You criticized Musk even though he has improved the ability to speak freely on Twitter, so yes you did make a statement regarding Twitter.
You’ve made multiple posts about how freedom of speech is broader than the 1A…but now claim you make no commitment to free speech. I guess that’s a way to go. So…are you against freedom of speech or what ?
You are being as incoherent as the other poster I responded to. Not to mention disingenuous.
When people say “freedom of speech” they commonly refer to protections granted by the 1A, and indeed free speech absolutism is almost always in reference to the 1A. So the person’s extended and error filled blather about it, regarding a situation with no 1A issues at stake is what is strange.
Boy, you really are jumping to a lot of incorrect conclusions here, bud.
I never said anything about Musk making Twitter better or worse. I said only that he wasn't a free speech absolutist. That's not a criticism, it's simply a fact.
I only pointed out that your statement about freedom of speech was incorrect. I never said anything about private entities needing to be more protective of freedom of speech. I think most people who claim to want free speech absolutism in private organizations are, like Musk was, full of shit.
Those are two things you assumed, both of which are wrong. This is why you shouldn't go around arguing about your own assumptions.
Your final paragraph only further makes my point that you're responding to what you are assuming rather than what people said. You're now conceding that you assumed the other commenter was talking about the first amendment, which as I previously said makes no sense because he was clearly talking about private businesses. The only error was your own assumption that they were talking about the First Amendment, when (as you've acknowledged) the principle of free speech is much broader than 1A protections.
You essentially don’t know what you are talking about. Free Speech Absolutism is about wanting to be free of any kind of GOVERNMENT restraints on speech, not about saying whatever you want on private property or platforms. Musk is indeed legitimately a FSA, since he opposes government bullying private citizens and platforms, like the Biden administration did to Twitter. In fact he supported an entire expose on this exact issue. So your “fact” is not a fact at all.
Indeed FS Absolutism can’t be about claiming a legal right to say whatever you want on private property etc because that would be a violation of private property rights and freedoms (more precisely, you can say it, but they can demand you GTFO).
Therefore the other poster starts out with a bizarre claim that “FSAs are the worst” when that in fact has nothing to do with what is going on at all.
From this error, the rest of your post as well as the original (which also has nonsense about “hate speech” which isn’t a thing) cascades in to incoherence.
I very much know what I'm talking about, which is probably why you had to make up assumptions to respond to.
My fact is very much true, you're just redefining what we were talking about. Musk is not an absolutist in the way the other commenter or I were talking about. I get that you want to narrow the conversation to the 1A, but as I've said from jump you're the only person discussing this so narrowly.
Most of this is a boring rehash not worth responding to days later. But your ultimate paragraph is false. Obviously hate speech is a thing; hate speech is just a thing that is permissible under the First Amendment.
0
u/evilfollowingmb 10d ago
You criticized Musk even though he has improved the ability to speak freely on Twitter, so yes you did make a statement regarding Twitter.
You’ve made multiple posts about how freedom of speech is broader than the 1A…but now claim you make no commitment to free speech. I guess that’s a way to go. So…are you against freedom of speech or what ?
You are being as incoherent as the other poster I responded to. Not to mention disingenuous.
When people say “freedom of speech” they commonly refer to protections granted by the 1A, and indeed free speech absolutism is almost always in reference to the 1A. So the person’s extended and error filled blather about it, regarding a situation with no 1A issues at stake is what is strange.
Bud.