9 ms·

Something, something, that's only for governments; something, something, no freedom from consequences.

• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  1. Despite the snark, no, this really isn't a First Amendment situation. (Though I suspect that the ideals of the First Amendment has shaped the relevant law somewhat.) 2. Even if the First Amendment were directly applicable, that wouldn't stop rich narcissists from filing baseless lawsuits whenever their hypersensitive feelbads got hurt. It would just provide yet one more grounds on which the lawsuits would be baseless.
  • DANmode 3y ago
    Freedom of expression, for purposes of these discussions, is rarely be about the legal definition, but about the morality. You know this, the reader may not.
    • AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      Well, see, if you're expecting morality to happen when there's no legal muscle behind it to enforce it, you're not talking about the real human beings that we have in this country. And I'm not interested in that. I'm not interested in a "free speech" that works only with spherical, frictionless humans. Of course what Musk is doing is immoral. It's also horribly flawed legally, and deserves to get thrown out on its ear. But unless you've got a way to make filing such lawsuits impossible (not just immoral), while still not blocking filing legitimate lawsuits, then you've got an ideal-world-only perspective on freedom of speech. That seems to me to be a waste of time.