> claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of

> claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory) > Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works. Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? > What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy. You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.