The Supreme Court is poised to step into the heated debate surrounding the intersection of free speech and social media on Tuesday. Two cases, one from California and one from Michigan, will be the first of many that the Court will consider this term. These cases raise important questions about how the First Amendment's protections apply in the age of online platforms as they pertain to elected officials.

Among the disputes set to be heard are challenges to the constitutionality of content moderation laws in Texas and Florida, as well as a case questioning the Biden administration's approach to addressing misinformation on social media.

The two cases on the docket for Tuesday involve a current and former member of the Poway Unified School District Board of Education in San Diego, California, and the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan.

In both instances, these public officials blocked followers on social media who posted critical comments. As a result, they were sued by these users for violating their free speech rights.

"Social media has become a vital part of our daily lives and it is imperative that the First Amendment's protections extend to these platforms," said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. "The Supreme Court must consider the ramifications of allowing public officials to silence opposing voices on what has become the modern town square."

Poll of the day:

Cleta Mitchell, a partner at the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP who represents plaintiffs in one of the cases, argued that the First Amendment "does not permit public officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination on their personal social media accounts." She urged the Supreme Court to provide "clarity and guidance" on this issue.

These cases are just the beginning of a series of challenges the Supreme Court will face in the ongoing debate surrounding free speech and social media.

As technology continues to evolve and become more intertwined with our daily lives, it is crucial for the justices to carefully consider the implications of their decisions on the fundamental rights of all Americans to speak their minds freely, especially in the virtual public sphere.

In the end, these cases are seen as a critical first test for how the Supreme Court will navigate the intersection of free speech and social media in the years to come. And for residents in Colorado, a state with a new law on the books to allow elected figures to block followers under some circumstances, the outcome of these cases will have a direct impact on those who use social media to voice their opinions and hold public officials accountable.

House Bill 23-1306, sponsored by Reps. Leslie Herod, D-Denver, and Matt Soper, R-Delta, as well as Sens. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, and James Coleman, D-Denver, was always controversial at the Capitol.

While it may have been intended to address ambiguity around whether politicians blocking their constituents on sites like Facebook and Twitter violates the First Amendment. There have been lawsuits to that effect in Colorado that have led to pricey settlements covered by taxpayers.

READ MORE:

• COLORADO’S HIGHEST COURT UPHOLDS GOOGLE KEYWORD SEARCH WARRANT

• COLORADO JUDGES CONVENE FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

• COLORADO LEGISLATORS MAY HAVE HAD ‘ANTI-RELIGIOUS MOTIVATIONS’

• COLORADO SUPREME COURT REJECTS DECISION LIMITING LAWYER SPEECH

• A FEDERAL JUDGE TAKES AN AX TO COLORADO’S LIBERAL ABORTION LAWS

As the High Court takes on these important cases, it's clear that the rights of the people to freely express themselves on social media must be protected.

The First Amendment was never meant to be restricted so broadly, especially in this digital age where social media has become a vital platform for the exchange of ideas and information.