9 ms·

Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, recently described himself as a "free speech absolutist."

ralfd 4y ago
.
- qayxc 4y ago
  That's not a left or right issue - it's simply a fact of life. Example: you are free to verbally shit all over your boss and company in public; just don't expect to work there for much longer. Another example: you are free to call the 1.93m thug who bumped into you a blind idiot, just don't expect to face no physical consequences for exercising your right to give him a piece of your mind. It's funny how some people try and make this a political issue when it's really not and never has been.
  - mola 4y ago
    So being banned off Twitter is a consequence for your free speech, right?
    - qayxc 4y ago
      If a company decides you violated their ToS and consequently doesn't want you on their platform anymore - then yes. They didn't involve the government to take away your civil rights or punish you and you are free to join a different platform. It's like being banned from the regulars' table for constantly being a nuisance and then complaining to the bartender that your former buddies don't want you at their table anymore.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- checker 4y ago
  The audience can respond any way they like without infringing on the speaker's rights or breaking any laws. It's not a right to work at SpaceX and it's not illegal to fire employees with cause.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    It's not a right to have a twitter account and it's not illegal to ban a user with or without cause.
qayxc 4y ago
He is. He just - like most other free speech proponents - conveniently fails to mention the part about consequences. It's also no secret that he's very much fine with Claqueurs and boot lickers, but amusingly thin-skinned when it comes to critique aiming at his person, ideas, or companies. He even shut down his personal "The Onion"-clone for fear of its activity might reflect badly on him or one of his companies at some point in the future [0]. [0] https://www.mic.com/p/elon-musks-first-foray-into-comedy-was-a-strange-satirical-website-called-thud-77009671 https://www.mic.com/p/elon-musks-first-foray-into-comedy-was...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Anyone can sue musk if he libels them with his tweets. Anyone can circulate letters in spacex, but spacex can fire you. You can say whatever you want. That doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences. Critics of free speech need to realise this is a silly debate between them, no “free speech absolutist” wants speech without consequences. This is basically a NYT and CNN talking point and nothing to do with reality.
  - Marazan 4y ago
    Ah, so we will hear no more about the threat of "cancel culture" then?
    - votepaunchy 4y ago
      Nobody is saying these former employees should not be allowed to work any job ever again, just that SpaceX is not the right workplace for them.
      - zpeti 4y ago
        Not to mention there is a difference in criticizing the CEO of a company for unsubstantiated and unproven claims, circulating internal letters, and getting fired, and saying that a man is not a woman on Twitter and not being able to work in most academia or media ever again in the next 5-10 years or maybe forever. The place is context and result is comletely different.
checker 4y ago
It certainly sounds hypocritical if you're willing to play liberties with the definition of free speech. However, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of such speech. The audience can respond any way they like without infringing on the speaker's rights (and it's not a right to work at SpaceX). These employees should have expected this reaction; Musk doesn't seem like the type to pass up executing his right to impose consequences. Hopefully they were prepared and have achieved some of the impact they were hoping for.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  He has most definitely been arguing against consequences as part of it. You know, like getting banned on twitter.
  - checker 4y ago
    He's free to whine about it, buy the company, or start his own platform. If he truly cared then he'd be lobbying for Congress to limit the "ban rights" of companies and individuals running platforms like Twitter (personally I would not vote for anyone supporting such a bill). Before the recent Supreme Court I would say that it would take an amendment; now I'm not so sure that such a bill would be overturned.
  - hiram112 4y ago
    This is a little disingenuous. Twitter itself is the means of "speech." I don't think Musk or anyone else has stated that your Tweets should exempt you from consequences off the platform. Similarly, the ability for everyone to speak their mind on the world's modern town square doesn't give Twitter employees carte blanche within the corporate hierarchy.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > I don't think Musk or anyone else has stated that your Tweets should exempt you from consequences off the platform I am pretty sure that is exactly what many many people have stated, implied, campaigned for etc. Its a core part of the culture war
concordDance 4y ago
This presumably means he's unhappy with regulation of speech in the "public square". Company internal coms may fall in a different category for him.
- smcl 4y ago
  Doesn't sound very "absolutist" then
ReptileMan 4y ago
There is no contradiction. Twitter (outward facing) has some of the attributes of public fora. His speech comments were always about public discourse. Not private organizational. In Twitter feed we are all equal. In Twitter internal there is hierarchy.
- blitzar 4y ago
  So what you are saying is that they should have posted this on twitter - then it would have been protected free speech...
  - pkt_nspktr 4y ago
    Not GP, but since you need a bit more context: if someone posted something critical of one's employer on Twitter, Facebook, or used public comment time at city hall, one should expect to no longer be employed. Whatever critical was posted is protected free speech in that the government (local, state, or national) could not punish the speaker. However, the speaker should expect that future employers would be hesitant to hire someone who airs a company's dirty laundry in public. On the other hand, if someone posted something critical of a government policy (pick your poison), that is also protected free speech, in the United States. In this case, retribution from an employer, the (public) platform where it was posted, and the government should all be prohibited. The speaker should expect that future employers not care about policy preferences, only that the speaker can perform the job for which they are hired.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - blitzar 4y ago
      So what you are saying is that the original poll ... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344 >Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. >Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle? 70% of people, including Musk and the consequences promised are all just plain wrong. Clearly the the government (local, state, or national) is not punishing the speaker of any tweets, never has done, doesnt have any intention to etc - so what is the big deal, who are we "saving freedome of speech" from? Also last time I checked, being critical of one's employer is neither a crime nor a violation of any employment contract that I have ever signed. Its a bad look sure, but to be honest it is boardering on a 1984 thought crime if you are instantly fired if you think your boss is a bit of a dick.
kumarvvr 4y ago
This action and being a "free speech absolutist" are not mutually exclusive. Free speech, refers to public speech, and especially in the context of the state not creating laws / rules that stifle dissent or criticism of the state or those holding public office Free speech does not mean speak anything and it certainly does not mean my speech may not have any downstream effects.
- smcl 4y ago
  So if I break TOS on Twitter is getting kicked off a downstream effect?
ekianjo 4y ago
Proof is that the employees were free to say what they wanted. And now they get the door. Where is the problem? Free speech does not mean you don't get to suffer the consequences of what you say.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
walkhour 4y ago
The fact that this comment is upvoted and is taken as a gotcha argument or something with any validity when it requires five seconds to realize it's easily refutable is not a good show for HN
- blitzar 4y ago
  Go for it, give it your finest five seconds.
  - walkhour 4y ago
    There's no contradiction between desiring free speech in the public sphere - which is what Musk claims he wants - and not wanting to associate yourself with people who support certain speech, which is what Musk has done. The comment I replied to before is a non sequitur, this doesn't mean what Musk is doing is right, simply that mindlessly upvoting a Trump-rally-tier argument is not conducive to anything good. Eventually HN will become reddit and we'll just upvote "our side", regardless of whether the argument has merit.
vkou 4y ago
Free speech absolutists are rarely consistent about absolutism within their own fiefdoms. As far as I can tell, the only intellectual consistency within that movement is that the people pushing it want to be allowed to say anything they want anywhere they want, without any consequences.

qayxc 4y ago
That's not a left or right issue - it's simply a fact of life. Example: you are free to verbally shit all over your boss and company in public; just don't expect to work there for much longer. Another example: you are free to call the 1.93m thug who bumped into you a blind idiot, just don't expect to face no physical consequences for exercising your right to give him a piece of your mind. It's funny how some people try and make this a political issue when it's really not and never has been.
- mola 4y ago
  So being banned off Twitter is a consequence for your free speech, right?
  - qayxc 4y ago
    If a company decides you violated their ToS and consequently doesn't want you on their platform anymore - then yes. They didn't involve the government to take away your civil rights or punish you and you are free to join a different platform. It's like being banned from the regulars' table for constantly being a nuisance and then complaining to the bartender that your former buddies don't want you at their table anymore.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
checker 4y ago
The audience can respond any way they like without infringing on the speaker's rights or breaking any laws. It's not a right to work at SpaceX and it's not illegal to fire employees with cause.
- blitzar 4y ago
  It's not a right to have a twitter account and it's not illegal to ban a user with or without cause.

He is. He just - like most other free speech proponents - conveniently fails to mention the part about consequences. It's also no secret that he's very much fine with Claqueurs and boot lickers, but amusingly thin-skinned when it comes to critique aiming at his person, ideas, or companies. He even shut down his personal "The Onion"-clone for fear of its activity might reflect badly on him or one of his companies at some point in the future [0]. [0] https://www.mic.com/p/elon-musks-first-foray-into-comedy-was-a-strange-satirical-website-called-thud-77009671 https://www.mic.com/p/elon-musks-first-foray-into-comedy-was...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cloutchaser 4y ago
Anyone can sue musk if he libels them with his tweets. Anyone can circulate letters in spacex, but spacex can fire you. You can say whatever you want. That doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences. Critics of free speech need to realise this is a silly debate between them, no “free speech absolutist” wants speech without consequences. This is basically a NYT and CNN talking point and nothing to do with reality.
- Marazan 4y ago
  Ah, so we will hear no more about the threat of "cancel culture" then?
  - votepaunchy 4y ago
    Nobody is saying these former employees should not be allowed to work any job ever again, just that SpaceX is not the right workplace for them.
    - zpeti 4y ago
      Not to mention there is a difference in criticizing the CEO of a company for unsubstantiated and unproven claims, circulating internal letters, and getting fired, and saying that a man is not a woman on Twitter and not being able to work in most academia or media ever again in the next 5-10 years or maybe forever. The place is context and result is comletely different.

checker 4y ago

It certainly sounds hypocritical if you're willing to play liberties with the definition of free speech. However, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of such speech. The audience can respond any way they like without infringing on the speaker's rights (and it's not a right to work at SpaceX). These employees should have expected this reaction; Musk doesn't seem like the type to pass up executing his right to impose consequences. Hopefully they were prepared and have achieved some of the impact they were hoping for.

Dylan16807 4y ago
He has most definitely been arguing against consequences as part of it. You know, like getting banned on twitter.
- checker 4y ago
  He's free to whine about it, buy the company, or start his own platform. If he truly cared then he'd be lobbying for Congress to limit the "ban rights" of companies and individuals running platforms like Twitter (personally I would not vote for anyone supporting such a bill). Before the recent Supreme Court I would say that it would take an amendment; now I'm not so sure that such a bill would be overturned.
- hiram112 4y ago
  This is a little disingenuous. Twitter itself is the means of "speech." I don't think Musk or anyone else has stated that your Tweets should exempt you from consequences off the platform. Similarly, the ability for everyone to speak their mind on the world's modern town square doesn't give Twitter employees carte blanche within the corporate hierarchy.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > I don't think Musk or anyone else has stated that your Tweets should exempt you from consequences off the platform I am pretty sure that is exactly what many many people have stated, implied, campaigned for etc. Its a core part of the culture war

concordDance 4y ago

This presumably means he's unhappy with regulation of speech in the "public square". Company internal coms may fall in a different category for him.

smcl 4y ago
Doesn't sound very "absolutist" then

ReptileMan 4y ago

There is no contradiction. Twitter (outward facing) has some of the attributes of public fora. His speech comments were always about public discourse. Not private organizational. In Twitter feed we are all equal. In Twitter internal there is hierarchy.

blitzar 4y ago
So what you are saying is that they should have posted this on twitter - then it would have been protected free speech...
- pkt_nspktr 4y ago
  Not GP, but since you need a bit more context: if someone posted something critical of one's employer on Twitter, Facebook, or used public comment time at city hall, one should expect to no longer be employed. Whatever critical was posted is protected free speech in that the government (local, state, or national) could not punish the speaker. However, the speaker should expect that future employers would be hesitant to hire someone who airs a company's dirty laundry in public. On the other hand, if someone posted something critical of a government policy (pick your poison), that is also protected free speech, in the United States. In this case, retribution from an employer, the (public) platform where it was posted, and the government should all be prohibited. The speaker should expect that future employers not care about policy preferences, only that the speaker can perform the job for which they are hired.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - blitzar 4y ago
    So what you are saying is that the original poll ... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344 >Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. >Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle? 70% of people, including Musk and the consequences promised are all just plain wrong. Clearly the the government (local, state, or national) is not punishing the speaker of any tweets, never has done, doesnt have any intention to etc - so what is the big deal, who are we "saving freedome of speech" from? Also last time I checked, being critical of one's employer is neither a crime nor a violation of any employment contract that I have ever signed. Its a bad look sure, but to be honest it is boardering on a 1984 thought crime if you are instantly fired if you think your boss is a bit of a dick.

kumarvvr 4y ago

This action and being a "free speech absolutist" are not mutually exclusive. Free speech, refers to public speech, and especially in the context of the state not creating laws / rules that stifle dissent or criticism of the state or those holding public office Free speech does not mean speak anything and it certainly does not mean my speech may not have any downstream effects.

smcl 4y ago
So if I break TOS on Twitter is getting kicked off a downstream effect?

ekianjo 4y ago

Proof is that the employees were free to say what they wanted. And now they get the door. Where is the problem? Free speech does not mean you don't get to suffer the consequences of what you say.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

walkhour 4y ago

The fact that this comment is upvoted and is taken as a gotcha argument or something with any validity when it requires five seconds to realize it's easily refutable is not a good show for HN

blitzar 4y ago
Go for it, give it your finest five seconds.
- walkhour 4y ago
  There's no contradiction between desiring free speech in the public sphere - which is what Musk claims he wants - and not wanting to associate yourself with people who support certain speech, which is what Musk has done. The comment I replied to before is a non sequitur, this doesn't mean what Musk is doing is right, simply that mindlessly upvoting a Trump-rally-tier argument is not conducive to anything good. Eventually HN will become reddit and we'll just upvote "our side", regardless of whether the argument has merit.

vkou 4y ago

Free speech absolutists are rarely consistent about absolutism within their own fiefdoms. As far as I can tell, the only intellectual consistency within that movement is that the people pushing it want to be allowed to say anything they want anywhere they want, without any consequences.