Free speech applies to all speech, not just political speech. If you want "free speech as long as it's legal", this should be allowed. If you don't that's also fine, but then you can't cite "free speech" as a reason to reinstate Trump (Which Musk did). Although regardless neither of these is a "free speech" issue (In the constitutional sense) since it's about a corporation banning certain things on its platform, which it's perfectly entitled to do. It's just very clearly shown the hypocrisy with which Musk now runs Twitter.
Well, in the context of Musk's entire public premise for buying Twitter being to provide an at-scale safe haven for online free speech, it absolutely is a free speech issue.
Sure I guess. But the line Musk himself drew was that he wouldn’t ban this or any account unless it was doing something illegal. It’s clearly not. So according to free speech absolutists like Musk, the banning of this account is a violation of the 1st amendment rights of the poster.
(I don’t agree with that, but I spent weeks arguing with Musk supporters about this very fact. Now all of a sudden they are saying “it’s his right to do whatever he wants with Twitter”, which I agree with. But then why did Musk buy Twitter in the first place? Well now we know: to do whatever he wanted with it, not to champion free speech rights! Which is exactly what people were worried about! It’s all so frustrating…)
Well, when previous Twitter management did things like this, Musk said that they were restricting free speech. So this is at least anti "Musk's definition of free speech".
Exactly. It's so odd to act like this is a good example of a "free speech violation". The speech being prohibited serves no purpose beyond harming Twitter's popularity. If you're still allowed to convey any actual opinion (with clear exceptions, such as desire for harm to be done, illegal speech, etc), than this is a nothingburger to the people willing to support Musk.
Similarly, it's so minor in comparison to previous examples of Twitter's past suspensions for real free speech violations that nobody on the right is going to come to the suspension "victim's" defense.
Can you explain to me a) how Twitter allows free speech, in spite of the numerous cases of Musk censoring things he doesn’t like and b) how my comment had literally anything to do with whatever it is you think “free speech” is?
Your arguments are invalid because Musk himself bashed Twitter for similar behavior before he bought it, and all hell would have broken loose if they had banned him for it.
He proclaimed himself to be free speech absolutist and now fails miserably on multiple occasions.
It only shows that it is not about freedom of speech, but about being able to say whatever he wants.
That's not freedom, it's tyranny. Fear him if your tweets don't get his favor.
It’s not a free speech issue in the same way it wasn’t a free speech issue when old Twitter did things like suppress the Hunter Biden story. Twitter is a private enterprise allowed to do what it wants with its own speech (it’s platform). It’s extremely hypocritical and furthers the notion that Musk and the rightwingers who took over the site are full of it, but it isn’t a free speech issue.
Musk has explicitly and repeatedly said that his standard for free speech is that which complies with the law in any given country. The logic is that domestic laws represent the will of their citizens and it shouldn't be a corporation's (or a billionaire's) responsibility to second guess this.
Quote — "By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." [0]
Quote — "Like I said, my preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates. If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so, otherwise it should be allowed." [1]
Personally I think this the only sane stance for a corporation like Twitter/X. We shouldn't be looking to capitalist non-democratic corporations as an end-run around governments — especially democratic governments.
> Not really. He's mouthed the words, of course, but it appears that his definition of "free speech" is "whatever Musk wants it to be".
Pretty hard to nail this perfectly if we are being honest. But Twitter allows more free speech now than before.
> Not what he said. What he said is that he'll allow allow all speech that isn't illegal. He could decide to censor all speech from everyone on Twitter right now, and that wouldn't go beyond what is permissible by law.
Not sure I understand your argument here.
> Why? Advertisers don't have freedom of speech? They should be forced to engage in speech and do business with a company when they find it distasteful or potentially harmful to their business?
Advertisers have freedom of speech. What they don't have now is the ability to coerce the Twitter platform into censoring other users' speech. Besides they are free to do business where their needs are best served. Twitter's not a monopoly.
Pre-Musk Twitter didn't specifically try to present itself as a bastion of free speech.
On top of that, in case of this particular account, Musk specifically said that it would be allowed on the platform per his understanding of free speech.
You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're arguing against points I never made which makes me believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as well.
Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their platform a place for free speech.
You may be trying sarcasm here, but the "free speech absolutists" this argument was originally deployed against insisted such a right should not exist, and that freedom of speech meant the government should privatize social media and force platforms to publish content against their will, and make content moderation illegal.
However no one here is claiming Musk doesn't or shouldn't have the right to run Twitter (I still refuse to call it X and will die on this hill) however he likes, rather people are just pointing out that he's a hypocrite and an asshole.
We're discussing Musk's definition of "freedom of speech", not yours, mine, or the constitution's. He seems to believe you should be able to say whatever you want (on Twitter) and not get fired. This is the definition that's relevant here because his ideas about freedom of speech from his many tweets on the subject don't align with his actions as a leader at Tesla and SpaceX.
Twitter's free speech ideals are arbitrary at best. Asking Twitter to take action before this man will eventually be convinced is wrong, but portraying Twitter as some kind of free speech activist when Musk will ban and block as he sees fit when people are mean to him is just wrong.
From what I can tell this has very little to do with free speech in the first place, this is more about a company entering a business partnership with a man under investigation for sexual crimes and stalking. They're not asking Twitter to ban him, just to (re)consider their position on doing business with him. Twitter decides per account if they can or can't make money by tweeting, so their decision in this regard do reflect on the company.
Brand having proven to be a conspiracy nutjob during COVID should be enough reason for any business not to to business with him, but Musk does seem to attract a certain crowd.
I can't say I'm very surprised by Twitter's response other than the fact they responded in the first place; I thought Twitter fired their PR team during the mass exodus when Musk took over.
Musk was never a free speech absolutist. He claimed he supported 'legal speech'. Which turned out to be a big fat old lie. The guy is a state actor. People like that are never for free speech and lie all the time.
Also, to be fair, there was time before musk ( like 10 years ago ) when twitter and much of social media had some semblance of free speech. I don't think that era is ever coming back.
reply