Congress shall make no law ...

... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

Rambling time. Please feel free to continue to read or close out now. This article is about some of things that Social Media has enabled and some of the things that Social Media has failed to curb with regards to free speech and the resultant implications. There are a multitude second and third order effects to be considered, chiefly what constitutes libel and slander and if social media platforms have a responsibility weigh in on those issues.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

We often find over the course of our lives people who are overly obsessed with particular things. Sometimes that’s a healthy obsession and sometimes it’s something else entirely. We all know the first amendment and the premise behind it. But how far into our daily lives and our interactions does it extend? Am I allowed to call my neighbor a dirty wombat? Or if I do call my neighbor a dirty wombat, are social media platforms obligated to censor my posting or are they obligated to protect my right to call Karen a dirty wombat?

For a better understanding of the problems, first let’s start with the definitions.

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Libel is when something gets published, for example writing an article about someone’s performance. The trouble is when you subjectively evaluate performance versus objectively quantify performance. If I were to say that an elected official with the Town of Monument had a 24.44% absentee rate during their time in that elected position, that would be an objective statement because video evidence and town meeting minutes would confirm that that individual was absent for 22 different Board of Trustees meetings from 2018 to 2022.

Now would it be slanderous? Let’s look:

Slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

Slander is slightly different in that it can still be written but is more focused on the impromptu statement. Would it be injurious to an elected official’s reputation to state that they had missed 22 out of 90 different meetings? Possibly, maybe even deservedly. It’s a statement of fact. The gray area would come in when questioning if that person is of sound mind. One might point to an inability to manage coherent thought, but probably best to avoid subject all together even if the elected official did claim that they had 5,000 Marines ready to come and defend their honor (with force?)

A fun exercise is to then consult with a local lawyer and ask on what grounds that they might consider taking a libel or slander case, I can confidently claim that it’s a pretty lengthy road to consider such an option. The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial was 20 days long and in the end neither party really “won”, while it is possible someone would have the resources to pursue a libel or slander case, the odds aren’t great that you’d achieve any level of satisfaction.

All this to say, Monument while filled with some great Americans, also has its fair share of those that tend to over exaggerate their self worth and / or contributions. These are the people that don’t expect their claims to be validated (our town website and social media accounts are a wealth of information). Though, how do you fight comments like “That attendance record is not based on real numbers either. Minutes of the meetings, video and agendas have been deliberately skewed or edited out” - It’s a real delusion to believe that the entire town has congealed together to create one grand conspiracy against you.

So I take it with a grain of salt when someone says that the FBI placed a gag order upon them while they were investigating some grand scheme of corruption that in the end, the Justice Department declined to prosecute anyone for. The FBI nor any other federal investigative service would have the ability nor the authority to restrict one’s freedom of speech as an elected official. Perhaps everything is right in the world, we have a great slate of adult candidates vying for four open positions on our Board of Trustees, perhaps now Monument can move forward and leave the delusions of grandeur behind

Dr. Edgar Vance: How about the president? You know who that is? Who's in the White House right now?

Blade: An a**hole.