Free speech is often celebrated in theory and resisted in practice. At its core, the First Amendment is not meant to protect speech that is popular, polite, or affirming. It exists to protect speech that challenges authority — speech that makes people uncomfortable, exposes misconduct, and force s public officials to answer questions they would rather avoid. If free speech only protected viewpoints everyone agreed with, it would be worthless. That principle matters now more than ever, as government officials increasingly rely on social media to conduct official business. Facebook pages, X accounts, and similar platforms have become the modern public square — where policies are announced, decisions are defended, and citizens engage directly with those in power. Yet too many officials treat these spaces as carefully managed environments rather than constitutional forums. At the Liberty Justice Center, we have seen the consequences of that misunderstanding firsthand. Joel Peyton, a resident of Simpson County, Kentucky, spoke out after uncovering troubling conduct related to a proposed industrial development near his neighborhood. Through open-records requests and a formal ethics complaint, he helped expose conduct that was later confirmed by the regional ethics board. His speech was lawful, fact-based, and directed at matters of public concern. The response was not transparency. It was censorship. After the ethics ruling, Mr. Peyton was blocked from the county judge/executive’s official social media page — a page used to communicate county business and public information. His comments were not obscene or threatening. They were critical. His speech alone was enough to silence him with Simpson County Judge Executive Mason Barnes blocking him on his official social media page. That kind of retaliation strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment. Government officials do not get to decide which viewpoints are acceptable in forums they themselves create. The Constitution does not permit officials to shield themselves from criticism by muting dissenting voices. Courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have made this clear: when officials use social media to conduct official business, those accounts function as public forums. Blocking constituents or deleting lawful comments because of disagreement is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. In Peyton v. Barnes, we challenged that censorship in federal court and secured relief for Mr. Peyton. But the deeper problem remains. Free speech rights should not depend on a citizen’s ability to file a lawsuit. The purpose of the First Amendment is not to guarantee comfort or consensus. It is to ensure that citizens can hear opposing views, challenge those in power, and hold government accountable. A government that permits only praise is not engaging in dialogue — it is suppressing debate. Social media has made censorship easier, faster, and quieter. One click can erase a voice. That is precisely why legal clarity matters. Kentucky’s newly introduced House Bill 323 reinforces a fundamental constitutional rule: when government opens a forum for public discussion, it must remain open to viewpoints officials dislike, not just those they welcome. It does not expand speech rights — it enforces them before abuse occurs rather than after a court intervenes. A healthy democracy depends on dissent. The First Amendment was written to protect the speech that tests power, not the speech that flatters it. The legislation would affirm that principle clearly and proactively. As our experience shows, protecting free speech online is not abstract or theoretical — it is essential to ensuring that the modern public square remains open to all, especially those brave enough to speak when it matters most. The post Social media is the new public square and Kentucky law lags behind appeared first on The Lexington Times. ...read more read less