Public officials give up a lot of their privacy; the higher the office, the more they give up. What was once their personal domain becomes the public's forum. Formal communications, casual conversations, even a simple exchange of views — all become subject to prying eyes and ears.

It's not exactly fair, and most of us wouldn't choose to live in a glass house like that, but it's often enough how we hold accountable those we elect to make our laws and govern us.

Which is why we have to take exception to a new law signed the other day by Gov. Jared Polis — granting elected officeholders the right to block people needling them on their personal social media accounts. The law doesn't allow the officials to block people on publicly owned social media accounts.

The premise of the measure is understandable enough. In an era when politicians regularly communicate with the public through posts to their social media accounts, such as Twitter or Facebook, they can draw hostile replies posted by detractors.

Some can be irrational, vulgar, even toxic — and scare off other members of the public who might have wanted to weigh in. So, it's no surprise the legislation Polis endorsed, House Bill 23-1306, found common ground on both sides of the aisle in the Legislature and had bipartisan sponsors.

Yet, it's precisely because so many elected officials nowadays use social media to tout their work and advocate for policy that the public should enjoy unfettered access to those forums. (By the way, it's illegal to threaten someone on social media, as elsewhere.)

What a politician might regard as hostility might in fact be a constituent making a substantive point — and a valid one in the eyes of political opponents. The risk of blocking such a healthy, if sometimes spirited, exchange of ideas poses a greater peril to the democratic process than the countervailing risk of letting the usual cranks in the door, as well.

On the balance, it's better to err on the side of openness. Which is to say Polis should have vetoed the bill.

That's not to presume all or even most officeholders are thin skinned and now will start blocking unwanted commentators on social media willy nilly. But some might exploit the new law and use it to cancel dissenters.

And they'll be able to do it with impunity not only because the new law gives them cover but also because they'll reason that their personal Facebook or Twitter accounts are private, unlike "official" government-run Facebook or Twitter accounts. Polis, for example, has a public Twitter profile and a personal one.

Problem is, personal accounts, though technically private, are where the public conversation is taking place. Which is why the public officials should be expected to forfeit such privacy.

Before Colorado's new law, it was unclear if public officials in Colorado, or elsewhere in the country, could block constituents on their private social media accounts. The new law is in part a response to several recent instances in which elected officials around the state had blocked harassing constituents and were sued by them.

Courts rulings have been mixed on the issue across the country, and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the matter soon.

Whether the court's ruling moots Colorado's new law, the law is bad policy.

Politicians should learn to accept the background noise of people who post their pushback, unpleasant as it can be at times. It comes with the territory — even in their "personal" space on social media.

President Harry Truman's familiar line — "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" — still applies. Even in the digital age.

The Gazette Editorial Board

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

Photo credit: Sara Kurfeß at Unsplash