Linkde
Audit
Post-Level First Amendment Liability Diagnostic
We test your posts. Every block. Every deletion. Against the Constitution.
Lindke v. Freed (2024)
Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024), established when a public official’s social media activity becomes state action under the First Amendment. The Court adopted a two-part test: whether the official had actual authority to speak for the government and whether they exercised that authority in the specific online activity. If both are satisfied, actions such as blocking users or deleting comments may constitute government conduct and must remain viewpoint neutral. The decision rejected the assumption that labeling an account “personal” avoids constitutional scrutiny, shifting focus instead to functional use, including staff involvement, constituent services, and links to official government resources.
The Exposure Shift
Reframe for individual official focus: your existing page says "account-by-account, post-by-post — that's where exposure lives." This product is exactly that work, done for one official at a time.
What This Engagement Covers
This is not social media coaching.
This is a structured constitutional risk assessment.
Measure the exposure before someone else does.
I. Automated
Post Collection
REVOLT downloads every public post across all active platforms within the lookback window. Posts are timestamped, archived, and hash-verified.
II. Prong One
Documented Authority Classification
Every post mapped against the official's documented authority — statute, ordinance, job description, custom. Does this post fall within the official's bailiwick?
III. Prong Two
Authority Classification
Every post evaluated for authority exercise indicators — official title, government branding, duty references, constituent solicitation, staff involvement.
IV. Moderation
Action Inventory
Blocked users, deleted comments, hidden replies, keyword filters, account-level restrictions — identified and mapped to state-action posts.
V. Analysis of
Viewpoint Discrimination
Pattern detection: are critical comments moderated at higher rates than supportive ones? Are similar comments treated differently based on viewpoint?
I. Risk Assessment of
Account Structure
Mixed-use exposure, labeling, disclaimers, bio language, branding, staff involvement — scored independent of specific moderation events.
Officials who wait build a plaintiff's case file.
VII. Policy Gap
Analysis
Existing municipal social media policy evaluated against post-Lindke requirements. Model language provided for missing provisions.
VII. Policy Alignment
Review
We evaluate whether existing social media policies:
- Apply to elected officials
- Reflect the Lindke two-prong framework
- Contain enforceable, viewpoint-neutral standards
- Align with public records law
Deliverable: policy sufficiency determination.
What This Is Not
- Not a city-wide compliance program
- Not social media training
- Not crisis PR
- Not content review
This is a single-official liability diagnostic.
What We Call It
- Authority exposure scoring
- Viewpoint-discrimination vulnerability assessment
- Hybrid exposure memorandum
- Escalation paths in operating rules
Industry Term
- Authority Matrix
- Viewpoint-Neutral Standards Review
- Mixed-Use Account Analysis
- Staff Escalation Protocol
Our Deliverables
- Executive Brief
- Post-Level Classification Log
- Account Structure Memorandum
- Policy Gap Analysis
- Remediation Protocol
- Board-Ready Slide Summary
When This Matters Most
When This Matters Most
- Official has blocked constituents
- Mixed-use accounts with no separation
- Moderation has occurred without documentation
- Municipal attorney needs exposure quantified, not described
- Pre-litigation posture assessment needed
Engagement Structure
- Three privilege options
- Note: performed by REVOLT with outside counsel legal review. Not a law firm.
Why This Work Exists
For three decades, our founder operated from the external pressure side—testing how institutions respond under scrutiny.
We know where escalation begins.
This service applies that adversarial insight defensively.
Like former fraud examiners who later advise banks, the methodology is the same—only the objective shifts from exposure to prevention.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Lindke Audit?
A post-level liability diagnostic that stress-tests an elected or appointed official's social media feed against the two-prong First Amendment framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). REVOLT uses automated post collection and AI-assisted classification to identify every post where blocking or deleting constituent comments creates Section 1983 exposure. Partnered outside counsel reviews all state-action determinations and signs off on every deliverable.
Who performs the legal analysis?
REVOLT Insights conducts automated data collection and AI-assisted classification. All legal analysis — including state-action determinations, First Amendment exposure assessment, and Monell liability evaluation — is performed by partnered outside counsel who reviews and signs off on every deliverable. REVOLT Insights and Chaz Stevens are not licensed attorneys.
What is included for $2,500?
One official across all active social media platforms with a 12-month lookback. Deliverables include an Executive Brief with Lindke Liability Score, Post-Level Classification Log, Account Structure Memorandum, Policy Gap Analysis, Remediation Protocol, and Board-Ready Slide Summary. A 60-minute virtual debrief is included. Outside counsel review and sign-off is included in the price.
How long does the audit take?
Standard delivery is 15 business days from engagement initiation. Priority delivery in 7 business days is available for an additional 30% of the base price.
What is the Lindke v. Freed two-prong test?
In its unanimous March 2024 decision, the Supreme Court established that a public official's social media activity constitutes state action subject to the First Amendment when two conditions are met: the official possessed actual authority to speak on the government's behalf on the subject matter of the post, and the official purported to exercise that authority in the specific post. When both prongs are satisfied on a post where a constituent was blocked or a comment deleted, the official has potential Section 1983 liability.
Does this apply to school board members?
Yes. The companion case Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff involved school board members who blocked parents on social media. The Supreme Court remanded Garnier for application of the same Lindke framework. School board members, superintendents, and other education officials have identical exposure. The audit methodology applies without modification.
What is a Lindke Liability Score?
A composite metric from 0 to 100 measuring an official's overall Section 1983 exposure from social media activity. It incorporates account structure risk, state-action post density, moderation action count, viewpoint discrimination indicators, policy compliance, and Monell municipal exposure. Scores are classified as Minimal (0–15), Low (16–35), Moderate (36–55), Elevated (56–75), or Severe (76–100).
What if our official has already blocked constituents?
It is not too late to reduce exposure. Unblocking is the single most impactful immediate action. It does not eliminate liability for the period during which the block was in effect, but it stops the ongoing violation, limits damages, and demonstrates good faith. The audit identifies which blocks create the highest exposure so the official can prioritize remedial action.
How is this different from hiring a PR firm?
A PR firm manages perception. The Lindke Audit measures a specific, quantifiable legal exposure using a structured methodology with outside counsel review. The output is a scored assessment with evidentiary documentation, not a communications plan. It operates on constitutional compliance and legal risk analysis, not narrative strategy.
Can this be done confidentially?
Confidentiality depends on the engagement structure. Three options are available: through the client's outside counsel for the strongest privilege protection, direct to the city manager as a standard vendor relationship where deliverables may be subject to public records requests, or a hybrid with a public-facing scorecard and privileged detailed legal analysis. Engagement structure is discussed during intake.