Freedom of speech doesn't give you the Greene light to say anything

 For years we've heard our parents drill into our brains that our digital footprint lasts forever and to be careful what you put on the internet because it can come back to bite you in the end. A few days ago, the first member of congress gave a sworn testimony in regards to the January 6th insurrection. Marjorie Taylor Greene, representative of the 14th district in Georgia, had to appear in front of a judge for her role in the insurrection last year. However, her testimony didn't give much more insight, since most of her responses where in the line of "I don't recall" or "I'm not answering that question." But it appears that her responses didn't matter all that much, since her social media basically answers any questions that the people might have. But will these tweets that she liked and sent out herself lead to invoking the 14th amendment section 3 and should someone be judged by their social media content? Let's talk about it! 

We all know politicians from both sides of the isle have a huge team working for them on all aspects of their work day, from speechwriting to social media management. Now whether or not Marjorie Taylor Greene is the only person behind her twitter account is doubtful, which begs the question, should she be held accountable for all her tweets that could be incriminating in this trial? Some might argue that the person tweeting should be held accountable, however, i disagree, if tweeted under her name, it is to be assumed that she stands by the content that is put out under her name. Since she seems to present herself as a person with strong opinions, and not just strong opinions that are loosely held. Foucault noted, "people know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don't know is what what they do does." so even if she may claim that she didn't have anything to do with the insurrection, that the words she tweeted didn't incite violence, that those insurrectionists are their own people, who make their own choices, and she is right in saying that. They are grown people who have their own autonomy, but she did water the seed that someone else planted, and she did have a role in the growing of that seed. It's important to remember, that ideas are contagious, and so are emotions such as anger and fear. and when she tweets out to her 543.7K followers that the election was fraudulent and that they should go to Washington D.C. to "Stop the Steal", no matter the cost, i would say she should be held accountable for it, and i don't think that is such a radical stance to take. What do you guys' think? Should she be able to stay in congress or still be able to run for congress? Should she get her suspended personal twitter account back? let's talk about it in the comments!!