In the age of Instagram, X, and Reddit, you can say exactly what you like, whenever and however you like. The First Amendment of this country’s Constitution allows for freedom of speech for everyone, unfortunately including people who make ridiculous addresses to the U.N. Even Fizz, an anonymous Twitter-esque platform popular on college campuses across the country with a thriving user base at UR, lets anyone drop whatever thoughts are swirling around their head at their leisure. As a result, a range of interesting things hit our phone screens, from complaints about food, to a picture of a pair of underwear on the floor of Susan B Anthony Hall. Anyone can access social media, but the digital voice of a select few is louder than others — much louder. Those with this privilege have an obligation to use it.
As of this article’s publication, Christiano Ronaldo has a higher follower count on X than U.S. President Donald Trump. Four pop superstars individually have more X followers than the British Prime Minister. Each. There is not one politician in the top 10 most followed Instagram accounts.
What does this tell us about the priorities of social media users? About who we want to hear speak, and who we wish would please, for the love of Christ, stop talking?
Celebrities have a far-reaching presence on social media, and thus often have their voices amplified above others. And this is because we choose to give them a platform and consume their product: themselves. Not in the cannibalistic sense, obviously, though I’ve discovered that some people at this college have a penchant for biting other peoples’ necks, which brought my international friends and I great amusement. What I mean is, people listen to these celebrities because other people listen to them. Their prominence is, in a sense, democratic — though we might have more respect for celebrities than the government, especially when certain celebrities become politicians and decide Tylenol causes autism.
Does that mean that, because celebrities owe their status largely to their fans, followers, and haters, they ought to act as mouthpieces for those that have granted them a platform? Yes — to an extent.
This idea forces us to consider the balance between public responsibilities and the right to privacy. This idea forces us to consider the balance between public and private responsibilities. Celebrities are still people with their own personalities, ideas, and consciences. Should they be asked to forfeit their own beliefs — or lack thereof — and the ability to keep those beliefs to themselves because they have achieved fame? Who even gets to decide what the “right” way to operate as a celebrity is? Celebrities, by occupying a fundamentally public role in society, owe their fans representation and help, but they also have a right to privacy and autonomy in their own lives.
Further complicating is the fact that they also often have divided fanbases. They can’t please every follower without backtracking repeatedly and muddling any issues they choose to speak on any issues they choose to speak on.
We also cannot forget that we only talk so much about a large proportion of these celebrities because we think that they have done something worth celebrating. We enjoy their music, their art, their acting, their scientific feats. Should our recognition of their contribution to society not come with a certain amount of and respect for their privacy? Just because something is given freely doesn’t mean we can take as much as we want.
I think part of what makes us believe that celebrities should be using their voices, especially regarding humanitarian issues, is the seemingly disproportional power that they wield on the political stage. For a pre-social media example of this, we can look to a driving force in the legalization of abortion in 1970s France. The Parisian news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur published a letter that included the signatures of 343 women with names ranging from well-known actresses Catherine Deneuve to writer Simone de Beauvoir, to unknown women who had chosen to speak up.
Their letter, appealing for the legalization of abortion, was instrumental in pressuring the government and garnering support. Their wishes were granted less than four years later. Catherine Deneuve was regarded as one of the greatest actresses of her generation, whilst de Beauvoir was heavily involved in feminism and activism. These women had a platform and used their voices for social good.
Examples of this can be seen in our current era, and not only as a petition. Billie Eilish worked with HeadCount to encourage young people to vote in the 2024 election. She took the initiative to use her platform both online and literally at her concerts to positively influence her audience.
With hard proof that celebrity voices can not only raise awareness but also actively change government policy, it becomes hard to argue that those with powerful platforms are not obligated morally to speak against injustice, regardless of their privacy and autonomy.
