Not too long ago, there was a distinction between a social media presence and the everyday lives we lead. Boundaries were considered good, even necessary for holding onto one’s sanity — whether turning the phone off at dinner or refusing to check the inbox after work.
But for some, the virtual world is the only one they’re interested in living in.
Just hours after an appeals court ruled that President Trump can’t block users on Twitter from his personal account, former Democratic New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind filed a lawsuit against fellow Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for similarly blocking him. Hikind claims in his lawsuit that Ocasio-Cortez blocked him, as well as several others, including news sites and journalists who are similarly “critical” of her.
“No one is above the law. If the courts ruled POTUS can’t block people on Twitter, why would @AOC think she can get away with silencing her critics?” Hikind tweeted on Tuesday.
In its ruling, the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court unanimously agreed that government officials cannot exclude certain individuals from an “otherwise open online dialogue.”
The ruling follows a contentious debate over social media censorship. Tech giants had begun suspending fringe accounts that violated their (often malleable) terms of service. From this debate, a new human right has apparently been born: the right to social media access, and to access others’ social media.
So obsessed are we with the online world that we’re willing to go to court over perceived slights that some have interpreted as a breach of free speech. If you’re willing to spend countless hours and dollars fighting a court battle over Twitter, consider that you might be too immersed in the online world. Boundaries are still good and necessary.
Put the phone down. Delete the app. And to Mr. Hikind: Don’t worry, you’re not missing much.
