4 ms·

Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. The Twitter files are a recent example of the g

Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. The Twitter files are a recent example of the government partnering with private corps to censor, so that's a fair argument, but in general a private company can't violate free speech by deciding what kind of content they want allowed. Is it shitty that they censor? Absolutely. But is it a constitutional violation? Not unless I've horribly misunderstood my rights for more than 35 years.

Moru 2y ago
The owner is working for the government, can't play that card any more.
whoisthemachine 2y ago
This is definitely true, however many of us remember Musk declaring himself a "free-speech absolutist", so in most cases people are referring to his hyprocisy rather than his legal rights. [0] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600
- moomin 2y ago
  It’s always been free speech for us, not for you.
advael 2y ago
Actually freedom of speech is a principle, which Musk and his ilk claim to care about, despite using their power to censor people through either direct control of information streams or threats. The first amendment to the US constitution specifically seeks to reify this principle in laws pertaining only to the government's actions, but freedom of speech as a principle can be supported or violated by anyone with power over other people. The people claiming to be "free speech absolutists" are hypocritical even if they didn't also work for the government and enact these vendettas against speech they don't like on a governmental level (which is also happening)
moomin 2y ago
I mean, congratulations you’ve explained why the Speechers criticising Twitter were always wrong on this point, but Twitter has now been taken over by people who’ve been pushing a very unamerican idea of free speech so it’s fair game to point out they’re trying to prevent people from using the very system that DOGE runs on.
Gormo 2y ago
> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state. The first amendment doesn't apply to our interactions with each other outside of the political sphere, but that doesn't mean that we don't also have expectations of conduct and cultural norms that uphold freedom of speech via other means in non-government contexts.
- scarab92 2y ago
  You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.
  - foldr 2y ago
    Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
    - scarab92 2y ago
      Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
      - foldr 2y ago
        I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.
zaik 2y ago
When Mr. Musk describes X as "the last bastion of free speech" or similar what do you think he refers to?
- MVissers 2y ago
  Not OP but.. He’s full of shit? You get banned for sharing identities of DOGE people, but Musk can share the name and tax documents of a federal judge. Hypocrite.

Moru 2y ago

The owner is working for the government, can't play that card any more.

whoisthemachine 2y ago

This is definitely true, however many of us remember Musk declaring himself a "free-speech absolutist", so in most cases people are referring to his hyprocisy rather than his legal rights. [0] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600

moomin 2y ago
It’s always been free speech for us, not for you.

advael 2y ago

Actually freedom of speech is a principle, which Musk and his ilk claim to care about, despite using their power to censor people through either direct control of information streams or threats. The first amendment to the US constitution specifically seeks to reify this principle in laws pertaining only to the government's actions, but freedom of speech as a principle can be supported or violated by anyone with power over other people. The people claiming to be "free speech absolutists" are hypocritical even if they didn't also work for the government and enact these vendettas against speech they don't like on a governmental level (which is also happening)

moomin 2y ago

I mean, congratulations you’ve explained why the Speechers criticising Twitter were always wrong on this point, but Twitter has now been taken over by people who’ve been pushing a very unamerican idea of free speech so it’s fair game to point out they’re trying to prevent people from using the very system that DOGE runs on.

Gormo 2y ago

> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state. The first amendment doesn't apply to our interactions with each other outside of the political sphere, but that doesn't mean that we don't also have expectations of conduct and cultural norms that uphold freedom of speech via other means in non-government contexts.

scarab92 2y ago
You're right, and that's were the double standards come in. Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case) Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits Pick a lane.
- foldr 2y ago
  Elon described himself as a free speech absolutist. There is no inconsistency in pointing out that his actions don’t align with this description, regardless of whether or not the person doing so is themselves a free speech absolutist.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Shifting the goal posts. The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification. If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
    - foldr 2y ago
      I don't think so. Twitter before Musk had all kinds of TOS that obviously blocked speech that would be protected by the First Amendment. No-one is saying that Twitter used to be a free speech absolutist free-for-all before Musk took over. They're saying two things. First, that his actions don't match his stated intentions. Second, that he is heavily biased towards unblocking far right accounts.

zaik 2y ago

When Mr. Musk describes X as "the last bastion of free speech" or similar what do you think he refers to?

MVissers 2y ago
Not OP but.. He’s full of shit? You get banned for sharing identities of DOGE people, but Musk can share the name and tax documents of a federal judge. Hypocrite.