Social Media

 

Rubberneckin'

Stop, look, and listen baby that's my philosophy
If your rubberneckin' baby well that's all right with me
Stop, look, and listen baby that's my philosophy
It's called rubberneckin' baby but that's all right with me

Freedom of speech has to be balanced by a  freedom to NOT listen

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court, exploring free speech rights in the social media era, on Monday agreed to consider whether the Constitution’s First Amendment bars government officials from blocking their critics on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-decide-if-public-officials-can-block-critics-social-media-2023-04-24/

What those bringing suit seem to be missing is that freedom of speech means that I tolerate your speech, not that I agree with the point that you are making in that speech. Tolerance is NOT acceptance, it is uh,…tolerance.

Continuing to speak after your point has been heard is NOT speech, it is harassment. The question should not be "Should social media platforms allow public figures to block figures?", it should be "Should social media platforms allow individuals to harass public figures?"

It gets confusing because social media seems like a public forum to those doing the posting, but to those who operate, and advertise on, that social media platform is a private forum. If those operating the social media platforms do NOT allow public figures to block postings, then they are legally, as a private party, participating in that harassment. You can speak, including postings on social media, but public figures, like all figures, have to be free not to listen. If those are elected public figures, then that blocking, not listening, can and should be, an election issue. But if the voters in that election decide that the speech was harassment, e.g. elect the candidate any way, then that should be the end of it.