Elon Musk makes $43 Billion offer for private buyout of Twitter (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

Elon Musk commenting more about what he means by free speech - and seems to be saying what @mjcouvi was saying in that if it's consistent with First Amendment law, it should be allowed.



Apart from some basic misunderstandings about the will of the people and free speech (the government can't "pass laws" to make less speech), whether this is a workable standard for a website that you want people to want to go to remains to be seen. We already talked about hate speech and the Westboro Baptist stuff. So yes, profanity-laced tirades about Jews or homosexuals are in bounds.

Other examples of areas where the Supreme Court has said laws violated First Amendment rights:
- Crush videos (law against animal cruelty cannot apply to make illegal the possession of videos of women in heels crushing small animals to death), United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010);
- Computer-generated child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002);

It's an interesting position to take to treat Twitter like it's the government and will pattern it's moderation on what the government is allowed to do under the Constitution. If I didn't think Musk was smart, I might almost think he doesn't understand that he Constitution only protects us from government action, but maybe he does understand that and chooses to apply it to his private business. But, that's certainly not the level of free for all speech that people thought he was talking about. And it certainly does seem to leave room for grey areas and subjective decisions on what is and isn't allowed. As you certainly know, the Courts have moved all over the place on the restrictions they do and don't allow, but more or less only allow restrictions on time place and manner of speech.

It occurs to me that this will be less restrictions than some want and more restrictions than others want, so maybe he has found the proper balance with nobody totally happy?

 

[DavidM]

Twitter is a global platform. So there's a question of, which law?

Right, and an EU official has reportedly already put out a warning in that regard. Twitter's value is in being a platform with a vast global presence and reach, something Musk isn't likely to want to jeopardize, though he will have a lot of leeway to do what he wants. It's more complicated than just modeling an approach around the 1st amendment.

 

[DaveXA]

He is right by the way. You search adult porn one damn time and now my twitter handle has an std.

There are better ways to curate porn. I mean, not that I have experience or anything...yeah.

 

[St. Widge]

Twitter is a global platform. So there's a question of, which law?

Good point. I would guess that he means U.S. Constitutional law which my general impression is more permissible of speech than many places. IIRC, in the U.K., "hate speech" can actually be prosecuted, yes? And I know that Germany has some pretty strict laws about promoting a Nazi like agenda.

 

[mjcouvi]

Not if you're the target of hate speech.

Haters can be blocked.

 

[superchuck500]

It's an interesting position to take to treat Twitter like it's the government and will pattern it's moderation on what the government is allowed to do under the Constitution. If I didn't think Musk was smart, I might almost think he doesn't understand that he Constitution only protects us from government action, but maybe he does understand that and chooses to apply it to his private business. But, that's certainly not the level of free for all speech that people thought he was talking about. And it certainly does seem to leave room for grey areas and subjective decisions on what is and isn't allowed. As you certainly know, the Courts have moved all over the place on the restrictions they do and don't allow, but more or less only allow restrictions on time place and manner of speech.

It occurs to me that this will be less restrictions than some want and more restrictions than others want, so maybe he has found the proper balance with nobody totally happy?

I think that the basic idea that the contours of the First Amendment can be willfully adopted by a social media company as its own moderation policy - though as we all know that might not be the most attractive place, as the 1A protects a of stuff that most of us don't want to voluntarily interact with. But that's because, as you point out, the First Amendment is designed to keep the government out of the content moderation exercise for the most part, because the framers of the Constitution knew that government control of speech is so easily abused that it simply has to be prohibited. But is that really an appropriate standard for a social media site?

I guess that's for him to decide as he is buying the company but what's more interesting to me is how he seems to justify it on the basis of First Amendment law being "the will of the people" and the government can simply tailor what free speech is based on what the people ask the government to do in the form of laws. That simply isn't true and is actually quite the opposite. If what constitutes free speech is the will of the people, there would be no need for the First Amendment - the will of the people as it relates to speech could be reflected through laws. But the First Amendment exists to prevent that very result . . . "Congress shall make no law that . . ."

What he is articulating here is just wrongfully framed and presented. That's actually not what free speech under the law is, at all.

 

[St. Widge]

I think that the basic idea that the contours of the First Amendment can be willfully adopted by a social media company as its own moderation policy - though as we all know that might not be the most attractive place, as the 1A protects a of stuff that most of us don't want to voluntarily interact with. But that's because, as you point out, the First Amendment is designed to keep the government out of the content moderation exercise for the most part, because the framers of the Constitution knew that government control of speech is so easily abused that it simply has to be prohibited. But is that really an appropriate standard for a social media site?

I guess that's for him to decide as he is buying the company but what's more interesting to me is how he seems to justify it on the basis of First Amendment law being "the will of the people" and the government can simply tailor what free speech is based on what the people ask the government to do in the form of laws. That simply isn't true and is actually quite the opposite. If what constitutes free speech is the will of the people, there would be no need for the First Amendment - the will of the people as it relates to speech could be reflected through laws. But the First Amendment exists to prevent that very result . . . "shall make no laws that . . ."

What he is articulating here is just wrongfuly framed and presented. That's actually not what free speech under the law is, at all.

Yeah, the entire point of the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, is to guard against the "tyranny of the majority." Some things are rights that should be protected against being taken away by "the will of the people" as expressed through laws created by those elected by the majority. It's the reason why, despite the fact that many including me would argue that the Bill of Rights isn't necessary and it's clear that the we have all the rights in the Bill of Rights because the Constitution itself limits government power to the powers expressly given in the Constitution, the Founders added the Bill of Rights to make sure those rights are protected.

And, good thing they did too because the Courts IMO have seemingly ignored the limitations put on government by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been necessary to protect those rights. I mean, without the Bill of Rights and the ability to add amendments like the 14th, we would likely have many fewer rights than we have now.

So, yeah, "the will of the people" sounds too close to the "will of the majority" which is normally the force that takes away the rights of individuals. Then again, I guess the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all the amendments were passed by the "Will of the people" so indirectly the majority does want to protect individual rights in the abstract. It's just that they often tend to not want that in specific circumstances which is why it's good to have the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect those rights when the majority turns on them.

 

[CoolBrees]

As a private company, he is under even less obligation to provide any data from inside Twitter. He doesn’t even have to report earnings

Haters can be blocked.

That is censorship, no? You want a public square, why should you get to hide from haters? Serious question.

If I wanted to send you (not literally you) pics of burn victims and computer generated explicit images of trafficked children I should be able to as it is free speech.

Right?

 

[Arathrael]

Good point. I would guess that he means U.S. Constitutional law which my general impression is more permissible of speech than many places. IIRC, in the U.K., "hate speech" can actually be prosecuted, yes? And I know the Germany has some pretty strict laws about promoting a Nazi like agenda.

Yes, hate speech - or "sending by public communication network an offensive or indecent or obscene or menacing message or matter" - can be prosecuted here.

One example: https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/chelsea-fan-jailed-eight-weeks-over-racist-tweets

 

[St. Widge]

Yes, hate speech - or "sending by public communication network an offensive or indecent or obscene or menacing message or matter" - can be prosecuted here.

One example: https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/chelsea-fan-jailed-eight-weeks-over-racist-tweets

That's exactly what I was recalling actually. As an American, especially an American lawyer, I was surprised to learn that they can prosecute people for sending racist messages to footballers. Then I realized that there isn't an equivalent of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the U.K. so it's all a matter of Common Law.

 

[Yatman]

Twitter’s top lawyer reassures staff, cries during meeting about Musk takeover

Gadde... is seen internally as Twitter’s “moral authority” and the executive tasked with handling sensitive issues like harassment and dangerous speech.

must be tough to see your "god" role coming to an end

/tears

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Thing is, if things like hate speech and abuse are allowed, the result is a town square that's only theoretically public and in practice isn't. Because much of the public are deterred from going there. By the hate speech and abuse.

I was thinking about that this morning monitoring car line - we have vested and necessary reasons to protect kids from hateful and abusive speech in all levels of schooling - I really don’t think those reasons disappear when we leave school

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Elon Musk commenting more about what he means by free speech - and seems to be saying what @mjcouvi was saying in that if it's consistent with First Amendment law, it should be allowed.



Apart from some basic misunderstandings about the will of the people and free speech (the government can't "pass laws" to make less speech), whether this is a workable standard for a website that you want people to want to go to remains to be seen. We already talked about hate speech and the Westboro Baptist stuff. So yes, profanity-laced tirades about Jews or homosexuals are in bounds.

Other examples of areas where the Supreme Court has said laws violated First Amendment rights:
- Crush videos (law against animal cruelty cannot apply to make illegal the possession of videos of women in heels crushing small animals to death), United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010);
- Computer-generated child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002);

It’s amazing the power some people think “therefore” has - like it magically invents logical conclusions

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

I have honestly never seen any nudity on Twitter, much less porn. I guess I assume they don't allow it because I have never seen it, but I guess maybe I don't follow the wrong/right people?

Twitter is where all the celebrity dick pics & sex tapes are.