3 ms·

Blocking people who are harassing you seems like a reasonable balance to free speech. Just because you are saying things doesn’t mean another citizen has to li

Blocking people who are harassing you seems like a reasonable balance to free speech. Just because you are saying things doesn’t mean another citizen has to listen to them.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Someone being blocked doesn't mean harassment occurred. That will sometimes be the case and sometimes not, depending on the blocker.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  Does it matter? It's freedom of association. Ignore enough of the people you presumably represent, and that gets shown through elections. As for unelected officials, anything that would affect government duties should be going through official channels.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > It's freedom of association This is a right of the people, not of the government.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    > Ignore enough of the people you presumably represent, and that gets shown through elections. I mean until the moment you're a minority which is something elected officials have continually had issues with, especially in the south, here in the US. If an elected official is using a private channel as a means of 'public' information dissemination things get messy.
    - xboxnolifes 3y ago
      > If an elected official is using a private channel as a means of 'public' information dissemination things get messy. That sounds more like an problem of issuing public information only through private channels.
ryaneager 3y ago
Who’s to keep them from blocking actual critics? They serve the public, so isn’t a harsh or critical opinion about them still valid? Just because it’s written, doesn’t mean you have to read it.
- almatabata 3y ago
  > Just because it’s written, doesn’t mean you have to read it. Sure but you have to read it to know if it goes too far no? If these people use the accounts for official business they might want to read the comments to know what their constituents say. If every time you ask a question you have one person constantly berating you and insulting you in bad faith, i could understand wanting to block him. Constantly reading these messages can take a huge toll on people. Especially because these people do not see one or two messages. They have thousands of followers. The amount of hate message these people get dwarfs anything a normal person sees. If the SCOTUS rules that they cannot block people then they will need to employee somebody to filter the messages. Otherwise you will destroy your mental just reading the toxic messages.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I think all public figures have this issue if they're on social media. The trick is to not read it, I think.
ejb999 3y ago
ok - now define 'harass', and also tell me who gets to decide what is 'harassment' is and isn't - that is the crux of the problem. Disagreeing with a stated position of a government official - loudly and strongly - is not harassment.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  OK, but suppose you're a public official and I just keep leaving slurs on your timeline, perhaps even by automated means.
  - ejb999 3y ago
    I don't disagree, but I don't see any solution that can fairly define what is harassment and what isn't - it is clearly in the eye of the beholder - and without a doubt, if a govt official can simply declare something harassment in order to censor it, you can be 100% sure, all of a sudden every criticism will be labeled harassment.
indymike 3y ago
> Blocking people who are harassing you seems like a reasonable balance to free speech. We're not talking about private people or private enterprise. We're talking about appointed, elected and employed government officials acting in their capacity as a government official. Far too often, public officials believe anything negative is abuse, and I for one want them to hear the wingnut who is angry because their kid was beat up by the cops or the kook who is still mad because they lost his paperwork.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  We certainly want to hear reasoned opposition, but I think a lot of people in this thread are ducking the elephant in the room, which is unreasoned spam. I don't think that 1000x posts of 'fuck joe biden' or 'dump= cheeto hitler' advance public deabte. Never mind whether the politicians feel offended by such remarks; consider the position of the people who want to engage with politicians in good faith (regardless of whether it's for support or opposition) but are drowned by the endless tide of low-IQ/bot spam from both supporters and opponents. There was a whole bunch of mass shooting last weekend, as you probably know. But policy discourse is almost impossible on social media, because one side just endlessly spams 'it's the guns' and the other side endlessly spams 'shall not be infringed'. The people attempting to address the issue substantively can't make headway because the zone is continually flooded with shit. I grumbled long ago that the very short-format of services like Twitter was going to end up making discourse dumber because it favored slogans and bumper-sticker cliches, and sadly that level of stupid has become the norm now.

Blocking people who are harassing you seems like a reasonable balance to free speech. Just because you are saying things doesn’t mean another citizen has to listen to them.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Someone being blocked doesn't mean harassment occurred. That will sometimes be the case and sometimes not, depending on the blocker.

xboxnolifes 3y ago
Does it matter? It's freedom of association. Ignore enough of the people you presumably represent, and that gets shown through elections. As for unelected officials, anything that would affect government duties should be going through official channels.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It's freedom of association This is a right of the people, not of the government.
- pixl97 3y ago
  > Ignore enough of the people you presumably represent, and that gets shown through elections. I mean until the moment you're a minority which is something elected officials have continually had issues with, especially in the south, here in the US. If an elected official is using a private channel as a means of 'public' information dissemination things get messy.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    > If an elected official is using a private channel as a means of 'public' information dissemination things get messy. That sounds more like an problem of issuing public information only through private channels.

ryaneager 3y ago

Who’s to keep them from blocking actual critics? They serve the public, so isn’t a harsh or critical opinion about them still valid? Just because it’s written, doesn’t mean you have to read it.

almatabata 3y ago
> Just because it’s written, doesn’t mean you have to read it. Sure but you have to read it to know if it goes too far no? If these people use the accounts for official business they might want to read the comments to know what their constituents say. If every time you ask a question you have one person constantly berating you and insulting you in bad faith, i could understand wanting to block him. Constantly reading these messages can take a huge toll on people. Especially because these people do not see one or two messages. They have thousands of followers. The amount of hate message these people get dwarfs anything a normal person sees. If the SCOTUS rules that they cannot block people then they will need to employee somebody to filter the messages. Otherwise you will destroy your mental just reading the toxic messages.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I think all public figures have this issue if they're on social media. The trick is to not read it, I think.

ejb999 3y ago

ok - now define 'harass', and also tell me who gets to decide what is 'harassment' is and isn't - that is the crux of the problem. Disagreeing with a stated position of a government official - loudly and strongly - is not harassment.

anigbrowl 3y ago
OK, but suppose you're a public official and I just keep leaving slurs on your timeline, perhaps even by automated means.
- ejb999 3y ago
  I don't disagree, but I don't see any solution that can fairly define what is harassment and what isn't - it is clearly in the eye of the beholder - and without a doubt, if a govt official can simply declare something harassment in order to censor it, you can be 100% sure, all of a sudden every criticism will be labeled harassment.

indymike 3y ago

> Blocking people who are harassing you seems like a reasonable balance to free speech. We're not talking about private people or private enterprise. We're talking about appointed, elected and employed government officials acting in their capacity as a government official. Far too often, public officials believe anything negative is abuse, and I for one want them to hear the wingnut who is angry because their kid was beat up by the cops or the kook who is still mad because they lost his paperwork.

anigbrowl 3y ago
We certainly want to hear reasoned opposition, but I think a lot of people in this thread are ducking the elephant in the room, which is unreasoned spam. I don't think that 1000x posts of 'fuck joe biden' or 'dump= cheeto hitler' advance public deabte. Never mind whether the politicians feel offended by such remarks; consider the position of the people who want to engage with politicians in good faith (regardless of whether it's for support or opposition) but are drowned by the endless tide of low-IQ/bot spam from both supporters and opponents. There was a whole bunch of mass shooting last weekend, as you probably know. But policy discourse is almost impossible on social media, because one side just endlessly spams 'it's the guns' and the other side endlessly spams 'shall not be infringed'. The people attempting to address the issue substantively can't make headway because the zone is continually flooded with shit. I grumbled long ago that the very short-format of services like Twitter was going to end up making discourse dumber because it favored slogans and bumper-sticker cliches, and sadly that level of stupid has become the norm now.