps most famously, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and others sued then-president Donald Trump for blocking many of the plaintiffs on Twitter. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that President Trump’s practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account violated the First Amendment. EFF has also represented PETA in two cases against Texas A&M University.

Element One: Does the official possess actual authority to speak on the government’s behalf?

There is some ambiguity as to what specific authority the Supreme Court believes the government official must have. The opinion is unclear whether the authority is simply the general authority to speak officially on behalf of the public entity, or instead the specific authority to speak officially on social media. On the latter framing, the opinion, for example, discusses the authority “to post city updates and register citizen concerns,” and the authority “to speak for the [government]” that includes “the authority to do so on social media….” The broader authority to generally speak on behalf of the government would be easier to prove for plaintiffs and should always include any authority to speak on social media.

Element One Should Be Interpreted Broadly

We will urge the lower courts to interpret the first element broadly. As we emphasized in our amicus brief, social media is so widely used by government agencies and officials at all levels that a government official’s authority generally to speak on behalf of the public entity they work for must include the right to use social media to do so. Any other result does not reflect the reality we live in.

Moreover, plaintiffs who are being censored on social media are not typically commenting on the social media pages of low-level government employees, say, the clerk at the county tax assessor’s office, whose authority to speak publicly on behalf of their agency may be questionable. Plaintiffs are instead commenting on the social media pages of people in leadership positions, who are often agency heads or in elected positions and who surely should have the general authority to speak for the government.

“At the same time,” the Supreme Court cautions, “courts must not rely on ‘excessively broad job descriptions’ to conclude that a government employee is authorized to speak” on behalf of the government. But under what circumstances would a court conclude that a government official in a leadership position does not have such authority? We hope these circumstances are few and far between for the sake of plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their First Amendment rights.

When Does the Use of a New Communications Technology Become So “Well Settled” That It May Fairly Be Considered Part of a Government Official’s Public Duties?

If, on the other hand, the lower courts interpret the first element narrowly and require plaintiffs to provide evidence that the government official who censored them had authority to speak on behalf of the agency on social media specifically, this will be more difficult to prove.

One helpful aspect of the court’s opinion is that the government official’s authority to speak (however that’s defined) need not be written explicitly in their job description. This is in contrast to what the Sixth Circuit had, essentially, held. The authority to speak on behalf of the government, instead, may be based on “persistent,” “permanent,” and “well settled” “custom or usage.”  

We remain concerned, however, that if there is a narrower requirement that the authority must be to speak on behalf of the government via a particular communications technology—in this case, social media—then at what point does the use of a new technology become so “well settled” for government officials that it is fair to conclude that it is within their public duties?

Fortunately, the case law on which the Supreme Court relies does not require an extended period of time for a government practice to be deemed a legally sufficient “custom or usage.” It would not make sense to require an ages-old custom and usage of social media when the widespread use of social media within the general populace is only a decade and a half old. Ultimately, we will urge lower courts to avoid this problem and broadly interpret element one.

Government Officials May Be Free to Censor If They Speak About Government Business Outside Their Immediate Purview

Another problematic aspect of the Supreme Court’s opinion within element one is the additional requirement that “[t]he alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within [the government official’s] bailiwick.”

The court explains:

For example, imagine that [the city manager] posted a list of local restaurants with health-code violations and deleted snarky comments made by other users. If public health is not within the portfolio of the city manager, then neither the post nor the deletions would be traceable to [his] state authority—because he had none.

But the average constituent may not make such a distinction—nor should they. They would simply see a government official talking about an issue generally within the government’s area of responsibility. Yet under this interpretation, the city manager would be within his right to delete the comments, as the constituent could not prove that the issue was within that particular government official’s purview, and they would thus fail to meet element one.

Element Two: Did the official purport to exercise government authority when speaking on social media?

Plaintiffs Are Limited in How a Social Media Account’s “Appearance and Function” Inform the State Action Analysis

In our brief, we argued for a functional test, where state action would be found if a government official were using their social media account in furtherance of their public duties, even if they also used that account for personal purposes. This was essentially the standard that the Ninth Circuit adopted, which included looking at, in the words of the Supreme Court, “whether the account’s appearance and content look official.” The Supreme Court’s two-element test is more cumbersome for plaintiffs. But the upside is that the court agrees that a social media account’s “appearance and function” is relevant, even if only with respect to element two.

Reality of Government Officials Using Both Personal and Official Accounts in Furtherance of Their Public Duties Is Ignored

Another problematic aspect of the Supreme Court’s discussion of element two is that a government official’s social media page would amount to state action if the page is the “only” place where content related to government business is located. The court provides an example: “a mayor would engage in state action if he hosted a city council meeting online by streaming it only on his personal Facebook page” and it wasn’t also available on the city’s official website. The court further discusses a new city ordinance that “is not available elsewhere,” except on the official’s personal social media page. By contrast, if “the mayor merely repeats or shares otherwise available information … it is far less likely that he is purporting to exercise the power of his office.”

This limitation is divorced from reality and will hamstring plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their First Amendment rights. As we showed extensively in our brief (see Section I.B.), government officials regularly use both official office accounts and “personal” accounts for the same official purposes, by posting the same content and soliciting constituent feedback—and constituents often do not understand the difference.

Constituent confusion is particularly salient when government officials continue to use “personal” campaign accounts after they enter office. The court’s conclusion that a government official “might post job-related information for any number of personal reasons, from a desire to raise public awareness to promoting his prospects for reelection” is thus highly problematic. The court is correct that government officials have their own First Amendment right to speak as private citizens online. However, their constituents should not be subject to censorship when a campaign account functions the same as a clearly official government account.

An Upside: Supreme Court Denounces the Blocking of Users Even on Mixed-Use Social Media Accounts

One very good aspect of the Supreme Court’s opinion is that if the censorship amounted to the blocking of a plaintiff from engaging with the government official’s social media page as a whole, then the plaintiff must merely show that the government official “had engaged in state action with respect to any post on which [the plaintiff] wished to comment.”  

The court further explains:

The bluntness of Facebook’s blocking tool highlights the cost of a “mixed use” social-media account: If page-wide blocking is the only option, a public of­ficial might be unable to prevent someone from commenting on his personal posts without risking liability for also pre­venting comments on his official posts. A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated per­sonal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability.

We are pleased with this language and hope it discourages government officials from engaging in the most egregious of censorship practices.

The Supreme Court also makes the point that if the censorship was the deletion of a plaintiff’s individual comments under a government official’s posts, then those posts must each be analyzed under the court’s new test to determine whether a particular post was official action and whether the interactive spaces that accompany it are government forums. As the court states, “it is crucial for the plaintiff to show that the official is purporting to exercise state authority in specific posts.” This is in contrast to the Sixth Circuit, which held, “When analyzing social-media activity, we look to a page or account as a whole, not each individual post.”

The Supreme Court’s new test for state action unfortunately puts a thumb on the scale in favor of government officials who wish to censor constituents who engage with them on social media. However, the test does chart a path forward on this issue and should be workable if lower courts apply the test with an eye toward maximizing constituents’ First Amendment rights online.

Originally posted to the EFF Deeplinks site.

We have covered the Protecting Kids On Social Media Act a few times, when it was first introduced back in April, where we highlighted how it was both unconstitutional and the rationale behind it was not supported by any actual evidence, and then again just recently when Senator Chris Murphy (one of the bill’s co-sponsors) wrote a ridiculously confused op-ed for the NY Times, claiming it was necessary because kids these days get too many music recommendations and no longer could discover new music on their own.

Backers of the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act are floating it as an alternative to the equally bad KOSA as we head to the fall “Senators need to a grandstanding win to show their constituents they’ve done something this year” season. EFF has a useful post detailing all of the many problems with this bill, and we’re running a copy of their post here.

A new bill sponsored by Sen. Schatz (D-HI), Sen. Cotton (R-AR), Sen. Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Britt (R-AL) would combine some of the worst elements of various social media bills aimed at “protecting the children” into a single law. It contains elements of the dangerous Kids Online Safety Act as well as several ideas pulled from state bills that have passed this year, such as Utah’s surveillance-heavy Social Media Regulations law. The authors of the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act  (S.1291) may have good intentions. But ultimately, this legislation would lead to a second-class online experience for young people, mandated privacy-invasive age verification for all users, and in all likelihood, the creation of digital IDs for all U.S. citizens and residents. 

The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act has five major components: 

• Mandate that social media companies verify the ages of all account holders, including adults 
• Ban on children under age 13 using social media at all
• Mandate that social media companies obtain parent or guardian consent before minors over 12 years old and under 18 years old may use social media
• Ban on the data of minors (anyone over 12 years old and under 18 years old) being used to inform a social media platform’s content recommendation algorithm
• Creation of a digital ID pilot program, instituted by the Department of Commerce, for citizens and legal residents, to verify ages and parent/guardian-minor relationships

All Age Verification Systems are Dangerous — Especially Governments’

The bill would make it illegal for anyone under 13 to join a social media platform, and require parental consent for anyone between the ages of 13 and 18 to do so. Thus the bill also requires platforms to develop systems to verify the ages of all users, as well as determine the parental or guardian status for minors. 

The problems inherent in age verification systems are well known. All age verification systems are identity verification systems and surveillance systems. All age verification systems also impact all users because it’s necessary to confirm the age of all people in order to keep out one select age group. This means that every social media user would be subjected to potentially privacy-invasive identity verification if they want to use social media.

As we’ve written before, research has shown that no age verification method is sufficiently reliable, covers the entire population, and protects data privacy and security. In short, every current age verification method has significant flaws. Just to point out a few of the methods and their problems: systems that require users to upload their government identification only work for people who have IDs; systems that use photo or video to guess the age of a person are inevitably inaccurate for some portion of the population; and systems that rely on third-party data, like credit agencies, have all of the problems that this third-party data often has, such as incorrect information. And of course, all systems could tie a user’s identity to the content that they wish to view. 

An Age Verification Digital ID “Pilot Program” is a Slippery Slope Towards a National Digital ID 

The bill’s authors may hope to bypass some of these age verification flaws by building a government-issued digital ID system for the (voluntary) use by all citizens and lawful residents of the U.S. to be able to verify their ages and parent/guardian-minor relationships on social media platforms (although this “pilot program” would likely not be completed before the age verification requirements went into effect). But this program risks falling down a slippery slope toward a national digital ID for all purposes. 

Under the bill, individuals would have to upload copies of government-issued and other forms of identification, or people’s asserted identities and ages would be cross-referenced with electronic records from state DMVs, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, state agencies responsible for vital records, “or other governmental or professional records that the Secretary [of Commerce] determines are able to reliably assist in the verification of identity information.” 

EFF and other civil liberties organizations have long been critical of digital ID systems and policies that would move us toward them. While private, commercial age verification systems come with particular concerns, government versions that rely on digital IDs are also dangerous. 

Mission creep is a serious concern. The intention of this ID system may only be to authorize social media access; the bill states that the pilot program credential “may not be used to establish eligibility for any government benefit or legal status.” But it’s unlikely that age and parental status verification would be its only use after its creation. Congress could easily change the law with future bills. Just look at the Social Security Number–once upon a time, it was only meant to allow Americans to participate in the federal retirement program. Even the Social Security Administration admits that the number “has come to be used as a nearly universal identifier.” Online government identity verification for accessing social media is already dystopian; who knows where the system would end up after it’s in place. Without very careful and thoughtful management and architecture, a digital ID system could lead to loss of privacy, loss of anonymous speech, and increased government surveillance. 

TAKE ACTION: Stop the “Protecting Kids on Social Media Act.”

Data sharing concerns also don’t disappear because the government is involved—in fact, they may be more acute. In third-party age verification systems, a private company generally acts as a middle-man between a government and the requesting site or platform. In fact, the bill contemplates the use of “private identity verification technology providers” as part of the pilot program. The third party may collect a user’s documentation and compare that to a government database, or compare a user’s biometric information with government records. This creates the opportunity, without more protection via regulation or other means, for the third party to collect an individual’s personal data and use it for their own commercial purposes, including by selling the data or sharing it with others. The data is also at risk of being accessed by unknown and innumerable nefarious individuals and entities through a data breach.

Additionally, current and past practices of government data sharing should make anyone leery of uploading their private information to the government as well, even to an agency that theoretically already has it. All age verification systems are surveillance systems as much as they are identity verification systems. Government agencies sharing data with one another is already a danger—as of 2020, the FBI could search or request data from driver’s license and ID databases in at least 27 states. The total number of DMVs with facial recognition at the time was at least 43, with only four of those limiting data sharing entirely. That puts two-thirds of the population of the U.S. at risk of misidentification. 

From a practical perspective, it’s unclear how effective or accurate such a system would be: it may sound simple to compare a person’s uploaded record with one that’s on file, but people without IDs, those whose names have changed, and anyone who has ever experienced a snafu in government document processing know better. As an example, in 2022, the IRS backed away from a decision to use a third-party identity verification system—ID.me—specifically because it forced people to use flawed facial recognition and endure four-hour waits to be verified. 

Parental Consent for Older Minors Is the Wrong Approach to Safety Online

Under this law, anyone age 13 to just under 18 will be required to obtain parental consent before accessing social media. We are against such laws. 

First, requiring parental consent for teens’ use of these platforms would infringe on teens’ free speech, access to information, and autonomy—which also must include, for older teens, privacy vis-à-vis their parents. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that young people enjoy First Amendment protections for expressing themselves and accessing information. The Court has stated, for example, that speech generally “cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” 

Access to private spaces online for research, communication, and community are vitally important for young people. Many young people, unfortunately, encounter hostility from their parents to a variety of content—such as information about sexual health, gender, or sexual identity. (Research has shown that a large majority of young people have used the internet for health-related research.) The law would endanger that access to information for teenagers until they are 18. 

Also, it is unfortunate but true that some parents do not always have their childrens’ best interest in mind, or are unable to make appropriate decisions for them. Those young people—some of whom are old enough to work a full-time job, drive a car, and apply to college entirely on their own—will not be able to use some of the largest and most popular online websites without parental consent. It goes without saying that those most harmed by this law will be those who see social media as a lifeline—those with fewer resources to begin with.

Second, Congress should not remove parents’ ability to decide for themselves what they will allow their child to access online, the vast majority of which is legal speech, by assuming that parents don’t want their children to use social media without parental consent. Parents should be allowed to make that decision without governmental interference, by using already available filtering tools. 

Worse, not only would minors between 13 and 18 be required to gain parental consent, but under this law anyone below the age of 13 would be banned from social media entirely—even if their parents approve. This outright ban is a massive overreach that goes far beyond current laws like COPPA, which prohibits social media and other online companies from collecting data for commercial purposes from children under age 13 without parental consent. Under this law, children would be banned even from social media platforms that are designed specifically for kids—again, whether parents approve of its use or not.

Third, verification mechanisms will invariably stumble when dealing with a variety of non-traditional families. It’s unclear how age verification and parent/guardian consent will function for children with different last names than a parent, those in foster care, and those whose guardians are other relatives. Children who, unfortunately, don’t have an obvious caregiver to act as a parent in the first place will likely be forced off these important spaces entirely. Though it’s not explicit in the bill, if a person violates the law by misrepresenting their identity—say, if you’re a minor pretending to be a parent because you don’t have an obvious caregiver—you could be charged with a federal criminal offense, a charge that is otherwise rare against children. The end result of these complex requirements are is that a huge number of young people—particularly the most vulnerable—would likely lose access to social media platforms, which can play a critical role for young people in accessing resources and support in a wide variety of circumstances.

The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act is a Bad Alternative

While this bill is technically an alternative to the Kids Online Safety Act, it is a bad one. As we’ve said before, no one should have to hand over their driver’s license just to access free websites. Having to hand over that driver’s license to a government program doesn’t solve the problem. The world envisioned by the authors of this bill is one where everyone has less power to speak out and access information online, and we must oppose it.  

TAKE ACTION: Stop the “Protecting Kids on Social Media Act.”

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a woman’s reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8, will have devastating effects on online speech. 

The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their options now have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options. 

SB8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, encourages private persons to file lawsuits against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” It doesn’t matter whether that person “knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the law,” that is, the law’s new and broadly expansive definition of illegal abortion. And you can be liable even if you simply intend to help, regardless, apparently, of whether an illegal abortion actually resulted from your assistance.

And although you may defend a lawsuit if you believed the doctor performing the abortion complied with the law, it is really hard to do so. You must prove that you conducted a “reasonable investigation,” and as a result “reasonably believed” that the doctor was following the law. That’s a lot to do before you simply post something to the internet, and of course you will probably have to hire a lawyer to help you do it.

SB8 is a “bounty law”: it doesn’t just allow these lawsuits, it provides a significant financial incentive to file them. It guarantees that a person who files and wins such a lawsuit will receive at least $10,000 for each abortion that the speech “aided or abetted,” plus their costs and attorney’s fees. At the same time, SB8 may often shield these bounty hunters from having to pay the defendant’s legal costs should they lose. This removes a key financial disincentive they might have had against bringing meritless lawsuits. 

Moreover, lawsuits may be filed up to six years after the purported “aiding and abetting” occurred. And the law allows for retroactive liability: you can be liable even if your “aiding and abetting” conduct was legal when you did it, if a later court decision changes the rules. Together this creates a ticking time bomb for anyone who dares to say anything that educates the public about, or even discusses, abortion online.

Given this legal structure, and the law’s vast application, there is no doubt that we will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

And unfortunately, it’s not clear when speech encouraging someone to or instructing them how to commit a crime rises to the level of “aiding and abetting” unprotected by the First Amendment. Under the leading case on the issue, it is a fact-intensive analysis, which means that defending the case on First amendment grounds may be arduous and expensive. 

The result of all of this is the classic chilling effect: many would-be speakers will choose not to speak at all for fear of having to defend even the meritless lawsuits that SB8 encourages. And many speakers will choose to take down their speech if merely threatened with a lawsuit, rather than risk the law’s penalties if they lose or take on the burdens of a fact-intensive case even if they were likely to win it. 

The law does include an empty clause providing that it may not be “construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” While that sounds nice, it offers no real protection—you can already raise the First Amendment in any case, and you don’t need the Texas legislature to give you permission. Rather, that clause is included to try to insulate the law from a facial First Amendment challenge—a challenge to the mere existence of the law rather than its use against a specific person. In other words, the drafters are hoping to ensure that, even if the law is unconstitutional—which it is—each individual plaintiff will have to raise the First Amendment issues on their own, and bear the exorbitant costs—both financial and otherwise—of having to defend the lawsuit in the first place.

One existing free speech bulwark—47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”)—will provide some protection here, at least for the online intermediaries upon which many speakers depend. Section 230 immunizes online intermediaries from state law liability arising from the speech of their users, so it provides a way for online platforms and other services to get early dismissals of lawsuits against them based on their hosting of user speech. So although a user will still have to fully defend a lawsuit arising, for example, from posting clinic hours online, the platform they used to share that information will not. That is important, because without that protection, many platforms would preemptively take down abortion-related speech for fear of having to defend these lawsuits themselves. As a result, even a strong-willed abortion advocate willing to risk the burdens of litigation in order to defend their right to speak will find their speech limited if weak-kneed platforms refuse to publish it. This is exactly the way Section 230 is designed to work: to reduce the likelihood that platforms will censor in order to protect themselves from legal liability, and to enable speakers to make their own decisions about what to say and what risks to bear with their speech. 

But a powerful and dangerous chilling effect remains for users. Texas’s anti-abortion law is an attack on many fundamental rights, including the First Amendment rights to advocate for abortion rights, to provide basic educational information, and to counsel those considering reproductive decisions. We will keep a close eye on the lawsuits the law spurs and the chilling effects that accompany them. If you experience such censorship, please contact info@eff.org.

Originally published to the EFF Deeplinks blog.