Hacker News Reader

Comment by mft_ | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think any definition of free speech guarantees total freedom from repercussions?

Isn't that the definition of free speech that Musk wants for Twitter?

The purpose of Twitter is speech. People like Musk argue it is analogous to a public space. Twitter users don't work for Twitter and are not subordinates of Twitter. Do you also imagine that Musk believes service people ought to be allowed to mock their superior officers to their faces without repercussions?

Musk got someone fired from a job because they once worked for the SEC.

So I imagine Musk believes anyone who causes him displeasure, in any form, even by association, should be put in their place by measures including, and up to, loss of livelihood.

I'm not so sure he gives a damn about anyone in the military, unless they run afoul of the ideas presented in previous statement.

That lawyer INVESTIGATED Musk. I don't think Musk behaved very well in that situation, but if you are a law firm and you rely on Musk's companies for business, maybe don't hire a government lawyer who went after him?

The government lawyer didn't go after him, the government did.

The purpose of Twitter is money, not speech. Speech is their product, and as a private company, they're allowed to decide what products they sell.

Maybe freedom from Twitter censoring you, but not freedom from repercussions from what you said (or tweeted). That’s ultimately determined by e.g. the courts and (as in this case) employers.

Actually, about half of the political spectrum of the US believes (or steadfastly pretends to believe) that this is precisely what "free speech" means.

I guess they haven't processed the famous XKCD on this issue.

I would bet real money the fired employees have shared that particular XKCD comic a lot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com