Posted on 05/03/2022 12:32:51 PM PDT by hadit2here
Elon Musk is embarrassing himself on the global stage again by proudly bruiting a grade-school level of familiarity with the immensely complex concepts of free speech, censorship, rights and privileges of individuals and government authorities. The fact that this aggressively ignorant person is likely to take over one of the largest communication platforms on Earth should scare the shit out of you.
Here is what the richest man in the world said earlier today, on the platform he intends to acquire:
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.
Elon’s got one thing going for him. He has demonstrated an apparently innate facility to pack more willful and privileged ignorance into a single sentence than almost anyone on the planet.
These statements are so fundamentally wrong — factually, ethically, practically, and in every other way, that I hardly know where to begin.
For one thing, he might want to look at the most elementary descriptions of what constitutes free speech and censorship. Censorship is when state authorities limit the speech of the people under their power. Free speech is the guarantee that no action defined as speech is illegal outside a few harmful examples, like harassment, hate speech and other special cases (under constant negotiation) that we as a society have decided constitute or exacerbate crimes.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcrunch.com ...
“Elon Musk is embarrassing himself on the global stage again by proudly bruiting a grade-school level of familiarity with the immensely complex concepts of free speech, censorship, rights and privileges of individuals and government authorities.” = Grade “AA” Bullshit
You have a gift for posting statements that almost sound like they make sense but don't stand up to a moment's reflection.
Businesses and individuals do untold number of things at various governments' request every day. Voluntarily and not under penalty of law.
Provided what the government requests is legal, what's the legal basis for saying the cooperating entity loses their Constitutional rights when they cooperate?
Sounds nice but I think you would have a hard time getting any of the techs to agree their property is a free public space.
Is this guy 12?
I enjoyed it, carry on.
I wonder if Devin is a professional rioter. He reasons like one.
You shoulda put a !BARF ALERT! on that.
Are you telling us that you do not grasp the concept of a government threatening a company behind the scenes?
Did you not study the Fascism of Italy and Germany?
I can't believe you do not understand government threats and intimidation.
It does explain a lot as to why you think the way you do.
Yes, this concept of the public being present making it a public space is just too difficult for these geniuses to grasp.
Alternatively,
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
Two points:
1) If you want to talk about threats and coercion don't link to a comment discussing voluntary cooperation with a legal government request.
2) It would be even stupider to strip someone of their Constitutional rights because they were threatened or coerced by government.
FedGov will persecute him for it.
What other public spaces require you to provide your personal information and agree to a service contract before you can use them?
The public shows up at my grocery store. I suppose the store just lost its rights too?
Your response is insane.
It’s free if they make it free - otherwise charge a fee and make it private.
That is a dog and pony show to get away with their legal bullsh*t. Once the public shows up, it becomes public regardless of what the terms of service say.
Try to imagine a phone company gettinng away with that sort of bullsh*t.
The public shows up at my grocery store. I suppose the store just lost its rights too?
If it's a store, no. If it's a f***ing place where the public gather to communicate with each other, then the place has no right to censor the public.
Never had that right. Again, telephone company.
Now you know how I feel.
You’re the one saying businesses, like the tech socials, lose their rights if they serve the public.
Despite the fact that they don’t and never have said they serve everyone.
They serve those who explicitly agree to live by their rules (TOS).
You don’t like them so want to deny them the right to set their own terms by creating a bizarre definition of ‘public’.
So they could get their rights back by charging 10$/year?
Interesting Constitutional take there.
But it's not 'the public'. It's a group of people who formally agreed to the TOS.
These people said they would play by the rules if they were let in.
You've made clear that principle isn't very important to you but shouldn't that matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.