quote:

Tech mogul Elon Musk, who purchased the company formerly known as Twitter, has involved himself in Trump's campaign in an unprecedented manner since endorsing the former president, including one favor that directly contradicts the free speech absolutism that he claims was the reason he bought the platform in the first place, reported the New York Times.

"The relationship has proved significant in other ways," the newspaper reported. "After a reporter’s publication of hacked Trump campaign information last month, the campaign connected with X to prevent the circulation of links to the material on the platform, according to two people with knowledge of the events. X eventually blocked links to the material and suspended the reporter’s account."

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There are more just as big, but none larger, lies than Musk self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist.”

Now, to be fair Musk’s Twitter permitting certain speech and excluding or using engineering to bury other speech is not a 1st Amendment violation.

A private media provider amplifying speech while refusing to permit or burying other speech is not a 1st Amendment violation. Such person could ensued on said conduct and still believe the government should under no circumstances pass laws restricting speech or the dissemination of speech. The two positions are exclusive.

Now, when Musk declared himself a 1st Amendment absolutist, I do not believe he realized the 1st Amendment referred only to government action. I say this because when he made that declaration it was in response to others complaining about speech he was permitting on his privately owned media.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There are more just as big, but none larger, lies than Musk self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist.”

Now, to be fair Musk’s Twitter permitting certain speech and excluding or using engineering to bury other speech is not a 1st Amendment violation.

A private media provider amplifying speech while refusing to permit or burying other speech is not a 1st Amendment violation. Such person could ensued on said conduct and still believe the government should under no circumstances pass laws restricting speech or the dissemination of speech. The two positions are exclusive.

Now, when Musk declared himself a 1st Amendment absolutist, I do not believe he realized the 1st Amendment referred only to government action. I say this because when he made that declaration it was in response to others complaining about speech he was permitting on his privately owned media.

"Free Speech" extends well beyond the First Amendment, which ONLY constrains Congress and, by extension, the Federal government (and such State governments as adopted identical or similar language in their own Constitutions).

Elmo was outright lying about supporting "free speech", he supports speech that agrees with him or glorifies him or his own cause of the moment, the antithesis of "free speech".

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There are more just as big, but none larger, lies than Musk self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist.”

Now, to be fair Musk’s Twitter permitting certain speech and excluding or using engineering to bury other speech is not a 1st Amendment violation.

A private media provider amplifying speech while refusing to permit or burying other speech is not a 1st Amendment violation. Such person could ensued on said conduct and still believe the government should under no circumstances pass laws restricting speech or the dissemination of speech. The two positions are exclusive.

Now, when Musk declared himself a 1st Amendment absolutist, I do not believe he realized the 1st Amendment referred only to government action. I say this because when he made that declaration it was in response to others complaining about speech he was permitting on his privately owned media.

"Free Speech" extends well beyond the First Amendment, which ONLY constrains Congress and, by extension, the Federal government (and such State governments as adopted identical or similar language in their own Constitutions).

Elmo was outright lying about supporting "free speech", he supports speech that agrees with him or glorifies him or his own cause of the moment, the antithesis of "free speech".

No it does not.

Go read the Supreme Court. Where there is no state action, there is no constitutional violation. That is Con Law 101. The 1st Amendment right to speech only addresses government action. Speech we criminalize is still government restriction.

You can have your opinion as to what the “right” is. I deal in legal truisms.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Tech mogul Elon Musk, who purchased the company formerly known as Twitter, has involved himself in Trump's campaign in an unprecedented manner since endorsing the former president, including one favor that directly contradicts the free speech absolutism that he claims was the reason he bought the platform in the first place, reported the New York Times.

"The relationship has proved significant in other ways," the newspaper reported. "After a reporter’s publication of hacked Trump campaign information last month, the campaign connected with X to prevent the circulation of links to the material on the platform, according to two people with knowledge of the events. X eventually blocked links to the material and suspended the reporter’s account."

Link

I'm sure Dr. Easter has some perfect explanation for why this was just peachy as was Trump's use of the hacked Hillary material...

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Well, that was a plot to a James Bond movie.

Assuming, that is true there are many who too happily would hand it over.