Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Performing a boycott is economic action. Calling for a boycott is speech.
The only way to protect a tolerant society is for it to be intolerant of any speech that is itself intolerant. That's what the actual paradox of tolerance is.
We're not talking about "speech they don't like". We're talking about "speech that makes participation by others difficult or impossible". Bigotry makes participation by those the bigotry is directed against difficult. Therefore, a tolerant society must be intolerant of bigotry.
And it must not be the bigots who decide what is and is not bigotry.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Their food may be tasty. I wouldn't know. I am happy not knowing. My wife and I are agreed: not one fucking penny of our resources will go to support this company.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
I want nothing of the sort. I fully support the right of people to boycott whoever they want. The idea that they should be legally protected from any consequence from private entities is what I object to. Everyone had freedom of association don't they? It goes both ways. The state should not be able to retaliate for a boycott, the private sector should be free to.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
The overwhelming consensus on here seems on the mark --- the acquisition is far more about Elon Musk's ego than any deep concern for freedom of speech and expression.
Has there ever been a society of any kind, from the level of a band, a small settlement, a wandering tribe, a small city, on up to a massive technologically advanced state, that didn't enforce through laws, "self-help," or intensely inculcated customs and peer pressure, limits on what can and cannot be said, depending on time, place, manner, and most crucially, the purpose of the statement? In a crisis, even in a usually conservative, buttoned-down society, you may be able to express ideas that are usually considered out of bounds, you may even be rewarded for it. But most of us seem to expect some predictability in how we ought to be treated, and how we are allowed to treat others. Insulting people one has never even met has reached depths only made possible by the glories of the internet. I don't think the early creators ever expected to see the amount of disinformation, misinformation, hacking accounts for theft or blackmail, and other online crimes and misdemeanors, that are out there now. Much of that speech is already illegal, of course, in one way or another.
Has any society ever allowed their members to knowingly lie about a good they want to trade or sell to other members of the society? Not cheating some enemy tribe or clan, mind you.
Or allowed anyone to repeatedly insult all comers, that is, everyone in sight, or even a disfavored group like orphans or the poor, without there being a real risk the insulter might face non-legal consequences?
There are always some kind of norms of good taste and manners, after all. There might be an important role for the "fool," the "jester," but an entire society of them wouldn't even be able to feed itself.
Musk acquired incredible wealth, he apparently didn't necessarily acquire great wisdom or insight along with it. The accounts of how he has treated employees over the years make interesting reading, which I recommend people check out if they have the time and inclination.
Has there ever been a society of any kind, from the level of a band, a small settlement, a wandering tribe, a small city, on up to a massive technologically advanced state, that didn't enforce through laws, "self-help," or intensely inculcated customs and peer pressure, limits on what can and cannot be said, depending on time, place, manner, and most crucially, the purpose of the statement? In a crisis, even in a usually conservative, buttoned-down society, you may be able to express ideas that are usually considered out of bounds, you may even be rewarded for it. But most of us seem to expect some predictability in how we ought to be treated, and how we are allowed to treat others. Insulting people one has never even met has reached depths only made possible by the glories of the internet. I don't think the early creators ever expected to see the amount of disinformation, misinformation, hacking accounts for theft or blackmail, and other online crimes and misdemeanors, that are out there now. Much of that speech is already illegal, of course, in one way or another.
Has any society ever allowed their members to knowingly lie about a good they want to trade or sell to other members of the society? Not cheating some enemy tribe or clan, mind you.
Or allowed anyone to repeatedly insult all comers, that is, everyone in sight, or even a disfavored group like orphans or the poor, without there being a real risk the insulter might face non-legal consequences?
There are always some kind of norms of good taste and manners, after all. There might be an important role for the "fool," the "jester," but an entire society of them wouldn't even be able to feed itself.
Musk acquired incredible wealth, he apparently didn't necessarily acquire great wisdom or insight along with it. The accounts of how he has treated employees over the years make interesting reading, which I recommend people check out if they have the time and inclination.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
People who engage in a boycott aren't legally protected beyond free speech and free association. If they engage in libel or slander then they can be sued by the company they're speaking out against. This generally isn't done because libel and slander has a high bar (see the guy Elon called a pedophile) and because the PR would only get worse, there's also the fact they could have bigger problems if courts decide their engaging in SLAPP.
See the Chik Fil A example someone else called out. There are ongoing calls for boycott from LGBTQ groups because they support groups that try to take away their rights. You want Elon to silence those groups from informing people of their actions and asking people to not patronize their business.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
I'm not opposed to the sentiment you've expressed but it sure looks like it was pasted from somewhere.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The government puts limits on speech all the time. The idea that “if it was speech, government couldn’t limit it” holds no water.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
You left out the important qualifying word(free). "If they were free speech" meaning speech that couldn't legally be limited under the law. Obviously some speech can be restricted. The claim wasn't that "Boycotts are speech", it was that "Boycotts are free speech." Obviously the governments can restrict direct calls for violence, because they aren't free speech. If it can legally be restricted by the government, then it isn't free speech, ergo economic transactions with prohibited entities aren't free speech.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
You'll be first against the wall under your own regime. Well done.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
So you believe that "This company supports hate groups so maybe you shouldn't give them money" is dangerous speech that shouldn't be permitted?
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
Yeah, I'd never work there, nor would I work in a host of other industries. Not everyone has the luxury to choose like this, but as a software engineer I do have that luxury. Still I understand that that amount of money would be hard for many people to turn down. Though if I had to choose between Facebook and Musk's Twitter-chan I would choose Facebook every day.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Nope. Boycotts absolutely are free speech. And there are plenty of things that are “free speech” that the government can restrict. Lying in advertising, for one.
You are quite literally trying to remove any ability for people to rebuke bad speech, and to choose not to associate with assholes.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
I'm mystified and have no idea who even posted the weird reply (if that is what it is) that my boilerplate philosophical musings based on dozens of philosophy courses over the years, at Macalester College and then in undergrad and grad school at the U, then in law school at what was then William Mitchell College of Law (875 Summit Ave in St. Paul) and is now Mitchell-Hamiline, "looks like it was cut and pasted," ROTFLMAO, it was sua sponte ad libitum and spontaneous bloviating, that's all. If it was taken as something ANYONE would need to lift it would be a helluva lot more polished and with, from me, many proleptic arguments etc.
No, just first cup of morning coffee comment on topics I have thought about for decades, sonny.
No, just first cup of morning coffee comment on topics I have thought about for decades, sonny.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
The style here runs terser and more conversational.
Personally, I've only skimmed your post. I didn't upvote or downvote it and the content appears fine.
But, as a matter of style, it's a longer post without many paragraph breaks by a newer account and on page 43 of a discussion (where there's been contentious back and forth already).
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
And if you quote it, you can see the extra line breaks from some formatting engine (though it may be the OP's writing habits).
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
That's a very interesting titbit, and aligns with my personal theory that this is a play for soft power in expectation of a reward from political allies. Twitter's influence can swing close elections, and a story planted at the right moment can have a devastating effect.
What's that worth? What would Musk stand to gain from such influence?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
In Twitter's house, they can suppress whatever they feel like.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Have you ever read The Iliad? It's all fights, by horse-taming men near a "wine dark sea" (apparently the ancient Greeks didn't have a word for blue). Still, it was better than the movie.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
No, dude, no one's saying you plagiarized that. It literally looks cut and pasted: the line breaks and indentation aren't the norm; perhaps they're an artifact of your typing style?
I'd suggest some paragraph breaks, for the future.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
It’s been argued that no one had a word for blue until the first synthetic pigment, Egyptian blue, was developed, though that precedes the best guess for the Trojan War by about a millennia. But culture lags.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
And ridiculously run on sentences. Not the worst I've seen, but still bad. 2nd post was weirder with credential bragging. Curious that they described their philosophical musings as "boilerplate", but so far no need to send to the 'likely to need downvotes' bin.
How rude of me. Welcome to Ars, Rico. Please be aware that grammar is a significant asset here--particularly double line breaks to visually separate paragraphs--and unsupported statements will be very critically received.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Well they all had words for sky, and most lived near a sea, so seems unlikely for that argument to hold water anyway.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Maclester College.
The U, whatever that means, I have friends who think that means Miami, but am not assuming.
Mitchell-Hamiline.
Thank you for letting me know where not to send application fees as our son gets to that point.
You may want to let them know you are culling future applicants.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
That's a bit harsh. He may have a very unusual style but he's not trolling or repeating long-debunked talking points like many other very low post-count people (looks up one post).
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
And yet, in all of history, not one conservative voice has ever been silenced for advocating in favor of smaller government, or lower taxes, or reduced regulatory authority, or changing any particular regulatory regime.
For instance, *I* don't think massage therapists should have to have thousands of hours of instruction before being able to give massages for money. That's a "conservative" position -- I think it's regulatory over-reach, and that massage therapy, specifically, would indeed be a place where the market could take care of it. That is, if you're no good at it, you won't get or retain clients, so you'll get *yourself* out of the market. You're unlikely to hurt someone -- to injure someone, rather -- giving a bad massage. You're just likely to waste everyone's time.
The fail case for a bad massage is "didn't do any good," unlike, say, actual medicine, or pharmacy, or any of the places where regulation makes very good sense. There's a *high* bar for doctors and pharmacists, because getting it wrong is quite likely to lead to actual injury.
That's a conservative position, or, rather, what would traditionally be called a conservative position. I'll get banned from exactly zero places for that.
Witness the majority of people who earn temp or perm bans from this forum -- they don't get banned until they let their mask slip, and use anti-trans slurs. That's, like, nine of the last ten bans I'm aware of.
Bigotry isn't free speech.
It's also not a "conservative" position, not unless you're admitting something quite awful about conservatives and conservatism.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
"The Left" aren't calling it fascism, cut the strawman out. Also what are kids being indoctrinated with? That LGBT people exist and that's okay? That's not political, that's just being a decent person.
People's problems aren't that conservatives can discuss the capital gains tax, tariffs, border security, foreign policy, or any of the other normal things in which the right vs the left tend to have disagreements. The problems is the hateful shit that people who call themselves conservatives spout, we had someone banned here because the mask finally dropped and it turned out they hated trans people and were upset that someone on twitter got banned for intentionally misgendering.
Hate speech doesn't encourage a healthy discourse and can and will never move society in a positive direction, it just serves to turn people who just want to live their lives into victims of bullying and harassment.
I realize I'm responding to a witless drive by post written by someone who isn't here to engage in anything, but there needs to be a counterpoint to this sort of nonsense.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Anyone else notice the pattern that nobody who supports, or even understands, free speech has ever made any of these claims?
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
I'd be honestly surprised if they engage. They're here to dump their little screed and run away. Once upon a time the right prided itself in their constitution compared to the left. Now they have this perpetual victim complex. People will quote and rebut, and that person won't respond because they don't have the wits or the fortitude to actually defend any of that trash against even light scrutiny.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
It really is. In the modern world, whether you're looking at Russia's oligarchs or US ones, the concept isn't even money anymore. If you're good for half a trillion greenbacks the very idea of currency becomes nebulous. Instead what you deal with is influence. The law, social standing, your network...everything will have begun treating you as differently as if you lived in medieval times and your title was "Duke".
I have a better word for the US of today than concepts associated with mere money. Feudalism.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
As many Arsians have noted, the alt-right really are sending their best.
I used to really dislike trolls. The internetz were full of people who were disingenuous, malicious, or simply just doubling down on being honestly wrong and/or douchebagging.
But then came Trump and this, the stupidest of times. At some point the cheap brainless chants migrated from Stormfront to the mouths of GOP politicians who knew better at some point not too long ago. And that's where we're at now. These days I just long for those simpler times when the occasional troll hell-bent on derailing your argument by any means just for kicks wouldn't just disappear in the sea of fuckwit morons whose only argument is the equivalent of dropping their trousers and shitting on the thread.
And that is particularly relevant on this topic where the brittle snowflakes of the alt-right desperately grasps for Musk obtaining Twitter as that glorious moment when their "Conservative values" (By which they mean calling a spade a spade, a black man a <N-word>', and a constitutionalist a "libtard", of course) finally won't be thrown out the door by a community unfazed by their strident calls for 'Freeze Peach'.
It's not just Ars getting this exact type of moron. I've seen them lately on so many forums I'm starting to think there's some factory in the backwoods of Podunk, Pennsylvania, churning out these animatronic assholes by the hundreds.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
"Vote With Your Wallet!"
"Except if what you don't want to buy belongs to our side. Then it's really really bad!"
I must confess to an utter lack of surprise at the alt-right once again condemning their own core values. They've long ago descended into a vision of the fantasy land where factual reality and basic logic aren't so darn mean to them all the time.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
It may have been direct, yes. Low post count appeals to authority , pontification,and braggadocio tend to have that little extra soupçon of irritation factor.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
It has to rise to the level of incitement of violence for it to cease being free speech in the United States. Simply being a bigoted asshole isn't going to necessarily meet that bar. There is an argument to be made that the 14th Amendment should make hate speech impermissible (outside of the narrow ranges where it's currently unprotected) but that's never been tried before any Court as far as I know.
That being said, the freedom of speech is not a shield against consequence. It's just a guarantee that the government can't step in and stop you from running your mouth. That's it.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Ah, the Iliad. Also known as "Ten years of murder over which asshat owns the women".
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)