Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”

Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."

Read the whole story

 

[Chance1320]

Definitely in the top five, if not the tops, of the dumbest rich people on the planet. It continues to amaze me how successful Tesla and SpaceX continue to be despite his involvement.

 

[andrewb610]

Kara Swisher on Elon Musk:

Spoiler

The idea that people working on important things can't be bad people has to be the dumbest logical leap ever.

The Nazis had lots of very smart people working on ways to destroy the armies of the free world and cover all of Europe and probably Africa in a genocidal dark age.

So one might want to remind her that the stereotypical example of fascism in the 20th century even have people working on such important things as <gasp> rockets.

The fathers of rocketry in the US and the Soviet Union were working on ways to more efficiently bomb London.

Yuri reached orbit pushed by an engine derived from the V2.

Drones can deliver you a pizza.....or hone in on your signal with a suicide decapitation strike. All technologies can be used for good or evil.

The Mercury Redstone was also not much more than a larger, more powerful V2 as well, so technically you can add Shepard and Grissom to that list as well.

 

[andrewb610]

Definitely in the top five, if not the tops, of the dumbest rich people on the planet. It continues to amaze me how successful Tesla and SpaceX continue to be despite his involvement.

I'm sure he's absolutely brilliant in some ways. He's just tricked by his own ego to think that means he's brilliant in every way.

 

[DovePig]

I think the most appropriate quote that comes to mind, reading Elon’s quotes is “the stupid, it burns!”

Ok, so what that Truth Social is getting more downloads than Twitter from an AppStore - Twitter’s been around for years, and the well of potential new users is quite small. Jeez, how did this guy make money again?

The usual way: By being lucky. Among other things, he was lucky to be born into just about every form of institutional privilege you can have.

Actually, just an hour ago, I met a similar trust fund kid at my local shop. Made the mistake of being drawn into conversation about war in Ukraine and such stuff – exited very quickly after that, since I don't usually prefer calling people ugly names face to face (I should have, I know!). I have worked with refugees from bombed out Grozny in the past, but listening to that random dip-shit's take on the war like it was a movie, I'd have to result to bodily harm and assault, which might not have been exactly the best recourse of action...

 

[arcite]

Twitter morale..... cloudy with a chance of rain

https://twitter.com/paraga/status/15194 ... 17025?s=21

 

[reever]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Americans who bang on about free speech seem to have no idea what the amendment even says or who it is supposed to protect and from whom.

Certainly no conservative activists seem to be aware, of which Musk is one

 

[andrewb610]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Americans who bang on about free speech seem to have no idea what the amendment even says or who it is supposed to protect and from whom.

Certainly no conservative activists seem to be aware, of which Musk is one

They use the term free speech to try to decouple it from the 1st Amendment because to them, anything that doesn't give them a megaphone is 'infringing' their free speech and if they acknowledged the fact that 1A only relates to the government they'd have no argument at all, as opposed to their very bad argument they have now.

 

[PentyPesu]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

The First Amendment already allows Twitter to moderate the content on their website. No amendment is needed.

 

[Statistical]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Society has always largely self policed speech to a higher degree than the government. The first amendment LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT. The entire idea being government restrictions should be limited in scope. That has never meant that everything legal is acceptable.

Elon Musk saying all speech except what is prohibited by the government is allowed on their platform is very much a change in the social contract. One that arguably justifies tighter restrictions by the government. I say that in the academic sense as even non-controversial legislation can't get passed much less an amendment. The US is a failing state.

If you don't believe me go to your local VFW branch wearing a nazi uniform and saying Heil Hitler (all 100% legal activities when it comes to restrictions by the government).

Nuance can exist in the world one can believe both of these statements at the same time
1) The government having more power to restrict speech is dangerous.
2) Elon Musk turning twitter into 4chan is gross and not good for society.

Societal imposed "soft" restrictions on speech has for two centuries allowed society to function even with very limited governmental restrictions but that paradigm like most things is being tortured by the right wing wackadoos.

 

[fixate]

I wonder what f he’s going to ban the kid who posts his private jet flights.

 

[traumadog]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

There is also the fact that the "law" means things have to go to court. Person saying a ton of racist shit to someone? Technically not illegal till they go to court and have it decided.

And almost certainly not illegal at all. There is no "right not to be offended". I think a lot of people have begun to think there should be, but as far as I know right now the bar is set at "clear, specific, and credible threat".

Just wanted to point out that the explicit reason Trump was banned was an explicit and creditable incitement of violence.

But apparently that's just evidence of how "free speech" is under threat.

 

[Urist]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Americans who bang on about free speech seem to have no idea what the amendment even says or who it is supposed to protect and from whom.

Certainly no conservative activists seem to be aware, of which Musk is one

Heck their were Canadians on trial in Canada for their actions during the freedom convoy blockades who were claiming that they were expressing their 1st amendment rights.

Nobody has ever accused them of being smart.

 

[Rabbiddog]

Sooo, I'm guessing I can just publicly call people pedo's then?

 

[andrewb610]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

The First Amendment already allows Twitter to moderate the content on their website. No laws need to he changed.

And, as it's worth mentioning, Section 230 simply lets parties throw out lawsuits on the pleadings if the suits are premised entirely on decisions which are inherently protected by the 1st Amendment. Section 230, in that sense, isn't really a substantive protection, it's a procedural one.

 

[PentyPesu]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

There is also the fact that the "law" means things have to go to court. Person saying a ton of racist shit to someone? Technically not illegal till they go to court and have it decided.

And almost certainly not illegal at all. There is no "right not to be offended". I think a lot of people have begun to think there should be, but as far as I know right now the bar is set at "clear, specific, and credible threat".

Pretty sure the First Amendment gives me a right to be offended. Is my being offended not speech? If it's not, what exactly is my expression of offense if it's not speech?

Now you could say that just because I'm offended that it doesn't mean anyone has to care or that the person who caused me offense will necessarily face consequences. But to claim I don't have a right to be offended? Plainly absurd. It's an opinion that is constitutionally-protected speech.

 

[haleks]

But Musk's new statement defining free speech as "that which matches the law" suggests a different approach in which he'd be willing to restrict speech in any country where the government requires him to do so.

Yeah, no surprise there, given Tesla's reliance on the Chinese market.

 

[Dzov]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Americans who bang on about free speech seem to have no idea what the amendment even says or who it is supposed to protect and from whom.

Certainly no conservative activists seem to be aware, of which Musk is one

He's not even American! Just like Rupert Murdoch!

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

There is also the fact that the "law" means things have to go to court. Person saying a ton of racist shit to someone? Technically not illegal till they go to court and have it decided.

And almost certainly not illegal at all. There is no "right not to be offended". I think a lot of people have begun to think there should be, but as far as I know right now the bar is set at "clear, specific, and credible threat".

Just wanted to point out that the explicit reason Trump was banned was an explicit and creditable incitement of violence.

But apparently that's just evidence of how "free speech" is under threat.

If he is guilty of inciting sedition, then he cannot run for office again

(I'm hoping MJT etc are all unable to hold office ever again)

 

[MarkS@OceanDem]

I can't wait for this deal to implode under the weight of his malign ignorance.

 

[ip_what]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

The First Amendment already allows Twitter to moderate the content on their website. No laws need to he changed.

And, as it's worth mentioning, Section 230 simply lets parties throw out lawsuits on the pleadings if the suits are premised entirely on decisions which are inherently protected by the 1st Amendment. Section 230, in that sense, isn't really a substantive protection, it's a procedural one.

This is close, but section 230 does a little more - it lets providers of interactive computer services to get out of lawsuits stemming from user-generated content, even if the user-generated content is unprotected by the first amendment.

 

[TroubleMan]

The whole problem with just following the law is that many of our laws are shit , and while there is will to change them , it just never seems to happen due to influence from the usual suspects

No the problem is not understanding that the government, private citizens, and corporations all have different duties, obligations, and rights, and a rule that applies to government does not necessarily apply equally well to private citizens or corporations.

I do not want the government legislating on acceptable public speech. I do want corporations that serve as a platform for speech to reasonably moderate that content.

Well if you want corporations to decide , then you will have to tolerate places you do not like , as moderation it's pretty open opinion

Well of course a corporation should decide how to moderate on their own private property. Neither I nor the government should be able to go into your house or your business and tell you what to say or not to say. Twitter/Facebook/Insta and all other social media are private property that they can at their whim invite us in or kick us out. It's their rules, because it's their private property.

You mention that we'd have to tolerate places we don't like. That's not true. If a private company is not moderating how I like, then I don't have to give them my business (which in this case is views). That's how the free market works. I can take my business somewhere else.

 

[Don Reba]

Not to defend Musk, but free speech is not freedom from consequences. Inviting criticism and then punishing for it is immoral but not inconsistent.

My head will short circuit, so I'll say this in the most civil and nice way possible before that happens: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences is the whole goddamn point. The entire rallying cry for "free speech" by Musk, Trump, and their ilk is them railing against the consequences of what they said.

Like... I legit never thought I would see "free speech is not freedom from consequences" being unironically used in defense of Musk. Jfc.

Hardly a defence. I take it, you agree with the argument but are indignant that it was used to argue with someone criticizing Musk. Maybe try not to be so tribal?

The tribalist is the one who ignores the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be a "free speech advocate" in the sense that free speech should not have any such consequences, and then visits consequences on someone who directs their speech towards him.

Does he say that free speech should not have any consequences or is it just your interpretation? If he does, then, sure, that would would be hypocritical. I got the impression he just doesn't want limiting speech to be one of the consequences.

The only consequence Twitter itself can impose is a suspension or ban from the platform.

Which is apparently what Musk is against. Anything else is external to Twitter.

Which is problematic if you're saying we can only possibly prosecute individuals after events happen (if you can even identify them), rather than prevent them in the first place.

Heck, it's 10 years after Sandy Hook, and it's only now that Alex Jones is on trial for his conspiracy theory crap. And he was open and public about it.

Conversely, the SCOTUS ruled last year that individuals had a First Amendment right to privacy with speech in a ruling against a California law that required political nonprofits disclose their donors.

So I'm sure in the same vein of "Free Speech", Elon would be perfectly willing to keep anonymous anyone who posts on Twitter, and do so without consequences.

Edit: typo

I agree with you. If by "you're saying" you mean me, specifically, I only argued that the first comment does not expose any hypocrisy. gsgrego gives a better example of that. Steering clear of getting into any wider debates.

 

[s73v3r]

what I constantly miss in this discussion, is his statement that "everybody is going to be a registered user" (or something in that direction) -> Which I, as a European, interpret as "no anonimous bullshit allowed".

When that's a fact, people will automatically be responsible for their "free speech". As well as companies, which -absurdidly- are considered "people" as well, in USA law.

Facebook already has that. It hasn't stopped a thing.

 

[HiredGoons]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Society has always largely self policed speech to a higher degree than the government. The first amendment LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT. The entire idea being government restrictions should be limited in scope.

Elon Musk saying all speech except what is prohibited by the government is allowed on their platform is very much a change in the social contract.

If you don't believe me go to your local VFW branch wearing a nazi uniform and saying Heil Hitler (all 100% legal activities when it comes to restrictions by the government).

Nuance can exist in the world one can believe both of these statements at the same time
1) The government having more power to restrict speech is dangerous.
2) Elon Musk turning twitter into 4chan is gross and not good for society.

The post I was replying to was about changing the laws around speech presumably to allow government to punish entities like Twitter.

When you're Ron DeSantis you can just make laws as you want to punish corporations for speech you don't like.

 

[graylshaped]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Americans who bang on about free speech seem to have no idea what the amendment even says or who it is supposed to protect and from whom.

Certainly no conservative activists seem to be aware, of which Musk is one

I don't think Libertarian or Conservative applies to what is happening here.

It is Selfishism.

 

[stormcrash]

Seems the deplorables are already banking on the Muskrat being in their corner
https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/27/2304 ... ition-data

 

[Statistical]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Americans who bang on about free speech seem to have no idea what the amendment even says or who it is supposed to protect and from whom.

Certainly no conservative activists seem to be aware, of which Musk is one

I don't think Libertarian or Conservative applies to what is happening here.

It is Selfishism.

Selfishism is a synonym for Libertarian. These days conservatives are pretty much Libertarians that want to control a woman's body.

 

[DovePig]

Hardly a defence. I take it, you agree with the argument but are indignant that it was used to argue with someone criticizing Musk. Maybe try not to be so tribal?

Funnily, the username really checks out here...

"Don Reba" is a character name from a Soviet dissident sci-fi novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky brothers – yes, the ones who wrote the well known "Stalker" (or more precisely "Roadside Picnic") that inspired the games and movies, including Tarkovsky's excellent (if different) take on it.

"Don Reba" is a character from their novel "Hard to be a god". There, he is actually a totally clero-fascist dictator that leads a campaign against all educated people in the kingdom, blaming them for all the calamities and misfortunes of the kingdom. Burning and killing them by the hundreds. Basically, your very definition of fascism...

Checks out, doesn't it? Or did you choose the username just by a honest mistake, lol?

Glad you read Strugatski's books — truly great science fiction writers. I take it, in your mind, associating with a negative character can be only by mistake, otherwise by malice. There could be more nuanced reasons.

Yes, I love Strugatski brothers's books. Mind you, just like Stanislaw Lem, lot of their fiction was very anti-establishment and against it. That means it was against any sort tyranny, which pretty much includes big corps or billionaires. Perhaps I indeed misread your intentions, but I sincerely doubt it. If really so, my apologies! If not, GTFO

Either way, naming yourself after the very most fascist character is either stupid or telling...
(edit: quote mismatch)

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Surprised I haven't seen this yet, but Susan "he learned his lesson" Collins wants Trump back on Twitter.

 

[HiredGoons]

I wonder what f he’s going to ban the kid who posts his private jet flights.

Can't. It's public data

Now, if that kid is data mining to specifically target flights carrying his kids etc & put them in harm's way, then he will be legally liable

Likewise, if he tracks private flights carrying a delegation to Ukraine & posts that, then there may be some legal liability in that

Edit:

I think the POTUS flights are the only ones that I know of, where you can be prosecuted for tracking it
(I may be wrong about this one)

Passenger manifests are typically private, so you're not going to be able to target individuals without some real hacking. Same thing with POTUS flight logs.

 

[s73v3r]

This seems like serious over-analysis of what Musk may mean by "free speech" and "follows the law". The simplest and most likely explanation is that he wants, and possibly intends, to allow on Twitter any speech that is permissible under US law.

Right. And a lot of absolutely horrific and shitty things are allowed to be said under US Law. Things that will cause marginalized groups to leave Twitter. Something which, if you actually cared about "free speech" and letting everyone have their voices heard, would be detrimental to that goal.