Elon Musk should be the last person to control Twitter, but now he does!

Originally posted by Tzeentch
it's a hard line to navigate. At the end of the day there DOES need to be consideration for the fact that much information that's classified is classified for a reason. It's easy to say that someone who leaks classified information about American citizens' privacy rights being violated by the government is a hero who should be exonerated from legal action. But what about a person who leaks the schematics of some new super weapon the military is engineering, out of a moral belief that the weapon should not be allowed to be built? What if that "super weapon" is in fact just a generic new tank model? Well suddenly the moral urgency of that leak is in question.

I don't see how you can legislate some kind of protection for whistleblowing on moral grounds when the metric for what counts as justified leaking and what does not is completely relative and arbitrary. This issue is dodged entirely with whistle blowing protections in the private sector because it's just business. It's not illegal and it's not a national security issue to leak to the press that ford is deliberately putting defective seatbelts in their cars, or mistreating their employees.

I think it probably would always be illegal in a broad sense (like, contractually) to whistleblow in the private sector but for those protections... but yeah, not a national security or criminal issue. Seems like most private sector whistleblowing would probably be about accounting anyways(?), and the past two decades have hopefully hammered home that there is a societal interest in preventing widespread fraud and gross negligence.

In contrast, cases of govt whistleblowers tend to pit various societal interests against each other.

*as opposed to restrictions on form. Like, noise bylaws. "Muh free speech!" shouldn't let you scream into your neighbours window at 2 AM, no matter what you have to say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/twitter-musk-reverses-suspensions/

Amnesty now.

So he said as long as you haven't spammed or commited a crime. Alex Jones is not getting the amnesty, right?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
it's a hard line to navigate. At the end of the day there DOES need to be consideration for the fact that much information that's classified is classified for a reason. It's easy to say that someone who leaks classified information about American citizens' privacy rights being violated by the government is a hero who should be exonerated from legal action. But what about a person who leaks the schematics of some new super weapon the military is engineering, out of a moral belief that the weapon should not be allowed to be built? What if that "super weapon" is in fact just a generic new tank model? Well suddenly the moral urgency of that leak is in question.

I don't see how you can legislate some kind of protection for whistleblowing on moral grounds when the metric for what counts as justified leaking and what does not is completely relative and arbitrary. This issue is dodged entirely with whistle blowing protections in the private sector because it's just business. It's not illegal and it's not a national security issue to leak to the press that ford is deliberately putting defective seatbelts in their cars, or mistreating their employees.

We could use a messier example, they do exist, but this "hard line to navigate" idea applies to most law. The legal system exists precisely to debate these issues, and it's no more ideologically fraught than the other issues we deal with in court. This is why we often use the "totality of circumstances" to judge cases. I see no reason why it should protect the state, and not the individual exposing the state.

"National security" is typically a buzzword the state can invoke to silence anyone exposing their transgressions against the people. Unfortunately, the public has been so mind-broken that they enable this poisonous rhetoric to infect the mainstream. Someone leaking human rights violations during a war-for-profit in a country that was no threat to us (Iraq) is not a "national security breach."

Of course, we already have some protections for governmental whistleblowers. The idea of legislating this isn't new. I just think it needs improvement.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/twitter-musk-reverses-suspensions/

Amnesty now.

So he said as long as you haven't spammed or commited a crime. Alex Jones is not getting the amnesty, right?

On Nov. 18, he restored former president Donald Trump’s account after 52 percent of a poll’s respondents said he should do so. “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” Musk tweeted, Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God.”

A tiny, 2% majority and Elon is talking about Vox Populi. 😂

I'm not even against reinstating the accounts necessarily. I just find Elon pretending to be "for the people" hilarious.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You are so retarded it's actually a wonder that you don't drown from staring up at the sky too long when it rains. It's "not illegal" to shoot a random stranger in the stomach either, the government would just pin "attempted murder" or "murder" on you. Don't be an idiot. Being charged with inciting a riot because you yelled fire in a movie theater is proof that freedom of speech is not absolute and will not protect you in all circumstances, which is the point that he's making. An act does not have to be specifically listed in the penal code to be illegal under an umbrella term like inciting a riot, assault etc.

👆

We're seeing that manifest in the social media sphere too, and even other online spaces.

If someone's comments are inciting mass violence or lawlessness, maybe we should hold them culpable? It's essentially the digital equivalent of inciting a riot, or so the idea goes.

Originally posted by StyleTime
👆

We're seeing that manifest in the social media sphere too, and even other online spaces.

If someone's comments are inciting mass violence or lawlessness, maybe we should hold them culpable? It's essentially the digital equivalent of inciting a riot, or so the idea goes.

Subjective standards are objectively bad policy.

What if lgbtq speech caused riots? Is Qatar right to lock activists up?

Originally posted by cdtm
Subjective standards are objectively bad policy.

What if lgbtq speech caused riots? Is Qatar right to lock activists up?

I could say the same about insulting the Quran like anywhere.. Definitely a potential cause of riots.

All this thread is teaching me is everyone agrees there needs to be some restriction on free speech, but that line is a very subjective and difficult one to draw.

Originally posted by Smurph

I think this question is impossible out of context. Obviously there are some situations where governments have to restrict expression (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc).

I'm glad the SEC deters billionaires from lying on Twitter to inflate share prices. I disagree with a Twitter policy that forces parody accounts to self-identify. So, everything in context.

Yes I can see it comes in many different categories. And yeah SEC has all sorts of rules about that, including someone just promoting a security. For the protection of investors and it is the SEC's job to protect them.

Was just genuinely curious what people's stances were on free speech limitations.

Originally posted by cdtm
Subjective standards are objectively bad policy.

What if lgbtq speech caused riots? Is Qatar right to lock activists up?

I'm not sure what you mean by "lgbtq speech." If you could prove someone got a queer mob to storm the white house, they'd be prosecuted.

You know what we do to people who feed Todd, Style?

Makes Laura's time at the Facility look like a true paradise.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I could say the same about insulting the Quran like anywhere.. Definitely a potential cause of riots.

All this thread is teaching me is everyone agrees there needs to be some restriction on free speech, but that line is a very subjective and difficult one to draw.

That's just it though, I think one SHOULD be able to insult the Quoran.

If it resulted in riots, I'd still argue the problem is in the mob, and not the speaker. Words don't force violence, people choose violent behavior.

I'd also say I think Catholics and Christians should be insulted, but the fact is we regularly are. A mob of angry Catholics incited by an SNL skit would almost certainly be prosecuted, and I doubt many here would argue in their defense.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Useless statement. All policy is based on subjective standards.

Is it now?

If it's all subjective, than by definition Elon Musk can't be wrong to allow Alex Jones or Donald Trump on the platform.

Subjective is opinion. Opinion can be wrong. In fact it's overwhelmingly wrong all the time.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
You know what we do to people who feed Todd, Style?

Makes Laura's time at the Facility look like a true paradise.

Originally posted by cdtm
Is it now?

If it's all subjective, than by definition Elon Musk can't be wrong to allow Alex Jones or Donald Trump on the platform.

Originally posted by Jaden_3.0
Subjective is opinion. Opinion can be wrong. In fact it's overwhelmingly wrong all the time.

Originally posted by StyleTime

People are arguing whether or not the harm they cause is worth un-banning them though.

I'd have taken offense at your unprovoked insult, until this.

So you believe speech does harm than. Ok.

That's your opinion, I do not share it. And I absolutely do not think speech should be restricted based such a subjective concept. I DO think bad actors can and WILL abuse this concept to restrict political opposition.

You are "the useful idiot" anti commies talk about.

It isn't a "free speech" argument to allow bullshit. Would you be restricting a school teachers free speech if they decided to teach flat earth as fact, and you tried to stop them?

Originally posted by truejedi
It isn't a "free speech" argument to allow bullshit. Would you be restricting a school teachers free speech if they decided to teach flat earth as fact, and you tried to stop them?

YouTube video

Originally posted by truejedi
It isn't a "free speech" argument to allow bullshit. Would you be restricting a school teachers free speech if they decided to teach flat earth as fact, and you tried to stop them?

That's the thing, it IS a free speech argument to allow bullshit, which is why not all free speech arguments hold water. It's like using free speech to shout in your neighbours window in the night. Not all forms of expression deserve legal protection.

On the flip side, you would never hear a free speech argument to defend perfectly reasonable, universally agreeable speech. If the right doesn't apply to the controversial ideas then the right doesn't exist.

Originally posted by truejedi
It isn't a "free speech" argument to allow bullshit. Would you be restricting a school teachers free speech if they decided to teach flat earth as fact, and you tried to stop them?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes I can see it comes in many different categories. And yeah SEC has all sorts of rules about that, including someone just promoting a security. For the protection of investors and it is the SEC's job to protect them.

Was just genuinely curious what people's stances were on free speech limitations.

One of the bottom lines that I come back to in thinking about the thread is that "free speech" is a right that exists between you and your govt (depending on where you live). It's not a right that exists between you and the world. It's not like a property right in that way.

So a tweet can at once be "free" in the sense of being protected from government overreach, and not "free" in the sense that Elon could restrict it anyways.

Schrodinger's free speech.