7 ms·

Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences. Much like you're free to offend, the other side is free to be offended and employment goes both ways

Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences. Much like you're free to offend, the other side is free to be offended and employment goes both ways. Firing someone because they fundamentally disagree on how the company should be run is not censorship, it's keeping only people who align with the direction you're headed.

countvonbalzac 4y ago
Then Trump is free to incite an insurrection on Twitter, and Twitter is free to ban him. Which is the opposite of what Elon thinks.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Musk wants attention and money to do whatever he wants. Everything else is negotiable.
- vosper 4y ago
  Twitter is free to ban Trump or others, regardless of whether Elon Musk owns Twitter. Whether to implement a ban is a decision their management can take, or not take.
- gricardo99 4y ago
  I don't believe Elon ever stated Twitter has no right/freedom to ban (he does say a lot of bizarre things, and I don't follow too closely), but correct me if I'm wrong. Disagreeing with the Twitter policies is not the same as believing Twitter is not free to establish such policies.
  - theptip 4y ago
    He has stated that he thinks they should only ban if the law requires them to do so. For example he thinks the Trump ban was clearly problematic.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
smnrchrds 4y ago
> Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences. Wasn't that an old Soviet or similar joke? "In {country_name}, we have freedom of speech. What we don't have is freedom after speech".
- mlindner 4y ago
  They still have freedom after speech. They can continue to say what they were saying about Musk anywhere they like (including on Twitter).
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - NikolaNovak 4y ago
      I don't disagree with some of the principle. I think what you are saying can be perceived (and maybe it inherently is) partisan, in the sense that it focuses on one aspect entirely to prove a larger point - I think we are missing out on many of the things that the right restricted - good ol' Fifties' McArthyism of course comes quickly to mind, but I think through much of the history (but not all!), and certainly throughout the global geography, it was the conservative / establishment voices that had the power to restrict progressive speech. If instead, in your post you made a point that going against the cultural zeitgest of the times is always inherently risky and with consequences, you'd have been far more engaging and accepted rather than focusing on one side and attaching a ranty YouTube about "wokeness". It especially doesn't sound non-conspiratorial and non-partisan once you talk about "evil influences" and "this war will be won" - that means we're not having a discussion, you're preaching a specific point of view. (FWIW, I don't like either side overzealously restricting what's permissible to discuss - I'm in my own world of no mental or verbal taboos and a marketplace of ideas, which is the rarest side of all it turns out -- neutral simply means all sides can gang up on you :D )
      - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
picture_view 4y ago
I think that’s the point. Elon takes the “freedom from consequences” interpretation of free speech when it comes to his complaints about twitter and “cancel culture”, then turns around and effectively cancels these employees for speaking their mind.
- nxmnxm99 4y ago
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Twitter is hardly the only platform you can use to broadcast your opinions. Being fired from your job is just as likely to massively reduce your ability to get your message out to others as is being blocked from posting on a single privately owned messaging service, if not more so. Legally I doubt either could be seen as being in contravention of any free speech laws, but it's fair enough to see Elon's actions as somewhat hypocritical.
    - lenkite 4y ago
      "Being fired from your job is just as likely to massively reduce your ability to get your message out to others." Sorry what ? This is objectively incorrect. If you get banned from social media - twitter, facebook/whatsapp, youtube, your messaging reach is utterly destroyed compared to simply getting fired from a job.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        If you're Elon Musk perhaps. But for most people being banned from a single social media site is hardly a great imposition (there's little they can do to stop you signing up for a new account). Whereas losing your job (or even the knowledge you're likely to) could very well leave an average person in a situation that they no longer have the resources or wherewithal to continue broadcasting their message to as wide audience (especially if previously that had been their co-workers in a large firm, as was the case in this situation).
qsdf38100 4y ago
Being banned from twitter is just a consequence of free speech then. Twitter is not public space.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Twitter is a public space, because being a public forum for speech is the essence of what Twitter does. It's privately owned, but like a privately owned mall, it is "open to the public" and therefore at least some free speech protections apply. “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946). The Supreme Court has since backtracked on the Marsh opinion somewhat, but some states such as California have ruled that reasonable exercise of speech and of petition rights on privately owned shopping malls are protected activities.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > It's privately owned, but like a privately owned mall, it is "open to the public" and therefore at least some free speech protections apply. What are the Terms of Service (EULA) of a public shopping mall? What are they for Twitter? When you click on "I agree" to the terms of software, or a website, what did you agree to? Where do you click "I agree" when visiting a shopping mall?
    - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
      > Where do you click "I agree" when visiting a shopping mall? There is usually an inconspicuously posted sign that indicates 'no loitering, no spitting, no foul language' etc. or they reserve the right to throw you out.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Twitter isn't a public forum for speech. You need to have an account to use Twitter, for which you agree to abide by Twitter's terms of service, in which Twitter reserves the right to moderate and ban content as they see fit. Marsh v. Alabama applied to physical property and AFAIK hasn't been definitively extended to online "properties" like Twitter. In Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck[0], however, the Court ruled against the premise in regards to a public access television station, and maintained that the station remained a private actor despite being a "public forum." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...
rlt 4y ago
> Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences I understand the point, but I hate this saying. After all, what more is the government throwing you in jail for speech than a “consequence”? The spirit of “free speech” does not give you a free pass to impose draconian “consequences” in response to speech you don’t like.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  Free speech laws protect individuals from government prosecution, full stop. It has nothing to do with private employees and employers. There's a potential labor law (retaliation) issue here, but it's not a free speech issue.
  - rlt 4y ago
    “Free speech” is a principle, not a law. I explicitly said “the spirit of free speech”. I was not talking about the law.
e-clinton 4y ago
“Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences” By that definition, everyone in the world has freedom of speech.
- jhgb 4y ago
  That's not a definition, it just constrains the universe of possible definitions. Hence you can't come to this conclusion because you still haven't defined it well enough to say who in the world has it and who doesn't.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  Freedom of speech means very specifically being free from consequences/prosecution from the governing body, and makes no claims about speech in the private sector or private houshold. To focus the scope, it means openly criticizing the governing body is protected and not a punishable offense _by the government_ (people can and have been let go for political posts on social media written from their home, if the employer felt it was damaging to the company's reputation). And no, literally billions of people in the world do not have that right.
scollet 4y ago
So you are saying that Musk should be removed. Which I agree with, but also with jail time.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

countvonbalzac 4y ago

Then Trump is free to incite an insurrection on Twitter, and Twitter is free to ban him. Which is the opposite of what Elon thinks.

Spooky23 4y ago
Musk wants attention and money to do whatever he wants. Everything else is negotiable.
vosper 4y ago
Twitter is free to ban Trump or others, regardless of whether Elon Musk owns Twitter. Whether to implement a ban is a decision their management can take, or not take.
gricardo99 4y ago
I don't believe Elon ever stated Twitter has no right/freedom to ban (he does say a lot of bizarre things, and I don't follow too closely), but correct me if I'm wrong. Disagreeing with the Twitter policies is not the same as believing Twitter is not free to establish such policies.
- theptip 4y ago
  He has stated that he thinks they should only ban if the law requires them to do so. For example he thinks the Trump ban was clearly problematic.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

smnrchrds 4y ago

> Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences. Wasn't that an old Soviet or similar joke? "In {country_name}, we have freedom of speech. What we don't have is freedom after speech".

mlindner 4y ago
They still have freedom after speech. They can continue to say what they were saying about Musk anywhere they like (including on Twitter).
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    I don't disagree with some of the principle. I think what you are saying can be perceived (and maybe it inherently is) partisan, in the sense that it focuses on one aspect entirely to prove a larger point - I think we are missing out on many of the things that the right restricted - good ol' Fifties' McArthyism of course comes quickly to mind, but I think through much of the history (but not all!), and certainly throughout the global geography, it was the conservative / establishment voices that had the power to restrict progressive speech. If instead, in your post you made a point that going against the cultural zeitgest of the times is always inherently risky and with consequences, you'd have been far more engaging and accepted rather than focusing on one side and attaching a ranty YouTube about "wokeness". It especially doesn't sound non-conspiratorial and non-partisan once you talk about "evil influences" and "this war will be won" - that means we're not having a discussion, you're preaching a specific point of view. (FWIW, I don't like either side overzealously restricting what's permissible to discuss - I'm in my own world of no mental or verbal taboos and a marketplace of ideas, which is the rarest side of all it turns out -- neutral simply means all sides can gang up on you :D )
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago

picture_view 4y ago

I think that’s the point. Elon takes the “freedom from consequences” interpretation of free speech when it comes to his complaints about twitter and “cancel culture”, then turns around and effectively cancels these employees for speaking their mind.

nxmnxm99 4y ago
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Twitter is hardly the only platform you can use to broadcast your opinions. Being fired from your job is just as likely to massively reduce your ability to get your message out to others as is being blocked from posting on a single privately owned messaging service, if not more so. Legally I doubt either could be seen as being in contravention of any free speech laws, but it's fair enough to see Elon's actions as somewhat hypocritical.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    "Being fired from your job is just as likely to massively reduce your ability to get your message out to others." Sorry what ? This is objectively incorrect. If you get banned from social media - twitter, facebook/whatsapp, youtube, your messaging reach is utterly destroyed compared to simply getting fired from a job.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      If you're Elon Musk perhaps. But for most people being banned from a single social media site is hardly a great imposition (there's little they can do to stop you signing up for a new account). Whereas losing your job (or even the knowledge you're likely to) could very well leave an average person in a situation that they no longer have the resources or wherewithal to continue broadcasting their message to as wide audience (especially if previously that had been their co-workers in a large firm, as was the case in this situation).

qsdf38100 4y ago

Being banned from twitter is just a consequence of free speech then. Twitter is not public space.

SoftTalker 4y ago
Twitter is a public space, because being a public forum for speech is the essence of what Twitter does. It's privately owned, but like a privately owned mall, it is "open to the public" and therefore at least some free speech protections apply. “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946). The Supreme Court has since backtracked on the Marsh opinion somewhat, but some states such as California have ruled that reasonable exercise of speech and of petition rights on privately owned shopping malls are protected activities.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > It's privately owned, but like a privately owned mall, it is "open to the public" and therefore at least some free speech protections apply. What are the Terms of Service (EULA) of a public shopping mall? What are they for Twitter? When you click on "I agree" to the terms of software, or a website, what did you agree to? Where do you click "I agree" when visiting a shopping mall?
  - assttoasstmgr 4y ago
    > Where do you click "I agree" when visiting a shopping mall? There is usually an inconspicuously posted sign that indicates 'no loitering, no spitting, no foul language' etc. or they reserve the right to throw you out.
- krapp 4y ago
  Twitter isn't a public forum for speech. You need to have an account to use Twitter, for which you agree to abide by Twitter's terms of service, in which Twitter reserves the right to moderate and ban content as they see fit. Marsh v. Alabama applied to physical property and AFAIK hasn't been definitively extended to online "properties" like Twitter. In Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck[0], however, the Court ruled against the premise in regards to a public access television station, and maintained that the station remained a private actor despite being a "public forum." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Cor...

rlt 4y ago

> Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences I understand the point, but I hate this saying. After all, what more is the government throwing you in jail for speech than a “consequence”? The spirit of “free speech” does not give you a free pass to impose draconian “consequences” in response to speech you don’t like.

oarabbus_ 4y ago
Free speech laws protect individuals from government prosecution, full stop. It has nothing to do with private employees and employers. There's a potential labor law (retaliation) issue here, but it's not a free speech issue.
- rlt 4y ago
  “Free speech” is a principle, not a law. I explicitly said “the spirit of free speech”. I was not talking about the law.

e-clinton 4y ago

“Freedom of speech does not mean being free of consequences” By that definition, everyone in the world has freedom of speech.

jhgb 4y ago
That's not a definition, it just constrains the universe of possible definitions. Hence you can't come to this conclusion because you still haven't defined it well enough to say who in the world has it and who doesn't.
oarabbus_ 4y ago
Freedom of speech means very specifically being free from consequences/prosecution from the governing body, and makes no claims about speech in the private sector or private houshold. To focus the scope, it means openly criticizing the governing body is protected and not a punishable offense _by the government_ (people can and have been let go for political posts on social media written from their home, if the employer felt it was damaging to the company's reputation). And no, literally billions of people in the world do not have that right.

scollet 4y ago

So you are saying that Musk should be removed. Which I agree with, but also with jail time.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]