413 private links
The critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is that, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion.
However, that right is not unlimited. He is under some special limitations that would not apply to normal people because his company, specifically Starlink and SpaceX are government contractors and, as such, he has obligations to the government that would, for any normal person, and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.
You have somebody who runs really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who's actively undermining the government that's paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted. //
McNamee’s rationale for criminalizing speech is chillingly shallow and irrational. He declared that somehow Musk’s political views made him a danger as the head of companies of major importance to the United States. It does not bother him when CEOs adopt far left views, just Musk opposing some of those views.
McNamee is using the government contracts with SpaceX as a reason to censor his political and social views. So, according to McNamee, if your company makes something that the government wants (including rescuing the currently stranded astronauts in space), he must give up his right to express political views, including against censorship.
McNamee embraces the power of the government to dictate viewpoints or at least silencing certain views as a matter of national security. It is no accident that the overriding objective is to “get Musk.” Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement. //
For global elite like McNamee, free speech is not just dispensable but distracting. Only fools would listen to these voices in trading away our indispensable right.
JY
18 hours ago
The purpose of the first amendment is to undermine the government. //
anon-mfdk
19 hours ago
So under his logic, every person in Congress would need to limit their speech because they are paid by the federal government.
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
Follow
Harris often speaks of free speech as it if it is privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver...
jonathanturley.org
“That Has to Stop”: Harris Denounces Unfettered Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview
6:04 AM · Sep 4, 2024 //
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly “Orwellian.”
In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free speech inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not yield to demands for speech regulation.
What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech “has to stop” and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to “directly speak to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.” //
The “joy” being sold by Harris includes the promise of the removal of viewpoints that many on the left feel are intolerable or triggering on social media. Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education. //
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
Follow
This is what she actually believes.
Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and the Democratic Party (Kamala is just a puppet) wants to destroy it.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr
@RobertKennedyJr
Kamala Harris: "He [Musk] has lost his privileges."
Can someone please explain to her that freedom of speech is a RIGHT, not a "privilege"?
Kamala Harris: "There has to be a responsibility placed on these social media sites to understand their power."
Translation: "If they…
12:37 AM · Sep 3, 2024
David Asman @DavidAsmanfox
·
Fascism, unfiltered:
"Musk’s free-speech rights under the first amendment don’t take precedence over the public interest."
—Robert Reich
Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley
Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary, is calling for the arrest of Elon Musk for his refusal to censor speech. https://foxnews.com/media/ex-labor-secretary-robert-reich-claims-elon-musk-out-control-says-regulators-should-threaten-arrest Reich has long been a staunch ally of the anti-free speech movement...
7:47 PM · Sep 1, 2024 //
Gad Saad @GadSaad
·
Let me translate for you what @RBReich has said: "I loved it when I was part of a party that controlled EVERYTHING. This annoying wealthy guy @elonmusk who does not support my political vision is exercising his freedoms. This cannot be tolerated, as such Musk must be destroyed for community cohesion.
i/o @eyeslasho
Robert Reich thinks Elon Musk has become too rich and powerful. He recommends these options be put on the table: Arresting Musk, FTC oversight of X, ending government contracts with SpaceX, boycotting Tesla, and an advertiser boycott of X.
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-wealth-power?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
10:15 AM · Sep 1, 2024
As referenced above, there are some constitutional problems with the CAADCA, which is being challenged in court by industry group NetChoice. In her order granting the injunction, US District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman said the law is “not only unlikely to materially alleviate the harm of insufficient data and privacy protections for children, but actually likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing covered businesses to require consumers, including children, to divulge additional personal information.” //
In a press release announcing the decision, NetChoice noted that the law would impact all ages, not just children:
The court noted that the AADC’s Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement likely violates the First Amendment by compelling speech and commandeering private companies to act as roving censors. This would have forced online services to restrict access to protected speech and information for all ages.
John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com
In the very recent past, the world has crossed a threshold, beyond which anonymous free speech can only be limited by completely removing the basic infrastructure of commerce.
The union of cryptography, ubiquitous portable computers and low-cost-standards-based wireless networking does not guarantee free speech, but it does guarantee that such restrictions imply an inability to conduct modern business and a dramatically lowered standard of living.
In this environment freedom of speech is atomic - it cannot be partially limited. It can be both global and instantaneous. Most importantly, it is not dependent on centralized public networks like the Internet.
It will be shown that tools available to anyone in a society that takes part in modern commerce are all that is required for anonymous free speech. It will further be shown that such tools must be available for such a society to continue participating in modern commerce, and that their availability is an all or nothing proposition. Finally, it will be shown that a high value should be placed on open standards and interoperability as well as peer-centric attitudes towards communication and networks.
Taken as a whole, the FSOSA concept should be used to encourage free speech and to discourage policymakers from pursuing policies that are destined either to fail, or to relegate them to the "stone age".
For those of us who have criticized Facebook for years for its role in the massive censorship system, Zuckerberg’s belated contrition was more insulting than inspiring. It had all of the genuine regret of a stalker found hiding under the bed of a victim.
Zuckerberg’s sudden regret only came after his company fought for years to conceal the evidence of its work with the government to censor opposing views. Zuckerberg was finally compelled to release the documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the House Judiciary Committee.
Now forced to admit what many of us have long alleged, Zuckerberg is really, really sorry.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss Facebook’s record at length as a critical player in the anti-free speech alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces.
In prior testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and other congressional committees, I noted that Zuckerberg continued to refuse to release this information after Elon Musk exposed this system in his release of the “Twitter Files.”
Zuckerberg stayed silent as Musk was viciously attacked by anti-free speech figures in Congress and the media. He was fully aware of his own company’s similar conduct but stayed silent.
When the White House and President Joe Biden repeatedly claimed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, Facebook continued to withhold evidence that they too were pressured to suppress the story before the election.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver stated:
[Idaho] Gov. Brad Little must ensure that the Idaho Army National Guard upholds federal and state law and protects the free speech of enlisted personnel. This discrimination against an officer based on a frivolous complaint must be addressed and his record cleared and career restored.
To provide further detail, Liberty Counsel’s Associate Vice President of Legal Affairs Daniel Schmid joined Wednesday’s episode of “Washington Watch.” According to Schmid, “[I]mmediately upon receiving the complaint, some of the superiors in [the officer’s] chain of command brought him in and said, ‘You will resign, or we’ll make this ugly.’ Those were the words to him. They forced him to resign without counsel, without the presence of counsel, and without advice of counsel.”
Schmid went on to explain how “the complaint was not based on anything he did as a commanding officer.” It was about “a speech that he made outside of the military context, in the context of a political campaign. … He was making statements on various issues in the culture today, from a religious perspective, [and] the First Amendment affords him that right.” And yet, his statements are now “the subject of an investigation that’s ongoing even to this day.”
According to Schmid, this case is about making “sure that the individuals who sign up to defend our liberties, our constitutional rights, are [also] entitled to those same rights”—specifically, he clarified, the First Amendment. “You don’t surrender your constitutional rights or your statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and others just because you sign up for military service.”
In the case of this officer, Schmid contended that he “was entitled to political speech.”
Professor Jacobson, in our previous post, analyzed the case thusly:
One important part of the complaint is that it puts in issue Media Matters’ longstanding tactic and business model of targeting advertisers…
This could give X discovery not just of what Media Matters did here, but its other efforts to attack advertisers at other platforms because Media Matters disagreed with their politics.
Keep in mind this case is in Texas. Think about how a Texas jury will feel if X is able to prove its allegations.
Did Media Matters engage in this subterfuge and fraud? Obviously that verdict will work itself out in court, but it would not surprise me in the least, having covered Media Matters for over a decade. Founded originally by the toxic David Brock, with an infusion of cash from George Soros, Media Matters has poisoned our politics as much as anyone else. They are bullies who found a weak spot in the conservative media armor, that advertisers were afraid of controversy, so all Media Matters needed to do is put advertisers in the hot seat and they would flee. //
O’Connor rejected Media Matter’s arguments for dismissal, including that it can’t be liable for business disparagement by reporting truthful statements. O’Connor said X had sufficiently alleged that Media Matters had acted with “actual malice” based on statements criticizing the platform…
The Media Matters report at the center of X’s lawsuit was published online in November. The organization said it found advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity placed alongside posts touting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.
X sued Media Matters in November in federal court in Fort Worth…The lawsuit alleged the Media Matters report was published “with the intention of harming X and its business.”
Matt Taibbi @mtaibbi
·
The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov is a paradigm-shifting event. Western governments have declared war on free expression.
The US needs a government that will stand up to Europe and oppose the Digital Services Act.
Randy Larson
3 hours ago
Wow; guess we need to round up the members of DARPA who set up the framework that ultimately became the internet, because it led to the excesses of the Deep/Dark Web and all the nefarious goings-on through it.
Alternatively, we could just arrest Al Gore, I suppose…
Sturgeon Bob Randy Larson
3 hours ago
Can we get reparations from DARPA and AL Gore? Is there a website to use? I could really use the money! //
Just an old soldier...
3 hours ago
The formerly freedom loving western world is on the edge of becoming hardcore totalitarian. There are only a few countries committed to liberty and freedom, and the US is not one of them.
Elections matter and America as it was founded is hanging in the balance. I hope the American public is not as gullible, pliable and dumb as they seem, and can see through the non-stop leftist propaganda the MSM is spewing on behalf of Comrade Kamala and ChiCom Tim A-Walz.
If America goes down, it's a new dark ages. //
Musicman
3 hours ago
Next they will indict the CEO of a telephone company because the Mafia used their phones to communicate! It's the job of law enforcement to track criminals and when are using any public media to communicate, it is their obligation to get a warrant to monitor that communication. It's not the job of the communication company!
If exposing money behind Arabella-aligned organizations is the price for outing conservative donors, that’s a trade Democrat operatives would gladly make. //
All of this raises a question: If “dark money” is so beneficial to Democrats, why do the party’s leaders consistently push for new and expansive donor disclosure laws?
The answer may be simple: Even when the left outspends the right, the value of silencing conservatives far exceeds the value of spending by left-leaning nonprofits. //
By establishing nonprofit donor databases, the DISCLOSE Act would open the door for Democrats to potentially create target lists of conservative donors and businesses to harass and bully into silence. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer infamously put it years ago, the “deterrent effect” of disclosure “should not be underestimated.” //
Even if some left-leaning donors are exposed, leftist ideas would still receive enormous platforms in the media, entertainment industry, academia, and government bodies. Conservatives, despite being outspent by the left in recent election cycles, are uniquely dependent on their donors and nonprofits to support their intellectuals and promote their ideas; disclosure mandates would be akin to declaring open season on these conservative institutions.
The lawsuit, which video streaming company Rumble also joined, comes on the heels of a House Judiciary Committee report alleging GARM likely violated federal antitrust laws by colluding with giant ad buyer GroupM to coordinate the demonization of news websites, platforms, and podcasts it deemed guilty of wrongthink. //
Correspondence obtained by the committee shows GARM Co-Founder Rob Rakowitz bragged about and even “took credit for Twitter’s revenue decline,” according to the committee report. //
According to Yaccarino, X’s legal action is “about more than damages.”
“[W]e have to fix a broken ecosystem that allows this illegal activity to occur,” she continued.
It’s unthinkable that an emergency legal challenge had to be mounted to gather in peace in the political heart of Europe.
If you’re of a certain age, you’ll remember the famous TV commercials where entrepreneur Victor Kiam would come on the screen and say, “I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company [Remington].” Elon Musk took a similar approach; he values free speech so highly that he shelled out $44 billion in 2022 to buy social media platform Twitter (now X), in part to fight rampant big-tech censorship. //
Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
Given the relentless attacks on free speech, I am going to fund a national signature campaign in support of the First Amendment
12:49 PM · Apr 18, 2024
"I am resigning from NPR, a great American institution where I have worked for 25 years. I don't support calls to defund NPR. I respect the integrity of my colleagues and wish for NPR to thrive and do important journalism. But I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay." //
Laocoön of Troy
7 hours ago edited
Uri Berliner joins Bari Weiss, Alan Dershowitz, Megyn Kelly, and an army of liberals who've also been eagerly jettisoned by the fascist left. He will be blacklisted like the rest.
At some point somebody (like mebbee Mike Rowe or a few others) should organize these broken toys against the leftist monster who are eager to destroy us all.
The justices seemed convinced that Texas was infringing on tech companies’ First Amendment ‘right’ to exercise editorial judgment. //
That reflects another missed opportunity for Texas: Clement’s repeated argument that the Texas law would interfere with tech companies’ editorial function and therefore, by definition, chill speech. Tech companies often cite these editorial functions. But as I have written elsewhere in these pages, before 2014, tech companies did not engage in any such editorial decisions. They screened for obscene content but nothing else. And, until 2018, they did little substantive content moderation after the fact, focusing instead on removing violent content like videos of beheadings (which I think we all agree can and should be banned).
In fact, it is the tech companies, not states like Texas, that are chilling speech. We see that plainly in cases like the one I am litigating for presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Google has removed video of Kennedy’s political speeches from YouTube — including his pre-announcement speech at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire — because they contain “misinformation.” But what is “misinformation”? According to Google, it is speech that either Google or the federal government does not like. In other words, it is dissent. But, of course, America has a proud history of promoting dissent. Silencing dissent is inconsistent with American values. //
Clement may have focused on terrorists and sexual predators in his discussion of the “bad stuff” that tech companies want to block from their platforms. But that is not what drove Texas and Florida to pass their laws. Those laws were driven by the censoring of people like Kennedy, government dissidents whom the corporate media regularly ignore and who must use social media platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to reach people.
This nonsense of demanding denunciations and letting whiny little brats who have nothing better to do with their time than try to silence people whom they dislike get away with their bullying has to stop. The best way to stop them is to tell them to STFU and go away. These people aren't operating in anything approaching good faith. The sole purpose is to control language and control the social narrative.
White showed that you don't have to endorse speech to protect it, as did Strickland's colleagues. The people truly offended by Strickland can resort to the marketplace and refuse to watch UFC or consider the sage advice of David Chappelle. ///
Reporters paying "let's you and him fight"...
Massie pointed out that the tweet referenced a study from Israel showing that immunity to the COVID-19 virus “due to prior infection is the same as for the Pfizer vaccine.”
Troye doubled down, claiming that Massie’s tweet “was flagged for a reason,” to which the lawmaker retorted:
What's the reason? Is there ever a good reason to censor a member of Congress? This is my official account. This is not a personal account. This is not a campaign account. This is my communication with my constituents. By the way, I bring this up not to claim that members of Congress have more right to free speech than the general public. In fact, I don't even think the press or the media has more rights to the First Amendment than the general public. The general public has the same rights that we have. I bring this up to show, number one, that your testimony is false. But number two, if they can do this to a member of Congress's official account, they can do it to anybody.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. Stanford Internet Observatory, along with a slew of other organizations, is being funded with taxpayer dollars to help social media companies censor content that contradicts the government’s line on the coronavirus and other issues. This problem came to light in full force when Elon Musk decided to release inside information showing how the company operated before he took over. //
frylock234
4 hours ago
If it was a study, as in real science, done in Israel and peer reviewed, why would it be censored as "disinformation" no matter how much it contradicted what TPTB would prefer us to believe? Science isn't always on the same page with itself and with political necessity. Sometimes, results show things we'd rather they didn't, but that's how we eventually arrive at the truth. //
RedStater In a Blue Apocalypse
3 hours ago
Not all that long ago, we held that we live in the Age of Information. And for a brief period, there was a universal belief this was a good thing. It was probably more accurate to describe it as the Age of Decentralization of Information, and we were all relatively pleased with it. Even the elite were dancing in celebration.
But, this really upset the apple cart for those that hold truth subordinate to power.
These times of attempting to re-centralize information by these psychopathic control freaks will eventually be labeled the Age of Absurdity.
Whatever your thoughts on institutions firing people for social media outrage, any institution that cannot distinguish support for Hamas butchery from opposition to Hamas butchery is morally bankrupt.
etba_ss
10 hours ago
I do not understand all the pearl clutching over hateful speech, "misinformation", etc. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less. Regulating, stifling and controlling speech is always a bad idea. Expose the bad ideas and expose the lies.
If you try to ban them, whoever has the power to ban them gets to be the one who tells you what is true and what is not. I don't trust anyone or any organization to do that. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yes the result of free speech will be people saying really bad, nasty things and lying. That has always been true and is the price paid for liberty. If something is really egregious and violates actual laws, there are methods that can be employed to track and trace the origin. Platforms can suspend accounts, etc. There are some controls already in place and frankly, many of us have been arguing the controls are already too restrictive with social media companies censoring what they don't want to be heard and viewpoints they don't like. If anonymity is removed, this will only get worse, not better. Do we want the government controlling the algorithms? Is that better than big tech doing it? I don't like either, but the government has a lot more power over my life than big tech.
Weminuche45 etba_ss
9 hours ago edited
Theae people control the populace and overthrow foreign governments by way of speech, so they are acutely aware of its power. Not surprisingly, they assume other are trying to do the same thing they do, so they want to make sure they are they only ones who can win at that game.
They do it for your own good and they know what's best for everyone else.
etba_ss Weminuche45
7 hours ago
I was making this argument earlier in a discussion about just how bad her instinct is. The government controlling speech, which is what her proposal does, is just as bad as the government controlling who has and doesn't have firearms. In order to keep a government in check or correct a tyrannical one you have to have the ability to organize in secret, speak out anonymously and have weapons to fight back. Free speech and the right to bear arms are equally important in keeping the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Speech without guns makes you of little threat because you can be killed and beaten down. Guns without speech prevents your ability to join with like minded individuals, thus also making you of little threat more than a nuisance.
Having the government know who every social media account belongs to is the equivalent of having the government register every firearm in this country. We've argued for years how bad that it because it allows the government to take them one day. The same is true for speech. If they know who everyone is, silencing them becomes much easier. //
anon-csn0
10 hours ago edited
Big Mommy government is likely worse than Big Daddy government.
etba_ss anon-csn0
7 hours ago
Steve Deace often says the only thing worse than the patriarchy is a matriarchy.
Tyranny is tyranny, but it is also a scientific fact that on the average women think and react more emotionally and relationally and men think and act more rationally and instinctively. Therefore, there is a lot of truth to that statement.
Nikki Haley made a huge unforced error Tuesday in the 2024 Republican presidential primary when she said that one of the first things she'd do as President of the United States is require that social media companies ban anonymous accounts and that they verify all of their users by name. Haley was roundly criticized over this likely unconstitutional plan, which is so tone-deaf that one could easily believe that she just spoke without thinking and would surely issue a statement walking it back a bit.
Nope. Apparently this is a plan she'd been thinking about and developing talking points about for awhile, because in addition to her initial comments on Fox News Channel, Haley said basically the same thing on the Ruthless podcast - only worse. //
Any time there's an attempted paradigm shift in the public discourse, those leading the way are generally vilified by those who benefit from the current system. It's not easy and can be personally and professionally dangerous to express views that aren't politically correct, or to expose corruption or malfeasance. That's why three of our founding fathers wrote the Federalist Papers under the pen name "Publius." It's why Benjamin Franklin wrote letters to the editor under the name "Silence Dogood." During the Constitutional debates, dozens of people on both sides of the issue (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) used pen names to publish tracts aimed at persuading the public. Sure, it's easier these days for foreign governments to employ this type of information warfare, but it's ignorant to think it didn't happen before. We know that foreign saboteurs have plied their trade here for centuries, and we've done the same.
That Haley either doesn't know all of this, or that she pushes for such government overreach despite that knowledge, is, in my opinion, disqualifying in a Republican candidate for President of the United States.