It would be unexpected for a company run by a free speech absolutist.
So does that mean you should be allowed to think your boss is an asshole too??
0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...
He seems to treat his own speech as if it is completely unfettered by any restraint, regardless of consequences for self or company (see the sheer number of times he’s upset the SEC via tweet compared to any other C-level in the world), while restraining the shit out of his subordinates’.
————
For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but I think that’s one of the least interesting parts of the issue.
From the context of the worker, there’s isn’t too much of a functional difference. Musk is acting as the arbiter of others’ speech. So he’s allowing anybody to say anything, unless it goes against the company line.
It’s not governmental control of the little people, but it’s still hella control of the little people, by a body that can’t be held responsible to the workers (the chances of Elon being voted out are nil).
Ultimately, I think we’re both agreeing that there can and should be social consequences for speech, it’s just that Elon has an army of well paid lawyers to help him avoid those consequences. In this case, the giant power imbalance seems like pretty fundamental framing to this issue. It’s not like both parties would suffer the same consequences for making the same statements.
(In short, if you don’t trust the government to regulate your speech, why on Earth would you trust a single unelected individual to do so?)
Maybe. I think what he does with Twitter (if the deal goes through) will prove it one way or the other.
Musk has stated in his own words that he is a "free speech absolutist", and given his complaints about Twitter it seems that his interpretation of that is not limited to government censorship, but all censorship.
But this leads to a pretty blatant double standard if he fires his employees for participating in public discussion and criticism of himself.