2 ms·

'First of all, Elon has always said that he intends to practice "freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach"' First sentence and you already moved goalpost.

• tsimionescu 4y ago
  My point was that Elon's notion of separating "freedom of speech" from "freedom of reach" is already counter to the basic ideal of freedom of speech. By this same standard, the US government could claim that a law preventing sales of a particular book would not put them in breach of the 1st amendment, as they are still allowing the book to exist.
  • loceng 4y ago
    You're conflating the government with a private citizen's private enterprise. The U.S. government can't block the sale of a book AFAIK - unless perhaps it's things like "how to build a nuclear bomb." Elon's Twitter is his house - his house, his rules. If someone's going to be racist in his house and he doesn't want racist/immature narratives being propagated - then he has the power to limit that; we don't know what limiting the reach means either, perhaps depending on the severity it means that only your specific followers see it - and that it isn't shown to random people.
    • tsimionescu 4y ago
      Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If you think that the US government isn't legally allowed to limit speech in a certain way because of the 1st amendment, than any private entity who is limitting speech in that way can't claim they support free speech. Of course, private entities, unlike the government, have every right to limit freedom of speech on their own property. But they can't then claim they are supporters of freedom of speech on their platform.