Hacker News Reader

Comment by dachworker | Hacker News Reader

Musk claimed on the All In podcast, that he was merely trying to abide by the law, and that the situation that arose was that the government was requesting action that went against the laws of the same country. I don't know how true that is, but it sounds plausible. He also made it clear that the policy was not "free speech by US standards" but rather allowing speech up till what is permitted by every respective country. That sounded way more reasonable to me than what I have heard before on the issue.

View on HN

> the situation that arose was that the government was requesting action that went against the laws of the same country

There is no jurisdiction in which blowing off a court is a legitimate reaction to perceived lawlessness. Or more accurately, there is no jurisdiction where doing so doesn’t legitimately bring down on you the full force of the state. To do anything else is to cede the rule of law.

There's lot of jurisdictions, United States has great jurisprudence on this dating back to July 4th, 1776. France, Great Britain, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, all of latin america in fact, have examples of using this legal strategy effectively.

Venezuela may overrule the courts later this year.

Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

> United States has great jurisprudence on this dating back to July 4th, 1776

Revolution isn’t a legal strategy. (It’s a political one.)

There is political precedent of blowing off courts. But that is almost always a unilateral challenge to a system’s rule of law. That’s what Musk alleged. But complaining about sanctions when engaging in ersatz revolution is like complaining about arrest when engaging in civil disobedience—it’s the expected result. (See: Google in China.)

Under UK law, and court rulings dating back to the trial of King Charles, parliament is supreme and authorized the revolution, it’s a legal strategy.

> parliament is supreme and authorized the revolution, it’s a legal strategy

You’re referring to the Trial of King Charles I? That legally wasn’t a revolution, but an act of the sovereign Parliament. (It also didn’t happen in America or in 1776.)

It’s actually quite relevant, given Charles I refused to acknowledge the Commons’ legitimacy. He was executed. And the entire thing is deemed legal.

Yup that’s what I was referring to

Sure. Musk is playing Charles I. The English king who took up arms at the head of a foreign army against his own people and didn’t recognise the legitimacy of an elected government because god said he shouldn’t have to.

I'm not an expert on this topic. But I can conceive of a situation where the judiciary and the executive branches are butting head against each other and one finds it hard to figure out who to listen to. Didn't this exact situation arise in the US during the Trump administration?

> can conceive of a situation where the judiciary and the executive branches are butting head against each other and one finds it hard to figure out who to listen to

Sure. You still show up.

If the executive orders you not to show, you have a constitutional crisis and the rule of law has broken down. But that didn’t happen here. (Note: the court’s orders may be illegal. But not showing up and then complaining about sanctions is incoherent.)

bs, doxxing campaign happening in twitter against government officers is not freespech

Reply on news.ycombinator.com