Musk’s sullen yawp
Popehat on Musk and free speech and how confused people are about what free speech even is:
Elon Musk genuinely feels that advertisers are a threat to free speech. Why? Because many advertisers fled X after Musk eagerly endorsed a bigot’s articulation of anti-Semitic theories, including that Jews promote hatred of whites and that Jews are importing “hordes of minorities.” Unsurprisingly, many companies aren’t cool with that. That’s a mix of corporate leadership thinking that such bigotry is bad business and thinking that it’s immoral.
Private companies have a First Amendment right to make such a decision. They have the right to express their values — and choose their marketing strategy — by deciding what kind of media content to promote. They have freedom of association to refrain from advertising on platforms that repulse their customers. Those rights are held both by the corporate advertisers and by the individuals making decisions for them. Elon Musk’s sullen yawp amounts to a claim that he has a right for companies to sponsor his speech, no matter what he says. That’s nonsense, both legally and philosophically.
It doesn’t stop there. Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights. His latest articulation of this theory came after Media Matters published an article claiming that X is running ads for prominent companies next to bigoted content on X. Musk responded with an extravagant, mostly incoherent threat to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against Media Matters and its board and donors “to protect free speech,” whose criticism “seeks to undermine freedom of expression on our platform.”
Irregular verb again. When we do it it’s freedom of speech, when they do it it’s an attack on our freedom of speech. Heads we win tails they lose.
Popehat shows us a little chat among Musk, Stephen Miller, and a Federalist Society lawyer agreeing on how to shut other people up.
Just as the tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, freedom of speech must occasionally be protected by an unemployed ghoul and a personality disordered Boer persuading a bland FedSoc apparatchik to pester journalists for questioning billionaires.
I didn’t know Musk is a Boer!* How very interesting. (Personality disordered, yes, that I knew. Everyone knows.)
It would be easy to blame this contemptible nonsense on Elon Musk being socially inept, proudly ignorant, and grotesquely petulant. But when it comes to thinking that the right to free speech includes the right to silence others, Elon learned it by watching us, okay? He learned it by watching us.
Popehat goes on to say pretty much everybody thinks and says that criticism of X violates X’s free speech, with many examples.
H/t Rob
*See Bruce Gorton @ 19
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Musk has not said or thought anything along the lines of “your criticism of him violates his rights”. Indeed there is a vast amount of criticism of him on Twitter.
Rather, he has said that fradualent claims violate his rights. As a principle that is correct. If I say (knowing it is wrong) “that butcher sells rancid meat”, then the butcher has a claim and I cannot protest “free speech”.
As to the particulars of Musk versus Media Matters, well I don’t know enough about the matter or about US law on the topic, so will wait and see.
Just to note, by the way, Americans often have way too narrow a conception of “free speech”, interpreting it purely in terms of the First Amendment. Ever since Mill’s On Liberty, it has been understood that, more generally, “free speech” is about what can be said in “public square” without draconian repercussions.
For example, consider a hypothetical majority-Muslim nation that had no blasphemy law, but in practice anyone who was even accused of blasphemy got lynched by a mob. That nation would not have free speech.
On which point, when did you last see a cartoon depicting Mohammed in any mainstream media in any Western country?
As an aside, Musk also tweets that “Premium+ also has no ads in your timeline.” So either the advertisers pay, or you subscribe and pay. This is the balancing act to maximizing profit. When you strip away the ill-defined “free speech” bullshit, this is what your left with. Well that, and Musk’s quest to control the narrative.
Oh look, a squirrel!
We’d all do best to play it his way, because reportedly he has a law firm with a nuclear arsenal.
@twiliter:
Or, rather, it’s a way of reducing vulnerability to advertiser boycotts. Obviously, it’s harder to run a “public square” free-speech forum that is dependent on advertising, if those opposed to an open public square are continually trying to scare advertisers away.
Coel, yes that reinforces my point. Scaring advertisers away means scaring their money away.
There’s a reason why removing ads is such a powerful incentive — ads suck.
Musk wants everyone to subscribe, why?
$
I’m not opposed to an open public square, but that’s not the direction X is headed, it’s being more privatized than ever. Members only. I’m not opposed to capitalism either, Musk can make all the money he wants, just not any of mine. I just think it’s dishonest to hide behind a smokescreen of free speech rights and advertising rights, when the bottom line is obviously what matters.
I’m not a fan of his marketing luxury cars to conspicuous consumers under the false pretenses of environmental benefits either. My neighbor drives by in his Tesla with a “zero emissions” license tag on it. Sure, zero local emissions, but it’s misleading and dishonest. There was a market there and Musk capitalized on it.
@twiliter,
I do have a reply to that, but I’ll put it in miscellaneous room.
Thanks for the heads up Mike.
I know that Popehat is a lawyer, and he speaks well about the strict legal concept of Freedom of Speech. But he loses me when he treats the concept of “cancel culture” as if it’s not a thing, or not a thing worth being concerned about. People can and do attack, en masse, writers they don’t like, threaten their livelihoods and physical safety, threaten their friends and families and those who associate with them, all in an effort to shut down the writers. This is real, and it’s a problem. That it isn’t specifically a legal issue or one involving the technical concept of Freedom of Speech is really only marginally relevant.
True.
I do love the way he writes though. Eloquent fella.
“unemployed ghoul” is a wonderful description of Miller.
Isn’t it? This is what I mean. The writing.
Sackbut@9,
If you follow the links in the originally linked post, Popehat has written in more detail about cancel culture:
and “free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.about the distinction between”
Just to note that some people are now alleging that the Media Matters attack on Twitter was not just “manipulation” (creating juxtapositions that were utterly atypical of user experience) but were outright fake (i.e. the “screenshots” were photoshopped).
For example, here is Michael Schellenberger saying that they could not reproduce what Media Matters are claiming. (Though I guess Twitter could have tightened up their algorithm in the days since the Media Matters hit piece.)
The issue here is tortious interference (a legal concept which “occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else’s contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm”). Note that this is civil law, so will rule on “balance of probability”. (This is a way lower standard than required, for example, for a libel suit in the US.)
If a court concludes that Media Matters unfairly manipulated its experience of Twitter, or if they are found to have “photoshopped” images in their press release, then Media Matters are toast. And Musk can afford expensive lawyers.
Well, if “some people” are alleging it, that’s good enough, right?
Hey, did Musk file that lawsuit the “split second” the courts opened today?
“The White House issued a dire warning this week, reminding the nation that Elon’s continued ownership of Twitter means they now only control 97% of the media.”
:-) :-)
Ah yes, the “humor” of the Babylon Bee.
I’ve always wondered about this business model from the perspective of a potential advertiser.
Media platform owner to potential paying advertiser: “Buy ads on our service and reach the MILLIONS of people we can deliver to you!”
The very same media platform owner to potential paying subscriber: “Sign up today so you can stop hearing/seeing this guy’s shitty ads!”
I know for “free” services, I’m the product being sold, but for subscribers, the product being sold is freedom from exposure to the paying advertisers’ messages. It’s almost like a protection racket.
Just a note, Musk isn’t a Boer. Boer specifically refers to Afrikaners, and according to his biography he said he didn’t see much point to learning the language. In South Africa, Musk would be termed an English speaker.
If it matters, Musk’s mother is a Canadian citizen, born in Canada of English heritage, while his father is an English-speaking South African of English, Swiss and Dutch descent.
@Screechy:
Apparently he did, yes. See this Tweet
Also, it seems that the Attorney General of Texas has opened an investigation into Media Matters over “potential fraudulent activity” under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See this Tweet.
As Popehat has oft noted, anyone can file a lawsuit about anything. America’s right has a real thing for performative lawsuits that are either tossed (where SLAPP laws exist) or bubble away for years until they eventually lose. The Texas AG has form for having filed multiple such suits over the last few years. It’s become an extension of the culture war and is also a great fundraiser.
I suspect Popehat received feedback. He responds…
https://open.substack.com/pub/popehat/p/in-which-i-repent-on-free-speech