(Twitter / @Public_Citizen, @kylenabecker)

The consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen posted a screenshot to Twitter yesterday showing that Elon Musk has blocked it on the platform. Public Citizen, which focuses on curbing the power of corporations over American society on issues like election financing and environmental regulation, cited the block as evidence that Musk is not actually committed to the principle of free speech.

Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion earlier this week, and notably started a discussion surrounding the platform's role in free speech as a “town square” for open discussion late last month, suggesting that Twitter’s content moderation should be toned down.

In a vaguely worded pinned tweet yesterday, Musk seemed to suggest that he would match federal law (presumably American law) in regulating free speech on Twitter and not go “beyond the law.” Many users pointed out cases where this approach may be insufficient or seems to contradict Musk’s previous promises about changes to the platform.

Supporters of Musk pushed back against Public Citizen, defending the new owner of Twitter’s morals and commitment to free speech. They pointed out that a right to free speech does not guarantee a right to be listened to, and that it is well within Musk’s rights to block speech he personally doesn’t wish to hear. Twitter is now Musk’s private property, and it was never governed by the First Amendment (which only applies to the federal government). That being said, many users expressed fear that Musk may apply his own standards across the platform, potentially silencing voices he disagrees with.

Many (including Public Citizen) have criticized actions Musk took in the past to silence or refute critics of Tesla and his other projects.

Supporters of Public Citizen responded by calling out what they saw as Musk’s hypocrisy.

A lot of eyeballs are now on Elon Musk, who has thrust himself into the center of the public square with his purchase of Twitter. Almost everybody on the platform now seems to wonder what Musk will do with the power he has just bought himself, and how the multi-billionaire will define exactly what he means by “free speech.”


Share Pin


Comments 15 total

sborbl

There's a world of difference between a user blocking another user, and preventing that user from being seen by everyone else. I have never seen anyone who is pro free speech say they want to get rid of the block button, in fact they repeatedly say that blocking users is always an option.

6

Turahk

pretty sure "free speach" means blocking people so they can't talk to you is not okay

-2

Rynjin

No, it's pretty simple. You have a right to say whatever you want. I have a right to tell you to shut the fuck up, and then stop listening to you.

0

Chaosfreak11

I dont think using what is the modern equivalent of a public square to shut down hot takes is equivalent to that CEO of the town square blocking someone on his private account.

To give a public square analogy: Kicking someone out of a public square is considered censorship. Being in said public square and plugging your ears when someone talks to you is not.

4

MCC1701

First, this is dumb. You have to be incredibly thick to think that being blocked by a particular user inhibits your freedom of speech, or believe your followers are.

Second, I'm always annoyed when people try to find the slightest deviation from one's professed principle to claim they are a hypocrite and anything they say is invalid. Few principles if any hold up 100% of the time, and those exceptions are usually for very good reason. Free speech advocates are usually okay with libel and defamation being illegal, most libertarians see the value in at least some government, and even a pacifist may be stirred to action to save the lives of others. It's people who see no compromise or nuance and think you can and should adhere 100% to your "principles" that often show themselves to be monstrous and terrifying. /endrant

As for twitter under Musk I don't expect it to allow any and all speech, for a few reasons. The biggest is that there are laws that limit what can be posted online and I expect him to follow them(IE no CP), I'd also expect legitimate doxxing, harassment, death threats, etc to be acted upon, and of course porn/gore spammers and scammers will also not be allowed. I'm 100% okay with this and I expect most people to be as well, apart from those who exhibit this behavior or those who decide to pick the worst hills to die on.

10

BaronVonJello

"Free speech?? Do you mean hateful---"

Yes

"But what if someone says something dishone--"

Yes

"But what abo--"

YES.

1

A Concerned Rifleman

Just because you get paid to autistically screech on public forums doesn't mean anyone is obligated to listen to you.

14

the hentai critic

i dont get paid but i autistically screech anyway

1

Jill

To summarize from a Reuters article: The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Trump had violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by blocking his critics on the social media platform.

The case was rendered moot by the Supreme Court after Trump left office, being dismissed due to him no longer being "part of the government". There was no official Supreme Court ruling on the case itself, and some justices did express skepticism at applying old concepts to new platforms among other things. If you're argument is that you want free speech on the platform and should hold this value as much as the constitution holds the government to this value, however, legal precedence holds thay blocking users violates this.

0
pinterest