Freedom of speech is a clause, which allows Congress members to express themselves freely without any restrictions from the government. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has labored to determine the limits of an individual’s ability to participate in a speech and its content. In most cases, social media platforms, which the majority of the congressional representatives use, lead to the propagation of autonomy of speech. Social media and freedom of speech have a connection, which the Congressmen utilized to permit public communication under the fourth Amendment; however, there is the need to control people’s posts including the lawmakers themselves.
Social media and the freedom of speech have an appealing connection to a notable extend. Networks such as Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn among others, cause hallmarks of user-generated content supporting communication among members. The congressmen as the users of these platforms, at times, enter into a delicate relationship with the organizations they serve following the content these individuals share with the public (Hudson 1). Thus, it is vital to have clear rules as the limiting elements to what the lawmakers speak while using the mass media. The freedom to use public platforms for communication encourages the congressional representatives to exploit these unrestricted broadcasting daises to generate content, which obscenely favors them (Brannon 7). The habit of overlooking free speech policies in social media is common among lawmakers.
Members of Congress permitted people to enjoy the freedom of speech under the US’s First Amendment. These high-profile individuals were prohibited from making laws, which would abridge the free-will of the press (Sklar 395). According to the Supreme Court’s position, all speakers are supposed to be protected against government officials and agencies, including the local, federal, and state administrators, regarding speech. The fortification of free speech, however, applies only to the federal members, excluding private organizations or individuals. Therefore, Congress members consider using social media to advocate for their free speech concern; yet, they are aware of the restrictions, which address the need to comply with Constitution concerning content they create (Sklar 395). Therefore, using social networks allow them to enjoy their free will of content creation while adhering to the stipulations of the Constitution.
For many years, courts have depended on the First Amendment to limit free social media engagement by the congressmen. Various lawsuits have been dismissed in an attempt to hold liable the social media providers for not regulating the content in their platforms (Brannon 13). Section 230 of this Amendment was created to manage social media sites in the context of freely publishing the followers’ content online. Proper legislation and commendations prohibited users to speak freely on these platforms, but still, users have a habit of overlooking this provision. Therefore, the managers of these social platforms require committing to aspects of blocking, clarifying, or at times deemphasizing certain content in their networks. The lawmakers are supposed to consider the message they share on social media as directed by operational law, managing these networks (Sklar 401). The commandment governing these communication platforms, therefore, limits them in confirming free speech.
In conclusion, lawmakers’ interaction with social media is supposed to adhere to governmental stipulations. Therefore, the federal administration ensures the congressmen comply with the demands of the term limits to communal network use and the freedom of speech. Social platform managers and courts have been effective in obeying the First Amendment. They prohibit free speech as part of the content needed in broadcasting platforms. In that perspective, as much as legislatures speak freely, they are not at liberty of sharing content on social networks.
Brannon, Valerie C. “Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content”, Congressional Research Service. 2019. Web.
Sklar, Schelby. “The Impact of Social Media on the LegislativeProcess: How the Speech or Debate Clause Could Be Interpreted”, Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, vol.2, no.2, 2015. pp. 390-425. J.L. & Soc. Web.
Hudson, David L. Free speech or censorship? Social Media Litigation Is A Hot Legal Battleground. Abajournal, 2019. Web.