Are the people with these views not also entitled to free speech and equal rights to express themselves the same as everybody else?
If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement." Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
There's a line somewhere around political opinions that involve using the state to inflict violence on another that I believe should be inexpressible in public, and I think it's fine for non-state actors to ensure that's the case.
Yes we do, we disagree on that statement.
> Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us closer to agreeing on the underlying issues would be my first aim, not just to cry foul on free speech and expect them to be locked up just for saying something I dont like. That is barbaric.
You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.
I think the promotion of liberalism and the lack of critical thinking has created a society of fanatics. For the vast majority of disagreements, it's good to try and understand other perspectives and to work towards compromise. What compromise should the German jews have offered the Nazis? What insights could they have gained from understanding the Nazi perspective?
> You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.
Everything Hilter/Stalin did was legal. When families were gassed and thrown into ovens, that was legal. In fact, it was illegal to impede them. That started as somebody's political opinion, they were able to foment support for it, and it happened.
And finally, I understand what the law is in the US. The US basically allows any speech that doesn't threaten the government's monopoly on violence. I'm saying the Europeans are right to criminalize some political ideas. There's been no slippery slope in German because they don't let you wear swastikas.
Isn't that free speech?
If someone takes you up on that offer and you pay them, that crosses from free speech into illegal activity and you will be put in jail. But you are totally fine to talk about if you want.
Also, you never were in that situation, otherwise you would know there's no way to be fine while people are plotting to maim you. Or if you are, your family sure won't be.
If someone takes you up on that offer then they are breaking the law and committing an offense, regardless of what you said or did or didnt pay them.
If I tell you to go jump off a cliff and you do it, am I liable for murder?
I think you need to back off a little bit and stop trying to invent situations that you think fit your idea of what I think about implications of murder.
I think its fine to say what you want, thats it. You can agree or disagree with me to your hearts content, but do it amicably :)
Calling for the eradication of people with certain sexual preferences or skin color for example.
Child pornography, slander, and death threats are other examples of exceptions.
Slander and death threats are harder to define. You have to show an active plot to commit the crime, not just a statement. At that point the plot, the action you took, is the crime rather than your words.
Yeah it does, at least in America. You can't yell fire in a theatre and incite panic.
Also there is the paradox of tolerance.
> Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Incitement to violence is also permitted as long as it isn't immediate and/or likely. This is known as the Brandenburg Test:
There are obviously some restrictions on speech in every nation. However in the US the restrictions on speech by the state are far fewer than pretty much anywhere else and are enshrined by law. This is in stark contrast to other other Western nations such as the UK where there are far, far more restrictions on speech.
With regard to falsely shouting fire, there are no common misconceptions. The common understanding of the saying is identical with the understanding in the judgment, and that part of the judgment remains good law.
However, there is a modern meme that strives to obscure this reality by pointing out that the judgment reached conclusions that modern people generally disapprove of. This has no relevance to the issue.
They also feel like they should be allowed to shut down other people's speech, because that is part of their idea of free speech. They should be allowed to tell you that you're not allowed to talk.
The more people understand that when people talk about "absolute free speech", it isn't a serious position, and is mostly held by people with this view, the better. I'm sure there are actual "free speech purists" out there, but they are few and far between. Instead it is mostly people using the guise of free speech so they can say and do what they want without consequences.
You clearly don't know anything about actual law and rights.
This is not a simple matter of people saying things that are undesirable, or even heretical. It is not a matter of someone saying something hateful, then ignoring them as a hater, because chances are they want to suppress the speech of those they hate.
This is why the no asterisk position sets itself to implode.
The core defense of Free speech, one of the better articulated points is from Oliver Wendell Holmes. He articulates that free speech serves the search for truth, but the search for truth via the competition of ideas.
>that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,
This was his articulation in a sedition case brought by the government against citizens.
It is specifically in the case of government using its power to become a player in the market of ideas.
I would still argue, though, that saying literally anything should be legal. Acting on hate speech, by plotting to commit a crime, may be illegal. The problem there is that you plotted a crime and in certain case that plot itself is illegal, it isn't about what you said but what you did.
The limit is basically “speech which threatens imminent violence”.
So saying “we should kill all group X” is fine. Saying “lets go kill those people from group X standing on Main St at 2pm” is not ok.
Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection?
My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write.
I agree with your viewpoint I think, but Im sure as always there are some edge cases which make this definition difficult.
Difficult? Yes.
Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you…
So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship. The feed should just show chronological ordered stuff of followed accounts. No more and no less.
They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed.
What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it.
Its not a fair fight.
Neither do you, unless you redefined it to be the super narrow description that you gave. So you can freely be censored but keep believing you have freedom.
You're the poster child of how europeans imagine usa citizens.
Private citizens and companies can censor. Twitter can have rules of conduct or terms of use, for example, and you have to play by their rules when posting on their service. The government isn't involved at all (twitter files not withstanding).
You can't say what you want in a shopping mall. They can decide who gets to stay in their premises, and for whatever reason they can eject you.
All the free speech cases, have been about government stopping speech. Whether its about deceny laws, or sedition - its always been the government vs a person / corporation.
So yeah - these have been the rights you lived under for all your life. Its never changed.
That is the operating definition of free speech that has worked in America since I started working in this space.
It hasn't worked. But you're too set in "USA IS PERFECT!" mindset to objectively think about it.
I think all of them are pretty crap for today’s environment.
But yes - the operating definition of Free speech, the one enforceable in courts, the one you have lived under, is the one I outlined.
Namely - no government over reach in speech. Not that people can’t do what they want as private individuals, and now corporations.
So you can in theory, have a corporation buy up all the local news channels, and then have them share one kind of point of view. It’s perfectly free speech.
You could stream porn, and the courts would side by you for your right to free speech.
This doesn’t mean you wont get sued for piracy, or actually earn money through your project - you still need a service people want.
I’m dead serious, you can check if you like - but these are the rules you live under even right now.
Don't sell me paper. Cut off my internet. That doesn't stop me from saying whatever I want, whether in public or private.
I mean, ok you have this right. What do you think was the INTENTION of this right? Do you think they intended for people to freely mumble to themselves or to tell their ideas to others?
Freedom of Speech goes hand in hand with Freedom of Association. You are free to speak and spread your ideas, you are not free to compel others to help you to do so and you are not entitled to an audience.
I don’t have to let you stand on my porch to speak anymore than Instagram has to allow you to post things or Costco has to allow you to hold lectures in the food court.
I generally agree with your point about private companies and the 1A.
However, the NYT and Twitter/X are fundamentally different in that the NYT is not a user platform but rather a media company who decides what it wants to publish--meaning that is it's stated goal. Twitter/X stated goal is to provide a platform for users to publish whatever they want to say. Now, Twitter/X can have a policy saying "here's a platform where you can say whatever you want except for X, Y and Z" and that's fine. Just like HN has policies. As long as it's clear and transparent as to what they are allowing or disallowing, then users are informed enough to know what they're going to get when they log on to X. Just like I know what I'm going to get if I visit Fox News.
Prior to Elon, Twitter's policies were stricter and so there was a lot less "hate speech" (for lack of a better term). Those guardrails are gone, since for one Elon fired the whole moderation team, and also because of Elon's own immature posts setting the example, it's devolved into a reddit-style cesspool so I decided not to go there anymore.
Banning links to Signal would be no big deal if Elon hadn't loudly proclaimed himself as the "defender of free speech" and demonized the "censorship" of Twitter.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point.
I think that's reality, not cynicism
Free speech and equal rights in a legal sense, meaning staying out of jail? Sure, with caveats about threats and abuse.
Free to use a private platform? No, nobody's entitled to the support of someone else's private platform. Equal rights are about protection from the state, not from others' opinions.
Platforms themselves also have speech-based rights. Even if one portrays itself as a neutral 'town square,' it puts its own rights to work as soon as it implements an algorithmic feed, implicitly deciding what content to promote or hide.
You are entitled to your opinion: good, bad, or irrelevant. You are entitled to your words. You are not entitled to an audience.
Brilliant statement, I fully agree.
The issue is who chooses to give them an audience. IMO it is up to the audience not to listen, but it seems to be the opinion of a lot of people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.
If their choices were unpopular, people would flock to alternatives. They don't.
Which puts a hole into the underlying theory. If people do not naturally gravitate towards alternative ideas, and network effects keep people in one place, then these networks should be made government owned.
Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it.
I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping?
What you are saying is actively happening right now.
Certain people dont like that another certain group of people have been allowed back onto Twitter, and so they are going in droves to Mastodon/Bluesky/Threads/TruthSocial etc.
Twitter has received an 87% drop in revenue since reinstating previously blocked accounts.
Id say people are flocking to alternatives.
This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see. History has shown that where this happens it increases aggression and intense reaction, where people are not used to seeing things they disagree with and so when they do they react more violently.
> Firms have a right to their property, and the choices of how they maximize revenue on it.
Of course they do, but what this generally turns into in the modern age is 'The left doesnt like what the right have to say, block them plz". Then this turns into a political argument, when in fact one group of people just dont want to hear what a different group of people have to say because 'it offends them'.
> I mean, should the head of a media firm be threatened by the Government or President, and forced to comply with their preferred style of gatekeeping?
We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.
>What you are saying is actively happening right now.
Oh. I am wrong.
SO we don't need to enforce rules on free speech, People are able to choose who to interact with.
>This is creating an extremely fragmented society, all creating their own bubble of what they want to see
So we SHOULD enforce rules of free speech, because people dont want to hear what others are saying?
So we should have free speech, but we should control listening?
>We have rules and laws to prevent this as it is recognised as being a threat.
Wait really? Someone is suing the President for threatening Meta/Zuckerberg? Who?
Would you be on board with launching a lawsuit against a government which threatened a media firm ?
You seem to be trying to pin me down to an opinion, and Im not really sure why. Do I, a random person on the internet, matter to you that much that you need to clarify my exact opinion on stuff?
Your position:
>Your position:
>… t and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.
Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united.
Firms have a right to do what they please, as long as it is legal.
You dont like what firms do.
You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so.
This kills free speech.
——- The position that you set up, is inherently in contradiction to the norms of reality. I am a policy person and understand the trade offs here intimately, which is leading to me playing fast and loose, resulting in confusion.
And yes - you matter to me. Why shouldn’t you? You seem intelligent, or if not, you value looking intelligent.
It would be interesting to see how you resolve the contradiction that your position throws up.
———
> You want to make them behave a certain way. You are asking the government to force them to do so.
Im actually not doing that. I dont know where I gave you that impression but I do not believe the government should force any company to allow full free speech on their commercial platform.
> Your position ignores the rights given to firms to run their business, and the choice of their speech via citizens united.
We are talking about twitter here in this context, which has been many times quoted as saying they are upholding free speech. The opinions you are referencing here apply to that company because that is what they state. Im not talking about all companies and their right to control what people say on their platforms, I feel this is more of an ideological discussion around Twitter/any social media which claims to uphold free speech in their public forum.
Therefore the contradiction does not really exist IMO, because they are being held to their own values and not mine.
Interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed chewing that over for a bit. Thanks :)
>people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.
Gatekeeping would be a right of platforms and I assumed that combating it would involve forcing them to behave in accordance with an external force.
And Since you are discussing only twitter, it does follow that Twitter has an anti-speech position, despite their stated intentions.
——-
For a bit more fun, I think what X was proclaiming is the naive version of free speech. The kind of “anyone can make this app” naive over generalization.
I have a mechanism which allows me to balance the needs of moderation and censorship with free speech. Its an interesting exercise, I think you might like working through it.
From personal experience - I have had to ban people, and it was a form of censorship. Resolving this contradiction effectively changed my career path.
So I have a 1000 users on my forum. One user is incredibly active, and spends their time abusing a specific local minority group.
Things like X minority needs to die, not arguing in good faith.
Now, ideally I shouldn’t ban him, and let counter speech do its things. But since they aren’t arguing in good faith, counter speech doesn’t work.
Over time, this is also creating second order effects in other conversations.
It’s attracting a new kind of user, its driving conversations to be more polarized, and its reducing time spent on longer more thoughtful posts.
How would you respond, and why?
It has always been thus. E.g. right wingers did not use twitter back in 2021.
I will grant it's getting worse though... for instance, the battle here on hackernews between left and right has strongly intensified and it looks like the left will win the downvote/flagging war and the right will stop posting in (and reading) political threads.
Even in his dissenting opinion in Abrams vs the United States, Holmes valued not free speech, but the market place of ideas - the competition of ideas that underlies the search for truth.
Slavishly sticking to free speech, and destroying the market of ideas - creating a monopilist propaganda force, with a symbiotic political party is NOT free speech.
Today we have far more information than any of the founders had anticipated. Monopolies of ideas, far more content than fact, the race to the bottom due to advertising - a source of stress in every pocket?
Yeah, your network is going to have a very specific signal to noise ratio. Your market place of ideas is going to be selling junk food, because its cheap and easy to make.
The idea of counter speech works, if counter speech is heard in the first place. If your message never gets to the other side, or the other party is completely enraged and unable to think past their fears - you have no market place of ideas.
How did you come to these conclusions about the goals and future of Twitter? My naive expectation was that Musk is mostly interested in enriching and aggrandizing himself, and that a crusade against some social group is only interesting as long as it serves the primary interests.
Maybe (if it's about black or white), but anti-Semites have a pretty loud and public voice in the "Western" world.
So do Jews. So are we seeing full free speech in action? Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?
Even free speech has its limits...for example calling for the extermination of a race.
>Or is whats right decided by which side people agree with?
Correct, most of the time it is, and that is exactly why laws (esp. international ones) exist and Justitia is/should be blind.
It doesnt though, thats the point.
Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.
With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listening to that person. They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.
In reality, people are weak and do not do these things. They keep buying the terrible products because they dont want to have to think about looking for a better alternative. They keep listening to the hate speech because its easier to respond in anger than to ignore the person. The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world. Again in reality this wioll never happen, and so people will keep shouting and shouting about what they dont like until the world ends up destroying itself through hate and anger.
It’s an interesting analogy to free speech.
I agree, thanks for pointing that out. There are nuances on both sides which make it an interesting thought experiment to apply to the other side.
Combine the two and it isn't that you said something that is illegal, its that the statement is interpreted as a clear signal of actively planning to do something which itself is illegal.
Not a Lawyer, but threatening to kill someone is not protected by free speech right?
>They keep listening to the hate speech
The definition of "hate speech" is unclear and a made-up word to make people feel bad for being angry -> Two Minutes Hate
>>The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatred toward politically expedient enemies
It depends on context. The legal test is called the "Imminent Lawless Action" Test in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#Brandenbur...
If someone threatened to kill me theres no way I would be trying to invoke law to protect me. Why would I when they have done nothing wrong? If they pick up a gun and shoot at me then that becomes illegal and I will call the police or defend myself. If they pay somebody else to act on their opinion and cause me harm then again it becomes illegal. But to expect the law to punish someone just because they said 'I want to kill you'? That IMO is barbaric and completely ridiculous.
In practice, the law not taking this seriously is how a lot of women in abusive relationships die
Yes agreed, and its also the reason we have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.
Things can be said in anger, and not really meant. In fact I would wager out of all the death threats made in the entire world, the vast majority are said in anger and not meant to be followed through on. This is why we dont lock people up for just saying things. There needs to be other motives and evidence behind it to show intent.
Unfortunately yes this means we have situations where people are not believed and go on to receieve harm. Humanity has decided as a society that this is less harmful than locking far too many innocent people up by mistake. I do not have an opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it is what exists for us and created by us.
If you have a better idea for a more fair justice system then go advocate for it, but the whole history of humanity hasnt found one yet.
You are incorrect, at least in California
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/criminal-threats-califor...
Not quite
From your link: "the prosecutor must prove that the threats placed the victim in reasonable fear and that the fear was sustained"
You cant just be prosecuted for saying something. You always need to back it up and prove it was a real threat where harm was a real possibility or the victim was in sustained genuine fear of their life.
While I appreciate your free speech maximalism, I can't help but feel you're shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
My feeling is that someone should be allowed to say that they hate me, and that they'd like to kill me. All the same, if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
I'm fact I'm glad that they're allowed to express themselves like this because then I know who not to stand near cliff edges with.
For real though I think a lot (but not all) of opposition to things like hate speech is really an opposition to the feeling being expressed, rather than the expression itself. I'd prefer someone didn't have hatred in their heart, but once they do I prefer that they're open about it.
(You might say that that will only encourage others to become hateful, I don't necessarily agree, but it's a fair concern.)
> if I think they'll actually attempt to do so then I'm ok with the law trying to prevent it.
This is the sticky issue which nobody is able to solve though. How do you prove someone will actually attemt to do it? Currently the legal system requires more than them just saying it to prosecute. There needs to be more motive, or evidence of actual persistent stalking or harm.
What do you think makes the difference between an idle threat and an actual intention of harm?
On the other hand, it may not be necessary. When I say the law can try to prevent my murder, I don't necessarily mean to deprive my would-be murder of liberty or privacy (since those should be protected in the absence of proven guilt). If you put the prevention on the other side, and offer e.g. a police escort or enforced blocks on communication media then maybe you can discourage/prevent my murder without answering difficult questions like intent.
You might well say, "I shouldn't have to do any of that, they should have to not murder", or "that's all fine but who's going to pay". I have a most marvellous answer to those, but is comment is too small to contain it.
> You might well say...
Well indeed I do say who is going to pay. If we had a society where you could get your own police escort or phone block just by saying that someone threatened you, I feel that service would be open to abuse and would end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot.
> I have a most marvellous answer to those
Please retort your answer, I am intrigued :)
Buddy, do a little bit of googling before you say plainly incorrect stuff like this. [1] [2]
Just because there’s not a single definition of a word does not mean the meaning of the word is unclear.
I think everyone on the planet could identify the vast majority of hate speech from the age of like 11. They say the edgiest stuff, after all.
Even if you agree with hate speech, you can still identify it.
Also like… all words are made-up
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
So, from the opposite direction, I have the same issue as the other commentator but with the divergent use of the word "woke" by those mostly on the right (and sarcastically by those on the left) — if the person hearing/reading it doesn't know what to expect, it's not a useful word.
Therefore, while I know what I mean by "hate speech" (demonising/dehumanising a group), I tend to avoid using the term as it doesn't successfully replicate my thoughts into the heads of other people.
That's why governments make rules to protect those with less indormation and power.
According to your logic cyberbullying is just free speech.
Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
And don't forget that many free speech apologetics say that free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. At this point it's clear that for most people free speech doesn't exitst because they censor their posts if say fear consequences.
IMO it is
> Should I wish for you to by cyberbullied, so you see first hand that free speech has limits?
Feel free to, you have that right. If people choose to act on it I will deal with it on my end appropriately, and I wont be complaining to you to stop saying what you have the right to.
So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?
Words are still just words until they are acted on, but this is just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.
> So you think you can’t damage people’s psyche through words?
Not sure where you got that from, of course it is possible. But we are all gatekeepers of our own minds.
You seem to be ignoring my responses and trying to lead me further into extreme examples to trap me. Carry on if you feel you must, but at the end of the day we both have our opinions and we are entitiled to them.
You overestimate the power of your mind. Constant attacks breaks everybody and don’t forget the mind of children and young people is even weaker. But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?
Back to extreme examples, what about Charles Manson? He didn’t kill anybody, was his imprisonment wrong?
> You overestimate the power of your mind
No I dont. I am fully aware of mine and everybody elses weakness and bias.
> But it doesn’t matter because free speech over all?
Exactly!
I think you are overestimating your opinion, you come across as if you know everything thats right and wrong and everybody should have the same opinion as you.
Luckily for myself and free speech, opinions are subjective. Here you are trying your hardest to offend me and back me into a corner about what I think. Yet my overarching opinion is that you are free to say anything you like about me. I have no issue with your opinions, and if you didnt have issue with mine this would be a much nicer world to live in.
Try tolerence of other peoples opinions sometime, even if you dont agree with them. Its actually quite refreshing and liberating.
> It doesnt though, thats the point.
In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific).
There's a Wikipedia page with free speech exceptions in the USA. Those exceptions don't really seem weird, but just seeing that there are reasonable exceptions makes free speech absolutism less sensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.
So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.
If free speech has no limit, that means you can't prevent people from arguing against the end of free speech.
Such arguments have been convincing in many places and in many times, for many different reasons. Including the USA — the things that are considered "corrupting our youth" at different times and in different ways, plus a bunch of other stuff that society just doesn't function without banning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
> A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business.
Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?
> They are still allowed to say anything they want, but their reputation is tarnished and hardly anybody listens to them and they loose their platform/influence.
Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.
> The solution to all these things is education and people spending more time thinking about how they respond to things in the world.
Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.
Had to tell one that not only did we support browsers other than Internet Explorer, but that they were themselves using Firefox at the time they claimed to only support Internet Explorer.
Correct, they can talk about it all they want but cant act on it.
> Like the 84% reduction in Twitter revenue prior to the election?
Yep, and if the majority of the world fully agrees that Twitter is in the wrong and is a horrible place then it will plummit further and cease to exist. The thing here is that there is a massive percent of the population that loves twitter as it is, and so it will continue as there are still enough people to justify the advertising.
> Musk sued the people who pointed out to brands advertising on twitter that their reputations were getting tarnished by what their content was getting associated with on Twitter.
He didnt. He is trying to and we will see what hapopens there. Personally I think his case will be thrown out but thats just an opinion.
> Number of times I've personally witnessed sales clerks and customer support teams not knowing their own products suggests this is one of those solutions that sounds easy but isn't.
I agree, I never said it was easy. In fact I said that the majority of the world will take the easy way out and not put the thought required into their reponses to things.
"Election".
Action very easy. They do it a lot. Did it this time, even, despite what they say.
> He didnt.
He did.
Here's the lawsuit that X Corp. filed: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
That is him doing the thing.
I disagree.
> He did.
Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.
This is not how people typically use the term. And if you look it up the dictionary also doesn't use it that way.
And while we're on this point, there's such a thing as vexation litigation. You should look that up too.
Because words are used to communicate between parties, one cannot unilaterally define an existing term to mean whatever they wish it to mean. (Another good thing to look up: Humpty Dumpty and the meaning of words.)
Yeah fair enough, I am not a laywer and so am not knowledgable on exact legal definitions. However you argued your point as if he was successful, which he is not, and so your point is moot until a ruling.
No need to go off on other tangents that I have not mentioned anything about, then again you have the right to free speech so feel free to rattle on about whatever you want!
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/14/media/white-house-ap-ban-...
https://variety.com/2025/film/news/julianne-moore-donald-tru...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/13/pentagon-sch... (Wasn't this the villain's plot in one episode of Buffy?)
https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/13/trump-dei-ban-banned-wor... ("Trans" is a common prefix in chemical words, irregardless of humanity, this is stupid)
> Did he win? IMO saying he 'sued' someone means he was successful and they had to pay him. Otherwise he just filed a lawsuit.
To sue is to file.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/sue#:~:text=Brit%20%2F...
For the case I linked to, the status appears to be "Oral argument in the Fifth Circuit is scheduled for February 18, 2025" i.e. tomorrow: https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/x-corp-v-media-matters
Lots of people can't fight lawsuits even if they're in the right. This is called "lawfare" or a "SLAPP".
Here's the result of a different SLAPP case that he was involved in, that was dismissed by a judge because it was identified as a SLAPP case by a judge in a jurisdiction where that's deemed anti freedom-of-speech:
"""A judge in California on Monday dismissed the tech billionaire Elon Musk’s lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-profit that has published reports chronicling the rise of racist, antisemitic and extremist content on X, formerly Twitter, since Musk’s acquisition.
The case was dismissed in accordance with the state’s anti-Slapp law, which forbids nuisance lawsuits intended to punish the exercise of free speech.""" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/25/elon-musk...
As a more general approach to freedom, we can consider that freedom can only begin where it confirms others’ freedom. If we don’t act with reciprocity in mind, we are on the track to build some kind of hegemony, not to establish a society of free people.
To be clear, you're comparing anti-semites (a racist "group") with Jews (an ethnic/religious group). One is defined by holding a targeted, hateful ideology. The other is a group of human beings, by birth/existence.
I make no claim against you, but this framing represents the insidiously successful repackaging of hate as an "equal right", which racists have used to mainstream hateful ideas that, at-scale, ultimately infringe on the rights of groups of people. This can include (has included) incitement to violence. The latter is famously a limitation of free speech, and all rights are generally circumscribed by their infringement on the rights of others, in any case.
The other insidiously misleading argument around this issue is that Twitter is enforcing "free speech" in the first place. Only the government can infringe on the right, as it restrains only the government. Twitter is no "protector" of free speech, because it cannot be. It can, however, make the choice to allow and promote hateful speech against others, and that's exactly what it's doing.
So, the argument here is not whether promoting rights is good for society. The argument is whether promoting hate is good for society.
I disagree. In this context they are 2 groups of people who disagree about something, everything else is irrelevant. It is your opinion to colour one side or the other 'hateful', 'racist' or any other word. You are applying your opionin and bias to other people arguments to paint one side better than the other.
Take this same opinion and apply it to Israel/Palestine, and suddenly it becomes not so clear cut. Both sides claim something about the other side, and both are killing each other because if it. In this instance, who would you call hateful and racist? It completely depends on who you sympathise with as there is no correct answer here. It is no different to any other groups of people who you are not part of.
This is an absurdly disingenuous way of phrasing the situation. One group is ideological and defined by its generalized hatred towards members of the other, while the other group is an ethnic/religious group. Being jewish does not imply that you subscribe to any particular opinion or identify with either end of the political spectrum. There is no possible way this can simply be seen as as a disagreement between "two sides".
Your attempt to equate this to the Israel/Palestine conflict is equally absurd. The Hamas and the government of Israel are both committing heinous acts of terrorism in the name of hatred, bigotry and racism.
I dont agree with your definitions or opinions and thats OK, we have the right to do that.
Are you affording me the same courtesy? Because it sounds like you are not.
It does not matter how politely you formulate your opinion if it legitimizes racism by reduction to a "two sides" argument. Merely existing as a religious or ethnic group is not the same as expressing an opinion, and it doesn't legitimize the expression of unqualified hatred towards the same group. We should tolerate the expression of opinions which we disagree with, but I think there is a limit, and we should not tolerate intolerance.
The problem is, and I'm sure you wont agree here, is that what constitutes racism is subjective. This is because the strength of the definition of 'prejudice' differs from person to person.
Some people say racism is when you make big decisions that negatively affect a whole race of people, other people say its when you say a rude word to a black or gay person.
See this enojoyable opinion of a black man on white peoples ideas of racism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8k5uj8AyA
There is no universal definition of racism which the whole world subscribes to. If you think there is, then you need to see that thats just your opinion and you have made yourself think everybody else agrees with you.
It seems that you think you have your definition of racism wrapped up with a bow, and that the rest of the world should agree with you on what that is. Unfortunately the world doesnt work like that, and unless you are willing to discuss these things without calling the other side 'absurd' and actually start exploring these topics properly then it will always devolve into a 'sides' argument.
> we should not tolerate intolerance
But right now you are being intolerant of me, so should I not tolerate you back? Again, the definition of tolerance is subjective. Until we can all tolerate every other persons opinion to the point we can calmly debate it, then we will not get anywhere in purging prejudice from the world.
You should look up the word, antisemite.
>Take this same opinion and apply...
I understand why you'd want to change the subject, but no.
I also understand why you ignored the rest of my comment.
I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today. While it's infected too many people, it is heartening to watch the exodus underway that's rapidly evolving it into a 4chan-esque echo chamber.
Prejudice is completely different to hate. They are often associated but are not the same.
> I see now that you're a promoter of exactly the insidious "hate as an equal right" mantra that turned Twitter into what it is today.
You seem very quick to label and categorise people into boxes about what they think about. Be careful, that is a very dangerous road to go down as history has proved time and time again.
Your abridged definition is your cartoonish admission that you're aware that you're wrong.
With just a little more cleverness you could have easily avoided that reveal and actually challenged me.
>You seem very quick to label...
Ah yes, the old, "labeling the labelers is the real problem here" routine.
I'm seeing now that you're just kind of a lazy troll—boring and unimaginative. This is where I exit. Feel free to carry on with yourself!
Theres a main difference between you and I here which is becoming quite apparent at this point.
I respect your right to think and say anything you like. I have no issue with you or your opinions, and you are free to express them against me as you wish. This is the whole basis for all my posts as can plainly be seen.
You seem to have very strong feelings against me, resorting to labelling and name calling very quickly. You dont seem to respect my opinion or right to have one. You seem to think I am 'wrong' in the general sense, yet have nothing other than your opinion of me, a random person on the internet, to back that up.
Carry on with your offense throwing, I completely respect your right to express yourself in that way and will not tell you you are wrong or you should stop:)
The Jewish people who are against genocide really do not appreciate people like you staining them with that lie.
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2024/02/14/travaglio-a-la7-...
But if you criticise israel, that's the standard answer you get.
I don't blame folks for being tired of this, but Gaza chose this route just like we in the US chose ours. Gaza made an extremely gross and unwise decision to go with the hamas losers. Its natural when a country picks poor quality folks to run their government that there may be consequences for their unwise choice. That goes for any country who picks the wrong leaders. I'm sure during world war 2 the civilians inhabiting axis territories probably experienced things you guys would call genocide.
All people need to do is to come up with something other than the complete destruction of Israel, and maybe there could be the start of a peace process.
I wouldn't agree with that, what I try to do is to gather the news the best I can, try to include the historical context and then try to reason about where the conflict exists. My intent with this process requires that by necessity I DO try to see the other side(s), because conflicts often arise from incompatible worldviews, so what are these worldviews?
Often with these long standing beefs, there is a chain of hostile actions met by more hostile actions by opposing sides or interests. I think the reason that the october 7 action is now forgotten was that it was sudden and ended pretty quickly for obvious reasons.
Is the destruction in Gaza disproportionate in nature, well it clearly looks that way, but on the other hand if I shoplift a candy bar and get arrested, the consequences are not comparable in magnitude to the price of the candy bar, heck its often hundreds of times more severe :)
>No point talking to you then :)
Its fine if you don't like to discuss things like this, I understand the frustration. Drilling down into these subjects seems suspiciously close to work and I know many of us just post here for fun. I do it to cultivate a "slander free" posting style and avoid things like assuming what sources of information others exclusively subscribe to.
If you did differently, you wouldn't have written what you wrote :)
Just look how many likes Ye’s “I AM A NAZI” tweet has…
"Liberal Zionism" used to be in vogue in Israel, which takes a more moderate view and criticizes the Israeli occupation while still arguing for an Jewish state, but I think it's gotten less and less popular these days, at least from what I tell from the outside, and a more extreme form has become the popular one again.
Another part of the issue is that especially among young people, words have lost their meanings. Everything is toxic, a genocide, sexual assault, rape, cultural appropriation, god knows what else - the room for nuances in discussion has been entirely lost because large parts of society lack the vocabulary to talk about it, 1984 says hello.
The combination of hyper-social media, ever shorter dopamine feedings / gamification and a complete lack of awareness for the importance of basic education and history are disastrous.
Difference without distinction in this case. The left actually polices its luminaries to some degree (not perfectly but still) which makes it incompatible with the grifter class Musk is chief president of. He’s never going to drift leftward because we’re not going to metaphorically suck his balls because he promotes basic human decency. Figures like him only go rightward.
As for if he bought twitter explicitly to make it a greater hotbed for racism, I think you’d have a hard time proving it in court, but at the same time, he’s unbanned a lot of prominent alt-right figure heads, and boosted tons of their tweets to the financial detriment of the platform. Can’t say he bought it to do that but the huge drops in value because of it hasn’t deterred him so…
This is clearly not true. X represents Elon’s politics. Best example: Elon has X officially blocked any usage of the term cis as part of his crusade against his trans daughter - and I don’t say that lightly, he was not anti trans until she came out.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91126082/elon-musk-x-cisgender-c...
It isn't just a left issue. Liberatarians also don't really care about LGBT people expressing themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LG...
So Musk isn't libertarian nor left on social issues. He is conservative right. Although his exact philosophy is hard to pin down because he isn't really a supporter of the traditional family.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8090810/
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-way-we-never...
https://pixiedane.wescreates.wesleyan.edu/research/tradition...
https://www.humanities.org/spark/the-myth-of-the-traditional...
No, because people acting with hate as motivator don’t care if they are within a social minority. They will cease any opportunity to use every aggression tool they have at their disposal to express loudly their will to oppress whoever looks like unaligned with their mindset.
This is in sharp contrast with minorities whose only wish is to live in a way that is aligned with with their own aspirations that perfectly fit in a specter of harmonious social differences even if it doesn’t fall right in the middle of the median mainstream stereotype.
Everybody is part of some minorities. But not everyone think that because they are a member of this or that minority they should be given some hegemony over everything and the rest in the political matter of their society.
Moreover, it’s not that simple. Racists can express themselves. I was talking about racist discourse, not racists themselves. Racism is a hate speech, which has nothing to do with, for example, the right to enjoy one's body and have an abortion as a woman or the ability to express one's gender identity—something that, according to all scientific studies and meta-analyses on the subject, clearly improves the well-being of trans people.
I know very well that racists are experts at playing the victim and making it seem like they are the ones facing repression, but who runs the country? Who are the journalists on television? Are they women or men? White? Rich?
It’s outrageous to claim that the richest man in the world—Elon Musk, a racist, antisemitic, misogynistic white supremacist—is supposedly "censored" and unable to express himself freely! Remind me of a time in American history when a woman had as much power as Elon Musk over the country, or even over other countries (as we see with ALD in Germany)?
Which thankfully when it's a platform it doesn't take long to find out which it is.
Unfortunately, in American culture any kind of regulation is seen as negative inherently, whereas in continental European cultures, regulation is seen as a vital and fundamental part of ensuring a place where everyone can thrive.
But if we abolish the state the way libertarians currently define it—meaning abolishing the state but not private property (which paradoxically forces the state to persist in order to determine who owns what, such as businesses, housing, etc.)—then it's an entirely different project. We would be abolishing the so-called oppression of the state only to replace it with an even worse and unchecked oppression by corporations and the billionaires who own them, with no means of voting (since "voting with your wallet" is a myth).
And yet, when you listen to them, it sounds as if they are liberating us from something, when in reality, they are freeing themselves from all control so they can better enslave us.
They were literally being silenced for expressing their criticism of the ideology of gender identity and how it is being used to disadvantage and oppress women and girls.
On X, however, they are free to state this without fear of censorship, due to the broadening of permissible speech on the platform. So while it might not be the "free speech absolutism" that Musk disingenuously claims, it's an improvement to the pre-Musk era of censorship.
X, through Musk, is now a quasi-governmental platform - as can demonstrated by actions like this.
You should perhaps do more research before making claims like "flat out falsehood".
Would that change your view?
“before musk you as a feminist could not state (common anti trans positions held by feminists of a certain flavor)”
I provided the single biggest counterexample ever in JK rowling, so the original post is either a falsehood (I believe so) or very wrong, hope that’s more clear to you, since you seem to have issues following here.
You could search it yet you don’t provide those examples here which is why I’m not taking anything you’re saying in good faith because it isn’t. if you’re curious why I think that, read again the first part of this comment.
JKR is an interesting counterexample for a number of reasons. One is that she was very careful and tempered in her language, as one may expect from an expert writer and of someone with her keen perception of language. If you search her tweets on this topic prior to Musk's ownership (e.g. "from:jk_rowling until:2022-04-14 trans" in the X search box) you'll see what I mean. Another is that she spoke out on this topic fairly late on, and so would have witnessed the censorship and been aware of how best to express her views around these limitations. There is also the fact that hers is and was one of Twitter's most-followed accounts and in practice that would give her more leeway in terms of freedom of expression.
I could search X to confirm to you what I personally witnessed with regard to feminists who aren't JKR being censored and banned, but that would take some effort and I'm not yet convinced that it would be worth it, given that you're engaging with an attitude of aggressive cross-examination rather than curiosity and open-mindedness. This is also why I enquired as to if it might change your view.
Is it shitty that they censor? Absolutely. But is it a constitutional violation? Not unless I've horribly misunderstood my rights for more than 35 years.
Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state.
The first amendment doesn't apply to our interactions with each other outside of the political sphere, but that doesn't mean that we don't also have expectations of conduct and cultural norms that uphold freedom of speech via other means in non-government contexts.
Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)
Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits
Pick a lane.
The attacks on Musk are almost always that he doesn’t support freedom of speech, without any qualification.
If you’re trying to attack the much narrower position that he’s not a free speech absolutist you need to do it at the time your make the criticism, not retrospectively after you make the allegation.
No, it's "Elon claims to be a free speech absolutist yet somehow keeps denying freedom of speech to people who disagree with him". The hypocrisy is the problem.
His actions are inconsistent, and this one of many demonstrations that he doesn't care at all about liberty. That matters because he's now apparently in charge of every federal government agency.
It's the pot calling the kettle black.
Actually this argument makes no sense. I know that it's commonly repeated in propaganda, but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid on its face. You can't just throw people into a collective arbitrarily and then hold them responsible for everyone else you'd call that's actions
The statements "Elon Musk Musk doesn't care about free speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)." and "Free speech has limits." Are non-contradictory.
Additionally, not allowing links to Signal isn't an "edge case," but a considerable offense against free speech (the general concept, not the literal law in the constitution), especially for one who calls himself a "free speech absolutist."
Cultural norms dictate some modicum of restraint on everyone. You have no obligation to tolerate me if I call your wife a whore. Any given community has its social norms that dictate what you can and can't say. To force them to accept "unacceptable" speech would violate freedom of speech itself.
In private you have severe restrictions on speech and expressions. Workplaces, stores, and schools have codes of conduct, dress codes, etc. to restrict expression.
What you call "extremely taboo subjects" is relative, based on your own biases and beliefs. "Woman should be more active in public life" is not an "extreme" view, even in more conservative sections of society. But in Ultra-orthodox jewish communities, or isolationist muslim communities, or even many christian sects, this would be controversial statement.
If a member faces social consequences for these statements, it is not a violation of their right to free speech. Nobody is obligated to tolerate you, no matter how in the right you may be. You can't force society to be on your side.
You might say, "But these social norms are repressive and harmful." Well then change them through activism. Stop whining about "free speech violations". That is, again, ass backwards.
You can't control what other opinions people will have of you, or suppress their expression of those opinions, that's true. But that itself is part and parcel of freedom of speech. The social consequences of expressing opinions that other people find offensive or disgusting are yours to bear, and may indeed motivate others to want to have little to do with you.
But this is juxtaposed against an expectation of freedom of speech as a cultural norm -- the point above is precisely that the way this is expressed in other contexts is different from the way it's expressed with respect to the political state. So we do have an expectation that formal institutions will not engage in prior restraint, or punish people for speech itself within most (but not necessarily all) categories, etc.
For example, people might find it reasonable that someone be dismissed from a job for making overtly racist comments in the office. But the same people would consider it inappropriate if, for example, an employee was fired for expressing that he does not like the boss's favorite movie.
There are absolutely different boundaries and different weighing of consequences between how we apply the norm of freedom of speech to political vs. social situations, but to say that we do not adhere to freedom of speech as a cultural norm at all is quite incorrect.
You get banned for sharing identities of DOGE people, but Musk can share the name and tax documents of a federal judge.
Hypocrite.
This particular clause seens very unlikely. One could want an increase in racism and homophobia on a platform without specifically wanting there to be less black people (for example) speaking out. That the -isms cause said people to speak up less would likely be a (pleasant?) side effect rather than the primary goal.
1. Inherited rich kids like Elon often have a strong feeling that they are better then the rest of humanity.
2. But it turns out if you are a leech on society like that sooner or later people stop accepting that (remember: he pays less in taxes and gains more in government subsides than most people)
3. So in order for people not to turn against you sooner or later you need to keep them split into subsections that are in conflict with each other. The more split they are, the more wealth you can extract.
That is the age old strategy of divide and conquer and if you ever wondered why your political system seemed to be split down the middle 50:50, that is your answer: people with money profit from it being so.
Trying to silence LGBTQ+ etc people goes directly against the goal you posit.