Supporting Free Speech Means Supporting Victims Of SLAPP Suits, Even If You Disagree With The Speakers
from the no-free-speech-tourism dept
When Elon filed his recent ridiculous SLAPP suit against Media Matters, it was noteworthy (but not surprising) to me to see people who not only claimed to be “free speech supporters,” but who made that a key part of their persona, cheering on the lawsuit, even though its only purpose was to use the power of the state to stifle and suppress free speech.
Matt Taibbi, for example, has spent the last year insisting that the Twitter Files, which he has totally misread and misrepresented, are one of the biggest “free speech” stories of our times. Indeed, he just won some made up new award worth $100k for “excellence in investigative journalism,” and in his “acceptance speech” he argued about how free speech was under attack and needed to be defended.
Just a few weeks later, he was cheering on Musk’s decision to sue Media Matters over journalism Taibbi didn’t like and didn’t support. Taibbi argues that the lawsuit is okay because it accuses Media Matters of “creating a news story, reporting on it, then propagandizing it to willing partners in the mainstream media.” Except, um, dude, that’s exactly the same thing you did with the Twitter Files story, propagandizing it to Fox News and other nonsense peddling networks.
Of course, Taibbi has every right to be terrible at the job of being a journalist. He has every right to not understand the documents put in front of him. He has every right to leave out the important context that explains what he’s seeing (either because he’s too clueless to understand it, or because of motivated reasoning and the need to feed an audience of ignorant clods who pay him). He even has every right to make the many, many factual mistakes he made in his reporting, which undermine the central premise of that reporting. That’s free speech.
If Taibbi were sued over his reporting, I’d stand up and point out how ridiculous it is and how such a lawsuit is an attack on his free speech rights, and a clear SLAPP suit. Taibbi may deserve to be ridiculed for his ignorance and credulity, but he should never face legal consequences for it.
But, according to Taibbi himself, it’s okay for someone who is the victim of that kind of bad reporting to sue and run journalists through the destructive process of a SLAPP suit, because if a story is “propagandized” then it’s fair game. He even seems kinda gleeful about it, suggesting that all sorts of reporting from the past few years deserves similar treatment, whether it was reporting about Donald Trump’s alleged connections to Russia or things about COVID — that all of it is now fair game if it was misleadingly sensationalized (again, the very same thing he, himself, has been doing, just for a different team).
That’s not supporting free speech. That’s exactly what they accuse others of doing: of only supporting free speech when you agree with it. And it’s cheering on an actual, blatant, obvious abuse of the state to try to stifle speech.
So, let’s go back to Musk’s other SLAPP suit, which he filed earlier this year against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, claiming that their reporting about hateful content on ExTwitter somehow violated a contract (originally, Musk’s personal lawyer threatened CCDH with defamation, but that’s not what they filed).
As I made clear at the time, I think CCDH is awful. I think their research methodologies are terrible. I think they play fast and loose with the details in their rush to blame social media for all sorts of ills in the world. Hell, just weeks before the lawsuit I dismantled a CCDH study that was being relied upon by California legislators to try to pass a terrible bill regarding kids and social media. The study was egregiously bad, to the point of arguing that photos of gum on social media were “eating disorder content.”
I would never trust anything that CCDH puts out. I think that their slipshod methodology undermines everything they do to the point that I’d never rely on anything they said as being accurate, because they have zero credibility with me.
But, unlike Taibbi, I would never cheer on a SLAPP suit against them. I still stand up for CCDH’s free speech rights to publish the studies they publish and to speak up about what they believe without then being sued and facing legal consequences for stating their opinions.
That’s why I was happy that the Public Participation Project, a non-profit working to pass more anti-SLAPP laws across the country, where I am a board member, decided to work with the Harvard Cyberlaw clinic to file an amicus brief in support of CCDH, calling out how Musk’s lawsuit against them is an obvious SLAPP suit. Full disclosure: the Public Participation Project did ask me how I felt about the organization submitting this brief before deciding to take it on, knowing my own reservations about CCDH’s work. I told them I supported the filing wholeheartedly and am proud to see the organization doing the right thing and standing up against a SLAPP suit, even if (perhaps especially because!) I disagree with what CCDH says.
The filing, written by the amazing Kendra Albert, makes some key points. The original lawsuit was framed as a “breach of contract” lawsuit in a thinly veiled attempt to avoid an anti-SLAPP claim, since ExTwitter will certainly claim contract issues have nothing to do with speech.
But as the Public Participation Project’s filing makes clear, there is no way to read that lawsuit without realizing it’s an attempt to punish CCDH for its speech and silence similar such speech:
By suing the Center for Countering Digital Hate (“CCDH”), X Corp. (formerly Twitter), seeks to silence critique rather than to counter it. X Corp.’s claims may sound in breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and inducing breach of contract (hereinafter “state law claims”), rather than being explicitly about CCDH’s speech. But its arguments and its damages calculations rest on the decisions of advertisers to no longer work with X Corp. as a result of CCDH’s First Amendment protected activity. In brief, this is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). X Corp. aims not to win but to chill.
Fortunately, the California anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, provides protection against abuse of the legal system with the goal of suppressing speech. X Corp.’s claims arise from CCDH’s protected activity and relate to a matter of public interest, making it appropriate for the anti-SLAPP statute to apply. Indeed, the anti-SLAPP statute’s purpose requires its application to these claims.
No doubt recognizing this, X Corp. seeks to do through haphazardly constructed contractual claims what the First Amendment does not permit it to do through speech torts. The harm that the anti-SLAPP statute aims to prevent will be realized if this court allows X Corp.’s claims to continue. The statute provides little help if plaintiffs can easily plead around it.
Indeed, X Corp.’s legal theories, if accepted by this court, could chill broad swathes of speech. If large online platforms can weaponize their terms of service against researchers and commentators they dislike, they may turn any contract of adhesion into a “SLAPP trap.” Organizations of all types could hold their critics liable for loss of revenue from the organization’s own bad acts, so long as a contractual breach might have occurred somewhere in the causal chain.
X Corp.’s behavior has already substantially chilled researchers and advocates, and it shows no signs of stopping. Since this litigation was filed, its Chief Technology Officer has threatened organizations with litigation because they have commented on X Corp.’s policies in a way that he dislikes. And on November 20, 2023, X Corp. filed another lawsuit against a non-profit organization for reporting its findings about hate speech on X. Organizations and individuals must be able to engage in research around the harms and benefits of social media platforms and they must be able to publish that research without fear of a federal lawsuit if their message is too successful.
Standing up for free speech means standing up against using the power of the state, including the courts, to attack and suppress speech you dislike. As much as I disagree with CCDH’s conclusions and the methodology behind many of its reports, unlike supposed “free speech warriors” cheering on Musk’s lawsuits against the likes of CCDH and Media Matters, I’m proud that an organization I’m associated with is willing to stand on principle and argue for actual free speech.
Hopefully, the courts will recognize this as well. And hopefully more people will begin to realize just how thin and fake the claims of other “free speech” supporters are. Not through lawsuits, but just by seeing what they actually do in practice when true threats to free speech arrive.
Filed Under: anti-slapp, california, elon musk, free speech, matt taibbi, slapp suits
Companies: ccdh, twitter, x
Comments on “Supporting Free Speech Means Supporting Victims Of SLAPP Suits, Even If You Disagree With The Speakers”
Since I know someone will likely jump on this line to say “BuT wHaT aBoUt SoCiAl MeDiA mOdErAtIoN?!” or somesuch: Moderation doesn’t rely on the power of the state, and standing up for free speech means standing up against people using the power of the state to enforce either the deletion or the forced hosting of any legally protected speech on any given platform. The owner of a Mastodon instance should have every right to decide what speech that instance will and won’t host without the government saying “you will host this, you won’t host that, and we’ll fucking destroy you in court if you disobey those orders”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. Whether the censor is governmental or private is irrelevant. TechFilth likes to pretend that it supports free speech, but it does not; it cheers when censorship is outsourced to private non-governmental entities, as long as that censorship is of viewpoints they hate. And when those entities stop that censorship, it posts endless diatribes against the owners making the changes.
Re: Re:
Then explain why morons like you, Matthew Bennett, koby, davec and Hyman Rosen are still around, you delusional dillweed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Part of that pretense is to allow our comments here (with petty harassment in moderation queues and such) while cheering on the large generic speech platforms that censor viewpoints that the site owner hates, and relentlessly posting criticism when those sites change their policies to no longer do that. The number of commenters here is maybe in the tens; on the large generic speech platforms it’s in the hundreds of millions.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fuck off Hyman, you aren’t welcome here but just can’t stop forcing yourself on other people, can you? Just like any rapist.
Re: Re: Re:2
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
You can’t provide even a single piece of evidence to back up your delusional lies, hyman.
Re: Re:
🥱
Re: Re:
If I own a blog that has a comments section, I have the right to censor comments, and that’s me exercising my free speech. I get to choose what I want in my comments section. You can disagree with my choices, but I still have the right to make them.
Re: Re:
The illiterate “moderation is censorship because it suppresses speech!” lie originates solely from both entitlement and irrationality.
Let’s say a person’s unrestricted ability to speak is defined as a baseline “speech value” of 1.0. By being offered the privilege of borrowing another’s speech platform a speaker can, let’s say, expand their speech value to 5x. Have multiple platforms open? Let’s say your speech value is 25x.
The entitled and irrational believe that any withdrawal of these conditional privileges whatsoever (e.g. A platform saying “You broke our rules so you’re no longer allowed on our private property.”) so as to bring one’s current speech value value under this maximum potential, even say 24x, is “suppression” of speech.
In reality, free speech remains fully intact and unsuppressed until it drops below that baseline value of 1.0 (i.e. the government saying “You are not allowed to say this anywhere.) Matthew, Koby, Benjamin, Hyman, BDAC, etc. lying that moderation is censorship is a malicious, disingenuous twisting of language that misleadingly conflates loss of privileges with loss of a hallucinatory “right to post” the sole intent behind which being to support the loss of the actual Constitutional and free speech rights held by platforms.
It is impossible to truthfully claim to support free speech rights while simultaneously opposing moderation.
Re: Re: Re:
They’d also, in years and decades past, throw hissy fits over newspapers and magazines not printing their letters or whatnot; they might’ve also yelled about their local Talk stations not putting their calls on-air.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You very literally do not understand what the word “censorship” means.
No it doesn’t have to be “total”, no it doesn’t have to be done by the state.
You’re just wrong. (also an idiot)
https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship
Re: Re: Re:2
I see you didn’t actually read and understand what you quoted, why am I not surprised. You also conveniently didn’t include the second paragraph which gives the complete context for your quote.
Your post is rated as: Blustering idiot make a false light claim.
Re: Re: Re:2
That block quote doesn’t say what you think it says, Matty.
But I’m not surprised that you yet again brilliantly display your complete lack of literacy.
Re: Re: Re:2
Counterpoint:
https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-supreme-court-only-you-can-protect-free-speech-online
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-congress-university-presidents-dont-expand-censorship-end-it
Counter-counterpoint: Here is the same organization calling for not expanding “censorship” on college campuses, including private colleges like Harvard.
It’s Humpty-Dumpty-ism. When you like it, it’s not censorship. When you don’t, it is. FIRE was wrong in its amicus brief to say that what the platforms were doing was not censorship; perhaps they just thought they were stating their claim more strongly by saying that. What they should have said is that private platforms are allowed by the 1st Amendment to censor as they wish. Calling that editorial control and not censorship is a meaningless distinction. What matters is that someone was silenced. Private entities can do that, but the government can’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
Except it isn’t, and you know this, but you want to make that distinction meaningless so you can keep pushing the Overton window towards the argument you really want to make: “Moderation is censorship, and since censorship is against the law, we should make moderation against the law and institute a right to free reach.”
Were they, though?
Re: Re: Re:4
Being moderated, that is told to go and say what you want elsewhere is not censorship, as you are not being silenced. Being told to take down a post, and not to post it anywhere, by threats or actuality of lawsuits is censorship, as the person targeted is being silenced.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Nobody cares what you straight trash have to say. You’ve had your time in the spotlight for thousands of years, and chose to waste it on stupidity.
Get fucked.
Re: Re: Re:
Moderation is not censorship. Moderation controls the form of comments; censorship controls their content. It is not a violation of free speech for a private speech platform to moderate based on spam, topicality, or decorum.
Re: Re: Re:2
How long did you have that copypasta sitting in the microwave after reheating it?
Re: Re:
Are you willing to host a sign on your property that calls you a pedo?
Re: Re:
Techdirt allows anonymous posting, and so has to put up with people like you who hate the site, and shit the place up. A normal person would go and find a site they like, and ignore those they dislike. Further you continuous ranting about moderation being censorship show that you are anti-free speech, but rather want to make you views the only acceptable views.
Re: Re:
“Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls.”
Got it. So you think that anyone should be allowed to say anything at anytime, anywhere and it should not be taken down by anyone. That would be a version of free speech. It would not be the version of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. By your standard, someone could post about what pedophiles do in detail, or discuss abortion, etc on a website for young children and have the right for it to remain on the website.
Re: Re: Re:
” So you think that anyone should be allowed to say anything at anytime, anywhere and it should not be taken down by anyone”
No, not at all. Just look at any of the right wing websites and whether they censor the comments there. These people are full of shit and are not to be believed – ever.
The crazy crapola has begun its pivot toward center in anticipation of the upcoming election. They are liars.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
No. Dedicated-topic forums should moderate for topicality. Moderation is not censorship, and sites should moderate for spam, topicality, and decorum.
Re: Re:
So you believe that adults should be allowed to post porn, obscene, illegal, and even criminal content on websites designed for children, and that children should be able to see and access such content? Because that’s what your saying.
Re: Re: Re:
Hyman Rosen has actually defended posting CSAM on the site formerly known as Twitter (knowwn as ExTwitter around here).
So…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
No. Such sites should moderate posts for topicality and decorum.
Re: Re: Re:2
Which is exactly what they’re doing: moderation for decorum.
Re: Re:
So, Hyman.
Does that also mean CSAM is legal, as well as death threats and insurrection, as well as attempts on your life?
Because under your bullshit definition, those are allowed and recommended speech, especially when you’ve so vigorously defended them…
Like you say, fuck around and find out.
Re: Re:
it cheers when censorship is outsourced to private non-governmental entities, as long as that censorship is of viewpoints they hate
Right on! We should keep censorship in the government where it belongs so that they can censor porn because of shitty parents unable to control their kids’ access to it.
Was that the freeze peach you were blabbing about?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
For the 27th time, you are completely wrong about what the word “censorship” means.
Nothing about it requires the use of state power, it need not be total throughout all of society, it can be in just one place, and yes, nearly all moderation is censorship. (you could argue Community Notes is “moderation” but it’s not censorship because it doesn’t silence the original speech, as a counter example)
The 1A prohibits censorship by the government. That means censorship by private parties is (usually) legal, but nothing about that means it’s only censorship if it’s done by the government, and if you are this easily confused about that distinction you’re an idiot.
You are either an idiot or lying, on purpose. Pick one.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship
Re: Re: Re:
See the bolded part, Mr Brainiac? The keyword in it is imposing, do I have to explain in small and simple words to you what it means to impose personal political or moral values on others?
Telling people that their conduct isn’t welcome on someone else’s private property doesn’t in any way impose anything on those it is directed at except that they should fucking behave or GTFO. Nobody are forcing these low-IQ dregs to change their beliefs or politics, but they sure as hell aint welcome everywhere either if they can’t behave in accordance with any rules a property owner has laid down since the owners is the final arbiter what is acceptable or not when on their property.
The irony of your argument is that demanding that speech you like must be carried by others, that is what I call imposing personal political or moral values on others.
I doubt you understand the distinction because so far you haven’t shown to possess the ability of self reflection and the mental fortitude to re-evaluate your position based on new information.
Re: Re: Re:2
That has much in common with the mentally deficient delusion that anybody was “forced” to get covid vaccine or a mask.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
When a site refuses to allow someone to speak based on the viewpoint of their opinions, the site is imposing its values on the speaker and forcibly silencing them. The ability of the speaker to speak elsewhere is irrelevant. That is pure censorship.
Re: Re: Re:3
“the site is imposing its values on the speaker”
This is absolute bullshit. Your “values” remain intact and unaffected you poor little person. What is it that scares you so about having others critique your opinions?
Re: Re: Re:3
…said nobody literate, ever.
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re forgetting the three last words to that sentence, and it’s because they make your argument obsolete. Those words: “on that platform”.
No one has the right to commandeer someone else’s private property—in cyber- or meatspace—and turn it into a soapbox for their personal bullshit. If the owner of that property tells someone to fuck off, they’re not silencing that person everywhere…
…and to believe that losing a social privilege is the same thing as losing a civil right is to believe in the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
Re: Re: Re:4
This whole argument with these morons is a pointless waste of time. They’re obsessed with the word ‘censorship’, no matter what the context or application is. They’re not intellectually capable of separating government-forced suppression of speech from private SM moderation. If we decided to humor them and agree that moderation is actually a form of censorship, they’d be like the dog that caught the car. They still wouldn’t be able to make a cogent argument against private websites deciding who they want and don’t want to host. They still won’t concede that no-assholes policies maximise the amount of free speech by attracting more users, because they are the assholes.
Re: Re: Re:3
The ability of the speaker to speak elsewhere is irrelevant. That is pure censorship.
Bullshit it is. If I end up kicking your stupid fucking ass out of my house, but you can’t say what you said anywhere else, that’s YOUR problem. And if you think that means you were ‘censored’ go complain to the manager, Karen.
Re: Re: Re:3
That argument comes from a stupid asshole’s pure entitlement. That you can’t learn that sites have rules that you can’t follow is entirely on you, and they also have the right to decide who and what they want to be associated with. Telling you that you aren’t welcome isn’t in any way them imposing their values on you, it’s them telling you that your values aren’t welcome and you are can take them elsewhere.
Says the social media rapist who can’t stop himself from forcing himself on others against their will, aka forcing your values on others.
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
Which means that censorship by anyone else is constitutional, since they aren’t the government. Anything that isn’t explicitly denied is permitted.
Post it a few more times – show us Dunning-Krueger up close, idiot.
Re: Re: Re:2
If I chase a belligerent asshole out of my house because said asshole was trying to spread their insurrectionist filth on me, it’s not censorship unless I sue them to shut the fuck up, or worse, use their tactics against them.
If I sue them to ensure they can never spread their insurrectionist filth ever again, that’s censorship.
Moderation is “you can’t say that here“. Censorship is “you will not say that ever“.
Re: Re:
Projection like this is probably visible from space.
Re: Re:
…at which point the word loses all meaning. Private property rights exist. Freedom of association exists. Saying “we don’t want that talk here” is also free speech.
If your problem with “censorship” is that people other than you also have rights, then it’s hard to take someone so immature seriously.
Re: Re: Re:
“If your problem with “censorship” is that people other than you also have rights, then it’s hard to take someone so immature seriously.”
Oh it may be worse than that, some racists consider those they oppress to be non human.
Okay, so basically (since I’m not a lawyer), if the court recognize the two suits as SLAPP, they would be dismissed, and next SLAPP lawsuits would be also to provide more freedom for future analysis of Twitter to go public because they would be less legal threats.
Is that decision would prevent chilling by reducing the possibility for Twitter to throw more new lawsuits, or that it just gives some less credibility for the next Twitter lawsuits?
Because someone could be enough stubborn (and rich) to make lawsuits raining until he’ll win, then use it to silence using intimidation (just like he’s currently doing).
Re:
So, it’s a little more complex than that. California’s anti-SLAPP law can apply to the CCDH case since it’s in a California federal court. If CCDH wins it means not only is the case dismissed, but that ExTwitter has to pay their (considerable, I’m sure) legal expenses.
The Media Matters case, currently, probably cannot make use of an anti-SLAPP law because the case was filed in a Texas federal court, and the 5th Circuit has decided that Texas’ anti-SLAPP law cannot apply in federal court.
But the end result if they were available is threefold: (1) Pauses any discovery (part of the super expensive part of the process) (2) Gets case dismissed quickly and (3) Makes the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal fees.
It might also make it easier in future cases, but that’s less of a focus. Having a record of having been dinged for filing SLAPP suits certainly won’t play well on future ones.
Where it starts...
Free speech is when you defend someone else’s Right to say something that you find utterly offensive.
Re:
Free speech is when you support someone else’s ability to say something you disagree with.
It’s also when you support the targets of that speech to react, with more speech or by refusing to associate with those people.
The problem is some people forget that second part. You’re free to be a dick. Everyone else is free to tell you that you’re a dick and to GFTO of their space.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Correct. For example, the woke filth has every right to accuse Israel of genocide, and pro-Israel organizations have every right to identify those speakers and make sure that their opinions are forever known and associated with them.
Re: Re: Re:
And on the flipside…
This also means that we get to associate you, Hyman Rosen, with the words you also explicitly said.
And as far as we know, you have defended Zionism, CSAM, white supremacy, violence on the homeless, violence on minorities, violence on anyone who isn’t a Nazi supporter like you, insurrection…
I mean, you did say fuck around and find out..
Re: Re: Re:
and the trump stench will forever be smelt upon those who support the asshole.
Re: Re: Re:
“the woke filth”
Yes folks, you heard it here first .. from an anonymous coward comes the earth shattering news that being self aware is filthy.
Film at eleven, after you take a bath you filthy coward.
Re: Re: Re:
Until recently I would’ve found it hard to imagine people resorting to actual Nazi language to describe those who object to the indiscriminate killing of nearly 18,000 people (so far), but here we are.
Wow, you guys pivoted pretty hard on the whole cancel culture thing. Don’t let anyone ever accuse you of consistency!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Well the probem is you have no idea what a SLAPP lawsuit is.
Media matters lied, in very material ways, and the defamation lawsuit has merit.
So maybe what you’re saying would have merit if you knew what a legitimate defamation case looks like, but obviously you do not.
Re:
You mean the defamation lawsuit Xitter threatened but didn’t file?
Re:
Maybe one day you people will let us know what those were. The problem with the likes of you is that you’ll claim to have more knowledge than others, but never go as far as to share said knowledge. Usually because you know it’ll be torn to shreds the second you supply something verifiable or falsifiable.
Re: Re:
Those people do not argue from a position of knowledge, but rather from the viewpoint they want to be true, and therefore they invent reason why what they argue must be true, hence all the argument without any backing evidence, and the strait up ignoring of facts.
Re: Re: Re:
I know that, I just like poking to see if they’ll realise it or at least offer a reasonable retort.
One of the common themes of the last few years is a claim of knowledge and evidence, but the inability to provide them. I know they’re not arguing in good faith, but I like to make that clear to anyone who might be passively watching.
Re: Re:
“Maybe one day you people will let us know what those were.”
Oh, it’s easy for proof to be found if you use the tried and tested deductio per anum method
Re:
See, for that to be true, X would have had to have actually filed a defamation lawsuit. But there are three claims in the complaint, none of which are defamation. And none of which say that Media Matters lied.
Obviously, you want to believe that, because that’s the only way you can justify your continued devotion to the cult of Elon Musk, but the cold hard facts of the complaint itself says you’re full of shit.
Re:
Re: Re:
Damn it, fucked up the post.
Then why does the lawsuit say that the reporting was factual and accurate?
It’s not a defamation lawsuit, and even if it were, no, it wouldn’t.
Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
…said the pot to the first-hand victim of an illegitimate SLAPP defamation lawsuit.
Re:
Keep shilling, Matt, I’m sure Elon’s going to develop a taste for men eventually. Love wins!
Re:
Dude, not even X believes you!
Re:
Point to anything they said (not vaguely implied, but actually said) that is denied as fact in Elon’s complaint.
'Free speech is when I get to say whatever I want wherever I want!'
When Elon filed his recent ridiculous SLAPP suit against Media Matters, it was noteworthy (but not surprising) to me to see people who not only claimed to be “free speech supporters,” but who made that a key part of their persona, cheering on the lawsuit, even though its only purpose was to use the power of the state to stifle and suppress free speech.
If your support for free speech is entirely contingent upon whether or not you agree with/like the speaker you don’t actually support free speech, you just support your ability to speak.
If that is also paired with filing and/or cheering on lawsuits meant to silence others for saying things you don’t like you expose that you not only don’t support free speech you outright loathe the concept.
This is one of the many things that drives me nuts about the far right these days. They scream endlessly about free speech and how oh so oppressed they all are because everywhere they go, they are running up against so-called “Liberal bias” or whatever the grievance is. Yet, when it’s speech they disagree with getting taken down, they cheer and celebrate like it’s either the best thing in the world or totally hilarious and justified.
In the end, a number of them will only ever really mean that when they talk about free speech, they mean only speech that they agree with (which is definitely not free speech in that context). God forbid you ever have to explain this basic concept to some of them. They’ll either look at you clueless and say “I don’t get it” or accuse you of being part of the “woke mind virus”, whatever the blank that means.
During the last Canadian election, I ran an analysis of different political party platforms, analyzing how their party says they’ll handle the internet. I even did one for the People’s Party of Canada which is a party of right wing extremism. In their platform, they talked a big game about being the only party that respects freedom of speech, yet, a few pages over, also said that they want to shut down anyone defending the environment, criminalizing such activity. That is the exact opposite of free speech and is the exact same kind of right wing hypocrisy I’m seeing in this article.
It’s all so very annoying.
Re: 'You have all the free speech you need to agree with me'
It’s a matter of them using a very particular definition of the term where ‘free speech’ only covers speech they agree with, includes not just the ability but right to say whatever they want wherever they want, and perhaps most of all results in absolutely no consequences whether actions or opposing speech for anything they say.
As for accusing everyone else of hating free speech and calling themselves champions of it, well, every accusation a confession, every self-given label a rejection of.
Re:
“Freedom” in this context really just involves a supposed freedom to conform. Heck, it sometimes comes across as a secularized form of dominionism.
Re:
I am so sorry that you had to suffer through Harper.