Politicians Crave the Ability to Block Critics on Social Media, and SCOTUS Will Hear the Argument…

Well this sounds… dangerous. The censoring of free speech is one of my major pet peeves. Ironically, it’s also something I deal with on a nearly daily basis as a college student of the 2020s…

I can’t tell you how many papers I’ve written only to realize I sound too conservative for it to be deserving of an “A”, so I’ll go back and make it a little more vague. I’m not proud of that, but I also need to be able to buy eggs, a tank of gas, and find some sucker to co-sign a marriage license at some point. Can’t do any of that if I get canceled so early in the game. That’s not to say that I openly parrot liberal bullsh*t, but I’m also not as libertarian-sounding as I would like…

Now… one of my favorite things I get to do with regularity is contribute here. I can make fun of whatever batsh*t topic or event that I want. I can call San Fran Gran Nan a deranged hosebeast if I want to, and I aim to do so as frequently as possible. Working here is one of my greatest pleasures, as critiques are necessary, plentiful, and, most importantly, encouraged.

What’s that? Politicians don’t like that kind of thing?

From the Daily Wire:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether public officials can block criticism of them on social media.

The court is examining two cases that had vastly different outcomes. In one, Garnier v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., Christopher and Kimberly Garnier — who had three children in the school district — sued Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, who were members of the Poway School board and had blocked posts critical of them on social media. A California federal judge ruled for the couple and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ruling last July.

The second case involved Port Huron, Michigan resident Kevin Lindke, who was blocked by City Manager James Freed from his public Facebook page. Lindke sued Freed in federal court, but a federal judge ruled for Freed in 2021. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ruling last July.

In May 2018, a federal judge ruled that former President Trump’s decision to block Twitter users critical of him violated the First Amendment because Twitter was a public forum. “”No government official — including the President — is above the law,” the judge wrote. A federal appeals court upheld the decision in 2019; Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote that the First Amendment bars officials using social media accounts for government purposes from excluding people from an “otherwise open online dialogue” because the official found their comments objectionable.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” Parker wrote. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”

Another instance of rights only mattering if Trump’s taking them away from progressive jackholes. You have every right to say what you want without fear of censorship… as long as you tick the right boxes.

I know people will have different takes on this. Digital harassment is a legitimate thing, but I also think politicians are deserving of critique if they enter the public sphere in a ludicrous professional move, and then also have the audacity to suck at their jobs. I won’t flat out say they deserve to be ridiculed, but… I mean… usually they do.

The hypocrisy on this issue also follows the 21st century progressive mantra: Do nothing. Say nothing. Be nothing.

We’re well on our way, it seems…