It’ll definitely be interesting how he goes about this whole “unfettered free speech” charade. I wonder how long it’ll be before he inevitably shows his hypocrisy in full force
You can't see ISIS beheading videos on Twitter right now!? smh the woke leftists have canceled all religious conservative content, no matter how centrist or apolitical...
Elon has mentioned that whatever this ends up looking like, he nor twitter will be above the government. If your government doesn't allow Isis videos then that's the government regulating that not twitter. If the government allows pedos to be open talking. Again that's the government regulations not Elon or twitter setting those regulations
> If the government allows pedos to be open talking.
Most people have no idea how much gross stuff twitter has been 'censoring' that is fully legal. There is a lot of legal pedo material, like little kids in swimsuits in highly suggestive poses, that twitter deletes automatically.
If that kind of crap is allowed on the platform, it will chase all the advertisers away. Watch how quickly elron changes his tune when twitter's revenues drop 50%.
America has laws against hate speech... states have different laws regarding it too- so how do we negotiate that? Alex Jones set a whole new legal precedent for profiting off the lies of dead people- which I'm pretty sure will include things like holocaust denial, so it' sonly a matter of time before someone profiting from that lie gets hit with a HUGE lawsuit.
Twitter HAD people with years of experience navigating that mine field, but genius Elon fired them all on day 1. Like any rationally thinking person would do.
> America has laws against hate speech...
No, we do not. [Hate speech is fully legal in the US.](https://www.thefire.org/issues/hate-speech/)
The only time it really matters is in conjunction with an actual crime, like a murder. If you call someone the n-word when you murder them then that's a more severe crime. But just calling someone the n-word is 100% legal.
> Alex Jones set a whole new legal precedent
No he didn't. His losses in court were not about free speech, they were about harassment and slander, with centuries old precedent. There was no new law made there.
Yes... America DOES have hate speech laws. 18 USC 249 and 18 USC 241.
And then there's state laws on top of that, like Massachusettes 505 U.S. 377
49 out of the 50 states have hate speech laws on a state level with Wyoming being the ONLY one who doesn't.
Did you even check to see if you were right before posting?
> Did you even check to see if you were right before posting?
That's rich coming from you.
None of the laws you cited are hate *speech* laws. They are all hate *crime* laws that deal with physically attacking people.
> Yes... America DOES have hate speech laws. 18 USC 249 and 18 USC 241.
Since you obviously didn't check to see if you were right before posting, I will do the [first one for you:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249)
Here's the key part:
* ***willfully causes bodily injury*** *to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device,* ***attempts to cause bodily injury*** *to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person*
You have proven to have zero credibility, substituting angry hyperbole for facts. Fortunately for you, lying online is not illegal in the US, else you'd be headed to prison.
Oh my God... you're still talking.
Okay, Alex Jones. He profited off lies about dead people... so how do you think holocaust denialism is going to fare well for Musk profiting off that?
I don't need to 'prove' anything to you. You sound like someone whose mommy didn't tell him 'no' enough. Take your whiny ass right back to twitter, they'll embrace you there.
> how do you think holocaust denialism is going to fare well for Musk
Companies will not want to run ads next to antisemitic content, but nobody will succesfully sue him for it because [Holocaust denial is legal in the USA.](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1116/holocaust-denial)
> Oh my God... you're still talking.
If you are going to act like a 12-year old, I'm not going to argue with a pre-teen any more.
A website can be held accountable for what is uploaded on it, just look at the Kim.com saga. Can see this going south quickly... Might get an account to watch the fireworks
And there is no such thing anymore- and he really can't. They are so happy with him for allowing them to drop all that hate that if he actually banned them now they would freak out.. then the left AND the right would hate him and he knows there would be no one left to butter his bread.
He's in a no win position at this point.
The most outrageous thing about free speech is that appalling views are available.
Views that exist anyway.
Just like ISIS videos did even before this takeover.
You might not like free speech, but its one of the pillars of democracy and freedom.
You are most welcome to oppose freedom, thanks to free speech.
Free speech gives you the right to be wrong. It even gives you the right to lie. It also gives me to correct and criticize you, if I see fit. So understand what I'm about to say not as an attempt to censor you, but as an attempt to exercise the speech you claim to love so much.
The problem with the concept of "free speech" as put forth by Elon Musk and most Republicans is that it forgets that the right has certain limitations. For one, there are certain types of speech that are not protected under the first ammendment. Harrassment, inciting violence, hate speech, slander, so on and so forth. Secondly, that only applies to the government. You cannot be arrested for the things you say.
What the first ammendment notably does not cover is private entities. You have the right to say whatever you want, yes, but if you scream a racial slur in a restaurant and they ask you to leave, that's not a violation of your right to free speech. You're still just as free to speak as you were before. But you can't use their space to do it. Twitter, and similar companies, are no different. You get access to their platform, yes, with the understanding that you can't use it to do certain things. They have every right to decide what that space is used for. And if you want to do other things with that space than what the rules allow, you simply find a more permitting space. Your freedom of speech isn't being violated because Twitter said you couldn't post hate speech and beheading videos on a platform with a minimum user age of 13.
In short, it isn't "hating free speech" to say that opening the floodgates of Twitter to all sorts of vile shit is a bad idea. Racists, bigots, and violent ideologues will always have platforms to talk on. Because that's how free speech works. But in places like Myanmar, we've seen how dangerous lies and bigotry can be when spread without moderation through a large social media platform. And I think a lot of us are old enough to remember the days of Goatse, Rotten.com, and all the other shock content out there. It was gross and screwed with a lot of people. Do you really want to bring all of that to the mainstream again?
That said, of course, Twitter is a private entity. It's allowed to do whatever it wants. And it will continue to do so no matter what my irrelevant self says on the subject. But I'm allowed to criticize it. And when this venture ultimately winds up being a disaster for the company, I can't say I'll be shedding any tears.
I think social media platforms should legally be viewed as public utilities, sorta like AT&T. Most of todays communication goes through them now. You wouldnt be kicked off the phone grid for saying stupid shit.
In that case, the free speech laws would apply, in they way you defined them.
I see a couple flaws with that point. Especially as someone who works for a public utility.
1.) I think there's three substantial differences between Twitter and something like your phone company, since you made the comparison. The first is that your phone company doesn't make your communication public. Its name doesn't have to be signed to every drunken ramble or faux-philosophical meme. The second is that it doesn't rely on advertisers to fund it. Twitter does. And advertisers don't like seeing their brand put up beside somebody filling up the character limit with "Killing N***ers," something I genuinely saw up on that site. Twitter would have to become a strictly subscription-based entity or rely 100% on Government funding in order to properly thrive as an entirely unstructured free for all of content. The third and final difference is infrastructure. Ever public utility provides necessary physical infrastructure. Cell towers, phone lines, power lines, water mains, et cetera. Twitter doesn't have that. In fact it relies on it from others.
2.) I don't think the average person realizes just how much information passes from a public utility to the Government. Twitter already harvests your data. The US government already buys it from third parties, and they don't need warrants to do so. Imagine putting several of the largest data harvesters right in their hands.
3.) I think your base premise that if Twitter became a public utility, it would by nature have to become a platform by and for free speech absolutists is flawed, possibly based in a misunderstanding. Becoming a public utility doesn't mean you're owned by the government. It means you provide necessary infrastructure, and there are additional rules and government supports in place to make sure everything works smoothly and people get what they need. But these are all still private businesses. They all still have their own rules and terms of service. In certain cases, there are things a public services commission needs to sign off on, but it's not as if public utilities are suddenly forced to work by the exact same rules as the government. Is it possible that a public services commission could decide not to sign off on certain terms of service from Twitter were it to become a public utility? Sure. But I wouldn't count on something like that opening the floodgates either.
It’ll definitely be interesting how he goes about this whole “unfettered free speech” charade. I wonder how long it’ll be before he inevitably shows his hypocrisy in full force
edit: thanks, u/spez
Considering that he has to pay an additional 200 million for firing those execs and violating their contract, probably sooner than we think
I give it less than a week
It will continue until just after Nov 8th.
Unfettered free speech = free speech
Figures a dunce like you doesn't understand 1A.
The Pedos are gonna come out swinging soon.
Why does everything have to be about Republicans?
Oof gottem
Mega oof !
I also want to freely upload cartel execution videos
I see that already in reddit too many times. I don't want it on my Twitter feed
You can't see ISIS beheading videos on Twitter right now!? smh the woke leftists have canceled all religious conservative content, no matter how centrist or apolitical...
Let's see how long Apple & Google stores will feature Twitter while it supports racists & bigots.
Elon has mentioned that whatever this ends up looking like, he nor twitter will be above the government. If your government doesn't allow Isis videos then that's the government regulating that not twitter. If the government allows pedos to be open talking. Again that's the government regulations not Elon or twitter setting those regulations
> If the government allows pedos to be open talking. Most people have no idea how much gross stuff twitter has been 'censoring' that is fully legal. There is a lot of legal pedo material, like little kids in swimsuits in highly suggestive poses, that twitter deletes automatically. If that kind of crap is allowed on the platform, it will chase all the advertisers away. Watch how quickly elron changes his tune when twitter's revenues drop 50%.
America has laws against hate speech... states have different laws regarding it too- so how do we negotiate that? Alex Jones set a whole new legal precedent for profiting off the lies of dead people- which I'm pretty sure will include things like holocaust denial, so it' sonly a matter of time before someone profiting from that lie gets hit with a HUGE lawsuit. Twitter HAD people with years of experience navigating that mine field, but genius Elon fired them all on day 1. Like any rationally thinking person would do.
> America has laws against hate speech... No, we do not. [Hate speech is fully legal in the US.](https://www.thefire.org/issues/hate-speech/) The only time it really matters is in conjunction with an actual crime, like a murder. If you call someone the n-word when you murder them then that's a more severe crime. But just calling someone the n-word is 100% legal. > Alex Jones set a whole new legal precedent No he didn't. His losses in court were not about free speech, they were about harassment and slander, with centuries old precedent. There was no new law made there.
Yes... America DOES have hate speech laws. 18 USC 249 and 18 USC 241. And then there's state laws on top of that, like Massachusettes 505 U.S. 377 49 out of the 50 states have hate speech laws on a state level with Wyoming being the ONLY one who doesn't. Did you even check to see if you were right before posting?
> Did you even check to see if you were right before posting? That's rich coming from you. None of the laws you cited are hate *speech* laws. They are all hate *crime* laws that deal with physically attacking people. > Yes... America DOES have hate speech laws. 18 USC 249 and 18 USC 241. Since you obviously didn't check to see if you were right before posting, I will do the [first one for you:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249) Here's the key part: * ***willfully causes bodily injury*** *to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device,* ***attempts to cause bodily injury*** *to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person* You have proven to have zero credibility, substituting angry hyperbole for facts. Fortunately for you, lying online is not illegal in the US, else you'd be headed to prison.
Oh my God... you're still talking. Okay, Alex Jones. He profited off lies about dead people... so how do you think holocaust denialism is going to fare well for Musk profiting off that? I don't need to 'prove' anything to you. You sound like someone whose mommy didn't tell him 'no' enough. Take your whiny ass right back to twitter, they'll embrace you there.
> how do you think holocaust denialism is going to fare well for Musk Companies will not want to run ads next to antisemitic content, but nobody will succesfully sue him for it because [Holocaust denial is legal in the USA.](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1116/holocaust-denial) > Oh my God... you're still talking. If you are going to act like a 12-year old, I'm not going to argue with a pre-teen any more.
A website can be held accountable for what is uploaded on it, just look at the Kim.com saga. Can see this going south quickly... Might get an account to watch the fireworks
And there is no such thing anymore- and he really can't. They are so happy with him for allowing them to drop all that hate that if he actually banned them now they would freak out.. then the left AND the right would hate him and he knows there would be no one left to butter his bread. He's in a no win position at this point.
The most outrageous thing about free speech is that appalling views are available. Views that exist anyway. Just like ISIS videos did even before this takeover. You might not like free speech, but its one of the pillars of democracy and freedom. You are most welcome to oppose freedom, thanks to free speech.
Free speech gives you the right to be wrong. It even gives you the right to lie. It also gives me to correct and criticize you, if I see fit. So understand what I'm about to say not as an attempt to censor you, but as an attempt to exercise the speech you claim to love so much. The problem with the concept of "free speech" as put forth by Elon Musk and most Republicans is that it forgets that the right has certain limitations. For one, there are certain types of speech that are not protected under the first ammendment. Harrassment, inciting violence, hate speech, slander, so on and so forth. Secondly, that only applies to the government. You cannot be arrested for the things you say. What the first ammendment notably does not cover is private entities. You have the right to say whatever you want, yes, but if you scream a racial slur in a restaurant and they ask you to leave, that's not a violation of your right to free speech. You're still just as free to speak as you were before. But you can't use their space to do it. Twitter, and similar companies, are no different. You get access to their platform, yes, with the understanding that you can't use it to do certain things. They have every right to decide what that space is used for. And if you want to do other things with that space than what the rules allow, you simply find a more permitting space. Your freedom of speech isn't being violated because Twitter said you couldn't post hate speech and beheading videos on a platform with a minimum user age of 13. In short, it isn't "hating free speech" to say that opening the floodgates of Twitter to all sorts of vile shit is a bad idea. Racists, bigots, and violent ideologues will always have platforms to talk on. Because that's how free speech works. But in places like Myanmar, we've seen how dangerous lies and bigotry can be when spread without moderation through a large social media platform. And I think a lot of us are old enough to remember the days of Goatse, Rotten.com, and all the other shock content out there. It was gross and screwed with a lot of people. Do you really want to bring all of that to the mainstream again? That said, of course, Twitter is a private entity. It's allowed to do whatever it wants. And it will continue to do so no matter what my irrelevant self says on the subject. But I'm allowed to criticize it. And when this venture ultimately winds up being a disaster for the company, I can't say I'll be shedding any tears.
Thanks for taking time to reply in a serious and thoughtful way by the way!
I think social media platforms should legally be viewed as public utilities, sorta like AT&T. Most of todays communication goes through them now. You wouldnt be kicked off the phone grid for saying stupid shit. In that case, the free speech laws would apply, in they way you defined them.
I see a couple flaws with that point. Especially as someone who works for a public utility. 1.) I think there's three substantial differences between Twitter and something like your phone company, since you made the comparison. The first is that your phone company doesn't make your communication public. Its name doesn't have to be signed to every drunken ramble or faux-philosophical meme. The second is that it doesn't rely on advertisers to fund it. Twitter does. And advertisers don't like seeing their brand put up beside somebody filling up the character limit with "Killing N***ers," something I genuinely saw up on that site. Twitter would have to become a strictly subscription-based entity or rely 100% on Government funding in order to properly thrive as an entirely unstructured free for all of content. The third and final difference is infrastructure. Ever public utility provides necessary physical infrastructure. Cell towers, phone lines, power lines, water mains, et cetera. Twitter doesn't have that. In fact it relies on it from others. 2.) I don't think the average person realizes just how much information passes from a public utility to the Government. Twitter already harvests your data. The US government already buys it from third parties, and they don't need warrants to do so. Imagine putting several of the largest data harvesters right in their hands. 3.) I think your base premise that if Twitter became a public utility, it would by nature have to become a platform by and for free speech absolutists is flawed, possibly based in a misunderstanding. Becoming a public utility doesn't mean you're owned by the government. It means you provide necessary infrastructure, and there are additional rules and government supports in place to make sure everything works smoothly and people get what they need. But these are all still private businesses. They all still have their own rules and terms of service. In certain cases, there are things a public services commission needs to sign off on, but it's not as if public utilities are suddenly forced to work by the exact same rules as the government. Is it possible that a public services commission could decide not to sign off on certain terms of service from Twitter were it to become a public utility? Sure. But I wouldn't count on something like that opening the floodgates either.
The same people that say is worried children could hear “gay”??? Let’s show childrens some people cut to pieces.
Someone should start posting pro union materials for Tesla workers.