‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Is Also ‘Libel Tourist, Vexatious SLAPPer’ Elon Musk
from the fucking-hypocrites dept
We’ve already talked a bit about Elon Musk’s obvious censorial bullshit lawsuit against Media Matters. It’s quite obvious from the lawsuit that his intent is to intimidate critics and suppress speech about hateful content on ExTwitter. So far, it’s not working, as that lawsuit seems to have inspired more people to find more ads next to more hateful content. It’s also exposed just how many of the ‘free speech’ supporters who cheer on Musk’s every move are a bunch of hypocrites, as they’re now supporting a lawsuit to silence speech.
Incredibly, it seems to be getting even more ridiculous.
Over the weekend, Musk famously reinstated conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, despite early on promising never to do so. On Sunday Jones and Musk did a Spaces together (with a bunch of other nonsense peddlers), in which Musk again (1) insisted that his support for free speech was why he reinstated Jones, and simultaneously (2) that he’d not just continue to sue Media Matters over its free speech, but that he’d sue them in “every country that they operate,” and (3) that he’d sue “anyone funding” Media Matters. His reasoning? That “Media Matters is an evil propaganda machine” that “can go to hell.”
Yes. At the same time he not only was re-platforming and joining an online panel with Alex Jones, one of the most infamous propaganda machines ever, he’s claiming that Media Matters needs to be sued out of existence for being a propaganda machine.
The claim that he’d sue MMFA in “every country” seemed odd, given that the “A” in MMFA is “America.” Media Matters for America is pretty focused on the US. However, soon after that came out, I found a (very light on the details) report that ExTwitter has already sued Media Matters in Ireland as well.
Unfortunately, as of right now, I can only find that single news report about it, and no links to any details to look over, but:
X, FORMERLY TWITTER, has taken legal action in the Irish courts against a US media monitoring site.
Court papers filed this week show that Twitter International Limited Company, the name of its Ireland-based entity for operations, has taken legal action against Media Matters for America.
That’s basically it as details go. A search on the Irish court website does note that a filing has been made, but there’s no complaint. Just a “plenary summons.”
But, um, what the actual fuck?
What kind of “free speech absolutist” decides to go on a libel tourism trip to Ireland, filing a clearly bogus vexatious censorial lawsuit over an issue between two US-based organizations that had fuck all to do with Ireland?
It’s unclear what kind of impact this would have. While jurisdiction for defamation claims works differently in the EU (assuming he even is filing a defamation claim, which he didn’t actually do in the US), assuming MMFA has no operations or assets in the EU, it’s not clear if such a lawsuit can actually do anything. Worst case, ExTwitter wins… and then is blocked from enforcing it in the US thanks to the SPEECH Act (another law that actually protects free speech, which Elon is seeking to undermine).
As for the claim that he’s going to sue funders of MMFA, well that’s equally censorial. It’s an attempt to intimidate donors and silence their speech as well. While there are some exceptions, if the donors are somehow actively involved in a particular tort, the idea of suing donors to a non-profit because you don’t like the (admitted as true) speech of that non-profit is… so extraordinarily ridiculous and censorial that it seems very open to getting sanctioned.
For what it’s worth, it also seems to be backfiring. On social media, I’ve seen a bunch of people who had never donated to MMFA before tossing $10 or $20 their way and then posting the receipts in Elon’s mentions, asking if he’s going to sue them.
Elon Musk is not a free speech absolutist. He’s not even a free speech supporter.
He’s a vexatious, anti-speech litigant, eagerly abusing and exploiting the courts in an attempt to silence and suppress voices that criticized him and his companies.
Filed Under: alex jones, donors, elon musk, ireland, libel tourism, slapp
Companies: media matters, twitter, x
Comments on “‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Is Also ‘Libel Tourist, Vexatious SLAPPer’ Elon Musk”
Not my joke: Elon may have broken Twitter, but we can take some comfort in the fact that Twitter broke Elon.
Re:
Sorry, assumes Elon was not broken to begin with.
Re: Re:
Sadly true. The major outcome of the whole Twitter fiasco was to reveal how his other companies have achieved things despite his involvement, not because of it.
Re:
And soon, Elon and Twitter will be broke.
Just shows that Elon has no personal friends left
A friend would tell him that his behavior makes no sense and he needs to get a grip. Kind of a King Lear reenactment.
Re:
He just prefers being worshipped.
Re:
How would that go?
I have three daughters: SpaceX, Tesla, and X(Twitter). Which of them loves me most?
SpaceX: “What if the rockets didn’t destroy infrastructure at launch and survived to orbit?”
Tesla: “How does marketing an electric vehicle to those that anticipate the collapse of society (and therefore the electrical grid) make sense?”
X: “I will always love you, provided you make loving you the sole qualification for posting/employment.”
Re: Re:
For all of Musk’s many legitimate issues, exploding rockets is not one of them. Anybody with a passing interest in rocket development knows this is very common and every single entity that has tried has blown up plenty of them. There’s a reason for the expression “It’s not rocket science”; rocketry is f’ing hard.
Re: Re: Re:
Rocket science isn’t particularly hard, rocket engineering on the other hand…
Re: Re: Re:2
Perhaps riding controlled explosions into orbit is old technology in need of replacement. Can’t go to mars anyway, it is a fools errand.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s more important for our planet right now to replace the use of controlled explosions for moving cars forward on streets.
Re: Re: Re:3
Don’t encourage him. Just say it’s hard.
Re: Re: Re:3
Standard rocket engines aren’t really controlled explosions, hell, even combustion engines aren’t, if there’s explosions [detonations], it’s a problem. What IS real explosions for rocket propulsion is the old Orion Drive from late 50’s early 60’s which very unfortunately they discontinued. It proposed using repeated atomic bomb blasts, each bomb about the size of a coffee can. It almost certainly would have been successfully developed and we’d probably be mining asteroids now if they had kept at it. They managed a test flight with conventional ‘bombs’ that looked really promising. The guy running the project, Ed Taylor, once lit a cigarette with an atomic bomb.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Standard rocket engines aren’t really controlled explosions”
It depends upon ones definition in use at the time.
fwiw: There have been enough instances of this phrase in use over the years to say it is a household term.
“using repeated atomic bomb blasts”
Not sure about this .. perhaps there is a better way to achieve ones goal?
Re: Re: Re:5
A rocket engine is controlled explosions? If you want to call it an explosion, it would be ONE explosion, not a series of them. BUT, explosion has a real definition and while definitions are by usage, that’s not true when you’re in a technical discussion which this one is and that should be clear. A constant flow of fuel and oxigenator that burns is NOT an explosion, far from it, in fact, if it started ‘exploding’ it would likely destroy the rocket.
And what’s wrong with using nukes to propel rockets in space, an environment already harsh due to radiation of various kinds? It boggles my mind that anyone objects to this. We really could very likely be mining asteroids if they had continued with the development. Is there a better way? Sure, all kinds of ways we ain’t figured out yet. That’s why it’s sad they didn’t figure out how to do the Orion Drive, they could have by now, you can’t say that about other tech.
Re: Re: Re:6
There is also the NERVA nuclear rocket which they started testing in 1964 and that had a specific impulse a bit above 800.
Re: Re: Re: Rocketry
“Rocketry is hard” – True, but don’t confuse difficulty with stupidity.
How many Mercury, Gemini, Apollo/Saturn mission boosters failed? Zero.
How many Shuttle missions failed? 2 out of 135.
Some of rocketry is hard, some isn’t. Rocket scientists and engineers have known for OVER 75 YEARS now that a thrust deflector or flame bucket is REQUIRED for even relatively low-powered rockets to avoid damage to launch structures and the booster itself.
That Musk’s SpaceX minions thought that launching such a powerful rocket without a flame bucket of some sort can only be described (by anybody with a passing interest in rocket development) as “idiotic”.
Re: Re: Re:2
How REAL rocket scientists (and rocket engineers) do it (from the link provided):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKtVpvzUF1Y
Re: Re: Re:3
One of my faves.
Re: Re: Re:2
There were plenty of failures during development of those programs though. I strongly doubt there’s been a single rocket program that didn’t have multiple failures during development. The point is to have stopped doing that before the actual missions start.
Absolutely agree on the Starship launch tower debacle though. I guarantee that decision was driven by Elon’s hubris and against the advice of engineers.
Re: Re: Re:2 420, Beavis, heh heh
I only vaguely remember the details, so this might be off, but I recall reading that Elmo ignored some recommendations for ways to mitigate the damage of takeoff because he really wanted to launch on April 20 — 420, and weed jokes come before success
Re:
When do we get to fast-forward to the part where Elon Musk holes himself up in a hotel room and hoards jars of urine?
Re: Re:
I was hoping he would go to Mars and we would not let him come back.
Re:
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is, to buy a social network and find it full of people who don’t like you!
If it..
Quacks like a
Walks like a
Flies like a
When is someone going to shoot it for xmas dinner.
Loving free speech to death
Elon Musk is a free-speech absolutist. Let him have the phrase and choke on it.
Absolutists love free speech in the way an abusive family man tells his wife who threatens to take the kids and leave him, “If I can’t have you, no one else can.”
Free speech absolutists love free speech to death. They’ll not only defend the indefensible, but also feed and nurture it to the point where the indefensible will inevitably define the very nature of free speech. In other words, the Nazi Bar problem.
Re:
Yeah ok but,
what about when Elmo censors comments on Xtwitter. That is not free speech for the commenter, it apparently is Elmo free speech. In the Elmo mind, it’s ok when I do it, because that is my free speech which trumps your free speech.
Re: Re:
Losing the privilege of having your speech hosted on his property is not censorship.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes… he has every right to choose who can and can’t use his platform. He then has no one to blame but himself when advertisers leave his platform while they exercise their right to not associate with the people and groups he allows on his site.
Re: Re: Re:
This is true and it is fun to mock elmo.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s even more fun to mock the elmo stans. They cannot wrap their little heads around the idea that people can simultaneously mock elmo for his stupidity, support his right to be stupid and also criticizing him for his stupid hypocrisy.
These are the same stupid people who have screaming like stuck pigs about censorship and who are now cheering on musk banning accounts or just plain sue people that openly criticize him or exTwitter in extension.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, yes it is, actually, but as we’ve discussed you have no idea what that word means.
Re: Re: Re:2
You got anything other than professional contrarianism in your shallow bag of tricks?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ve shared links of definitions almost every week, where is when you shutup, only to say the same dumbshit the next week.
You are literally just making shit up.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship
Re: Re: Re:4
And therein lies the problem with trying to claim that moderation is censorship: Nothing is imposed on anyone whose speech is moderated on a privately owned platform. A Mastodon instance with a rule banning anti-queer speech can ban someone for violating that rule, but it can’t force that person to either stop posting anti-queer speech anywhere else or stop believing in anti-queer ideology. It can only tell that person to leave that Masto instance and never come back. To act like the loss of a privilege is the same exact thing as the violation of a civil right is to display a profound level of ignorance (regardless of whether it’s accidental or willful).
If you truly believe Twitter banning someone for anti-queer speech is censorship and you’re not just being a belligerent contrarian troll for the sake of attention, then you can figure out how Twitter is forcing that someone to stop expressing anti-queer ideology elsewhere or believe in pro-queer ideology. If you can tell me how that’s happening, you go right ahead—but when you figure out that you can’t, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up when grown folks are talking, you sweet summer fetus.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yeah, try the first fucking paragraph, dumbass.
Jesus fuck not everything is about “teh gays”. But, y’know, while we’re at it:
Biological men still shouldn’t be allowed in women’s sports, lest women’s sports cease to exist.
You still can’t make someone bake you a special cake.
No, you still can’t show little kids porn, even when you think the gay porn is really important for some reason.
Grow the fuck up.
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s telling that you skipped over the part of the paragraph that directly contradicts your moronic assertion.
Stop using quotes you don’t understand to support your bullshit claims.
Re: Re: Re:6
As usual, your reading comprehension sucks. Not surprising considering your bloated ego, and I doubt you even understand what I’m referring to since that bloated ego of yours is one massive blindspot.
Re: Re: Re:6
Nothing about that sentence affects my prior comment. Try harder.
Yes, I’m aware. But I chose “queer ideology” for two reasons: (1) Right-wing dipshits seem to think that being banned from a platform for shittalking queer people is the same thing as being forced by the government to never espouse any anti-queer speech (i.e., censorship), and (2) heavily implying that right-wing dipshits are bigots for being anti-queer…
…tends to make them own the accusation without hesitation.
Two things.
FYI: Masterpiece Cakeshop was never forced to make any kind of cake for the gay couple who sued the bakery, and that includes all of its losses in court prior to SCOTUS punting on the issue. (And I know you’ll ask, so yes, no one should be forced by law to express ideas with which they disagree.)
Show me where anyone at Techdirt has ever advocated, clearly and without hedging, for showing explicit hardcore pornography to children. (Hyman Rosen’s expressed support for the creation and distribution of CSAM doesn’t count.)
Take a benzo and clean your room, you Muppet Baby bitch.
Re: Re: Re:6
You can’t say that here is not imposing political or moral values on others, as they are free to say what they want elsewhere. Also that is a bit rich coming from someone who shows every sign that that is exactly what they want to do, and object to moderation because it gets in their way of achieving that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
You are taking that half a sentence out of context. It means by removing the speech.
Again, “free to say what they want elsewhere” has nothing to do with whether it is censorship.
Re: Re: Re:8
Twitter banning someone and deleting all their tweets for violating TOS still doesn’t impose Twitter’s “personal political or moral values” (whatever those may be) on that person. That person is free to keep espousing the exact same speech that got them banned elsewhere and keep believing in the ideology expressed by that TOS-violating speech. Twitter has no way of stopping that from happening; if you have proof that it’s ever stopped that from happening, now would be a hell of a time to actually present evidence instead of giving us childish “nuh-uh to your uh-huh” contrarianism.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Or cuz the FBI said to.
Of course it does. FOr instance they would famously ban people for “misgendering”. (Also happened to be in the TOS, but that doesn’t make it better, it just makes it more formal) That’s a political and moral value. I feel like you don’t know what any of these words mean.
For the 39th time, that has nothing to do with whether it’s censorship or not. I have proven this, many times, and you just go back to “but they can still say it somewhere else” which has nothing to do with anything.
You are quite literally making up a definition and then mocking anyone who doesn’t use your completely wrong definition. Go fuck yourself you’re an idiot comitted to being ignorant.
Re: Re: Re:10
This is a reminder that, according to the so-called Twitter Files, Twitter took no action on more than half the reports sent to it by the U.S. federal government—and that such reports contained no attempts at coercing Twitter to take action, to the point where the reports said Twitter could choose to take no action at all on those reports.
No, it doesn’t. Twitter can tell you that certain kinds of speech are against its rules, but it can’t force you to stop expressing rule-breaking speech on platforms that accept it. Twitter can (to the extent that a corporation/business can do so) express an ideology through its rules, but it can’t force you to accept that ideology outside of (or even on) Twitter—it can only ask you to play by the rules or leave. Being banned from Twitter doesn’t stop you from going to another site and repeating the speech/espousing the ideology that got you banned from Twitter. If you can prove otherwise, now would be the best time to do that.
If you’re going to claim that someone being silenced is censorship and you don’t want to run afoul of the “I have been silenced” fallacy, you have to prove that the silencing of a person on a single platform is tantamount to silencing that person in a way that prevents them from speaking their mind anywhere else. Since you have yet to do that, and since you won’t ever be able to do that, your argument that being denied the privilege of using Twitter is the same thing as losing the right to speak one’s mind holds about as much water as a bucket with no bottom.
You’ve insisted that losing a social privilege is the same thing as being forced to give up a civil right. But you’ve offered no meaningful argument to back up that claim. (FYI: “Nuh-uh to your uh-huh” is not a meaningful argument.) If you want your argument to be anything other than a target for scornful and derisive laughter, you need a better argument—and if you can’t find one, you might want to shut up, because all you’ll be doing is setting yourself up to be even more of a joke than you already are.
Every accusation, a confession.
Re: Re: Re:10
You feel like others don’t know what any words mean because you think your personal, contextual, limited experience coincides with the only possible meanings of those words and everyone else must be wrong. Your grasp of semantics is abysmal. You’ve quoted definitions of words as weak support for your imperious dictations of meaning, but in doing so, you’ve ignored other definitions of those same words that indicate they can be used differently. You’ve failed to grasp that the meanings of words derive from their usage, not from their definitions. Definitions are observations, not laws that dictate what those words can only ever mean. And even if they did, you’d still have people differ on whether a usage fits that meaning.
You also have the other problem in which you want to impose a singular meaning of any word you use, but you’re loose with language and conflate disparate concepts using weasel words whenever it suits you because you want to be able to shift your position to benefit the current argument and pretend you never held a contradictory position. You’ve always been at war with Eastasia!
Re: Re: Re:8
Again, “free to say what they want elsewhere” has nothing to do with whether it is censorship.
So if Twitter goes Chapter 11 because Musk is an excessively successful businessman, then you’re going to be perpetually censored by him, since blubbering about how life has been unfair to you somewhere else (hint: it’s harder when you’re stupid; your parents should’ve told you that) has nothing to do with censorship.
Wrap your empty head around that and go tell Elmo that your ability to be an obtuse asshole is in serious jeopardy. If X folds, your freeze peach is fucked six ways to Sunday, right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
That’s like pretending cuz the cake shop went out of business, they were refusing to bake gay wedding cakes.
You get that’s just about the dumbest argument ever, right? Well, you would if you were smarter.
Jesus fuck that was dumb.
Re: Re: Re:10
You get that’s just about the dumbest argument ever, right?
Look who I’m ‘arguing’ with. I’m doing it for your benefit, not mine, dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:6
Your brain is broken.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve shared links of definitions almost every week, where is when I shutup, only to say the same dumbshit the next week.
FTFY. Again.
You’re welcome, asshat.
Re: Re: Re:2
That reply would have a lot more weight if you didn’t have your fingers in your ears during the conversation.
Re: Re: Re:2
According to you it’s “I’m not allowed to be an asshole here!”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, just cuz you can’t read isn’t an argument
https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship
Re: Re: Re:4
Yeah, just cuz I can’t read is a perfectly legitimate argument
FTFY. Yet again.
You’re on a roll, fool.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s only natural when you use your own definition which is kind of bat-shit insane.
Re: Re: Re:2
If that were the case, Matthew, then I have the right to also enter your house and screech into your ears about property rights, as in, under your definition, as long as I’m not using thst as a pretext to rob you or do something criminal, I’m free to do whatever I want.
That’s the reality of your definition of “free speech”.
But then again, you probably hate property rights too.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, yes it is, actually, but as we’ve discussed I have no idea what that word means.
FTFY. You’re very welcome, asshat.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is the act of the center, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls.
Re:
…except when hating certain kinds of free speech gives them a chance to score brownie points with certain kinds of people. To wit: the GOP, its desire to make colleges into “safe spaces” for “anti-woke” speech, and its current crusade against antisemitism on college campuses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
My brother in christ your party is literally defending genocide and blatant antisemitism in order to not get called Islamophobes.
Perspective: fcuking get some.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not your brother, I’m not a Christian, and nobody looks good in this situation. But Republicans have a unique corner on hypocrisy here because the GOP spent years trying to make colleges respect “conservative ideology” by painting colleges as breeding grounds for “woke leftist radicals” or whatever, only to now decry “anti-woke” speech like antisemitism because doing so gets them brownie points with evangelical voters and gives them an out the next time a deranged right-winger says something antisemitic. Up until the past two months, open and blatant antisemitism has largely been the domain of right-wing nutjobs; that anyone identifying as a leftist is suddenly guilty of espousing it shouldn’t give conservatives a pass on their past refusals to openly and forcefully condemn antisemitism when someone on their “side” says something antisemitic.
And since I know you’ll make a point of harassing me about this in future replies unless I explicitly say something on the matter right now: Yes, I absolutely condemn—without hesitation—any form of antisemitism that comes from the political left. Anyone who is even remotely in my ideological ballpark doesn’t deserve a pass on saying that kind of shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Whoosh
Actually, no. Cuz it turns out liberals are racist af, they are hateful af, you shitheads will preach “tolerance” while openly talking about genocide.
All the “nazis” are on your side and all your ideas are bad, get fucked.
Sure, buddy, and yet you here you are talking about “GOP” is the issue, so obviously you’re part of the problem.
Re: Re: Re:3
Donald Trump is racist as fuck, hateful as fuck, and is openly talking about becoming a dictator. To think “liberals” have a monopoly on being shitheads is to deny reality (which famously has a left-leaning bias).
Most Nazis tend to be authoritarians/fascists, and that road always ends with a firm belief in extreme right-wing political ideology.
I’m talking about how the GOP has discovered a unique form of hypocrisy in re: antisemitism and free speech on college campuses. (Which it has.) I’ve no illusions that antisemitism is unique to the right wing of American politics—just as you should be under no illusions that antisemitism is even remotely exclusive to the left wing, especially given the “very fine people” (read: right-wing dipshits) who chanted “Jews will not replace us” the night before the Charlottesville protest-turned-riot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
None of that is true, but have you heard the hilariously racist shit Biden says, every day?
“Fascist” Just basically means “like nazis” so that’s a tautology, but do you REALLY not realize the Left is totalitarian af?
If you don’t, I think even less of you then I did.
The hypocrisy here is on the Left. Where a KKK outfit as a halloween costume (meaning it’s a joke, you’re making fun of them), banned instantly. Chant “From the river to the sea” very seriously and mean it and you’ll have people with doctorates bending over to make excuses for you.
That you think you can pretend that’s “hypocrisy from the GOP” is fucking hilarious. Sure, I would like to blame my enemies for all my sins too.
That’s the fucking point, you goddamned moron. Because EVERY mainstream conservative condemned that (Trump did too, but whatever) and you dipshits were talking about that for a YEAR.
The last two months there’s been the equivalent of a DOZEN Charlottesvilles EVERY weekend. THOUSANDS of people chanting about how much they hate Jews on the streets of NY, LA, Pennsylvania. And about half of democratic politicians are either trying to defend that or downplay it.
There’s no equivalency here. Your side supports anti-semites and mine doesn’t
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re in denial if you don’t think nazis and anti-semites aren’t currently supporting the GOP.
Nick Fuentes? David Duke? Literally the American Nazi Party has called for support of Trump?
Elise Stefanik, who you are now holding up for exposing anti-semitism literally endorsed the anti-semitic “great replacement theory” that lead to the murder of Jews in Pennsylvania.
Yes, the Democrats have issues with anti-semitism coming out of a few ignorant fools and their misplaced support for Hamas.
But there’s one party that attracts actual Nazis. And that’s your beloved GOP.
Re: Re: Re:6
Don’t forget how Donald Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides” of a protest-turned-riot involving white supremacists/Nazis and people protesting against the bigots. And Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s whole “Jewish space lasers” debacle. And Tucker Carlson’s own support for the “great replacement” theory. And basically every other instance of high-profile antisemitism, including Holocaust denialism and unfounded attacks against George Soros, being connected to the right wing of American politics.
Re: Re: Re:5
Anti-authoritarian anarchism is a traditionally leftist ideology. The only totalitarians on the left are tankie communists and most of the left wouldn’t break bread with them. Also, the Democrats aren’t leftists, except maybe Bernie and AOC and some local and state reps here and there.
Whereas the only supposed anarchists on the right are libertarians and their more extreme buddies, the anarcho-capitalists, who are both so attached to hierarchical capitalism and corporate feudalism that they just want the “freedom” to abuse and enslave others without restraint from a higher authority. They’re micro-authoritarians who just oppose state authority, unless of course they’re in control of the state. Anarcho-capitalism is an inherent contradiction because you have to have authority to enforce property rights and ownership.
Re: Re: Re:3
Sure, buddy, and yet you here you are talking about “GOP” is the issue, so obviously you’re part of the problem.
No need to be such an asshole – I’ve heard there’s fine people on both sides. It came from some orange guy, if I recall correctly. He seemed kinda dim, and a bit of a simpleton, but I think he was republican.
Is that what you meant, dunce?
Re: Re: Re:
your party is literally defending genocide and blatant antisemitism in order to not get called Islamophobes
Free speech entitles them to that opinion, dumbass. An advocate such as you should know that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Legall, I can shout “Heil Hitler” at a protest. THere’s really no argument there. I can also shout “from the river to the sea”.
Also think generally you should be able to say the same on SM, for basically the same reasons, though that’s a lot more controversial. Definitely government can have nothing to do with punishing such speech however.
But I would almost certainly be fired for saying either, and that’s fine. And if I shouted “heil Hitler” I would probably be kicked out of school, too. Fuck, I might be get kicked out of school for using the wrong pronoun.
But shout “from the river to the sea” at a mainstream university it’s all fine.
And that you, dumbshit, thing that the fact I have a problem with that is the problem, and not the fact that it’s true, just fucking insane.
IN short get fucked, you anti-semite. I’m sure you want to show their children some porn.
Re: Re: Re: almost looked reasonable there Mister Bennet
Matty, Matty, Matty
If it weren’t for those last two paragraphs, and my mostly lurking, occasionally commenting here for a couple of years now, I’d think you were actually a sensible person, if a bit misinformed – nobody’s getting expelled from school for misgendering people.
However, I know that when you accuse Stephen T. Stone of wanting to show children porn, it’s because you consider sex ed and acknowledgement of queer peoples existence pornographic, or don’t bother looking into incendiary propaganda from pundits or politicians who do, or pretend to so they can gain power from the resulting anger. After all, no sensible person wants kids being given porn at school, so if they convince you that the leftists/liberals want that, you’ll never consider wht they hsve to say. (To be clear, leftists and liberals are not at all the same group, but you seem to conflate them, like most non-leftists).
I’ve seen your other comments, and I know you’re a bitter, bigoted, hypocritical, and paranoid moron, and that’s if I’m being charitable enough to assume you’re sincere. You keep coming here to argue day after day, and for what? Seriously, what do you hope to achieve here? You’re wasting your life here.
P.S. before you inevitably try to throw around the label of antisemite my way, as you often have to people you disagree with, know that I absolutely have argued publicly agaibst antisemitism, calls for genocide, and support for Hamas, both before October 7th and since then. I am also a Jew, though being part if a group doesn’t mean you can’t be bigoted against it, so that doesn’t matter as much as my actual words and actions.
Re: Re: Re:2
And this is literally straight from the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation playbook. Conservatives have been percolating these talking points into their echo chambers to grow the idea more and more so that when they attempt it officially in government, they’ll already have a base that screams out in support of it.
Re: Re: Re:
But I would almost certainly be fired for saying either, and that’s fine. And if I shouted “heil Hitler” I would probably be kicked out of school, too. Fuck, I might be get kicked out of school for using the wrong pronoun.
Those things are what’s called ‘consequences.’ Your parents should’ve taught you about those too.
But shout “from the river to the sea” at a mainstream university it’s all fine.
Free speech. It’s what you’re advocating for right? I’d expect your freeze peach supporting ass would defend their right to do so.
And that you, dumbshit, thing that the fact I have a problem with that is the problem, and not the fact that it’s true, just fucking insane.
You’re the one who’s always going on about ‘censorship; and the fact that being able to say the same thing somewhere else doesn’t change that.
So what now? Are you for censorship or free speech?
Figure it out before you post another screed and make yourself look fucking stupid again.
Re: Re: Re:
Republicans wanted colleges to become safe spaces for “anti-woke” speech and controversial opinions. Now that such opinions are being spoken, they want to attack the concept of colleges being open to all kinds of free speech because it’ll help them score brownie points with the Israeli government. I know you and your right-wing brethren won’t care about looking like a hypocrite because y’all lack the sense of shame necessary for hypocrisy to actually affect y’all in any meaningful way, but you have to at least recognize it.
Re: Re: Re:
Y’know, you keep saying that the left is being antisemitic when it comes to Israel, but not only do I personally know antisemitic conservatives (including regarding Israel), in my experience, most liberals are not the ones who say “from the river to the sea” and such. That’s just a tiny if vocal minority, and I and many others on the left unequivocally condemn them.
Learn some nuance.
They named him Elon Musk because Lex Luthor was already taken.
“Asswipe”… hehe.
Oh no, I won’t be able to see his face without thinking of this no more.
Re:
As Nicolas Cage said in that Saturday Night Live sketch, “It’s ozz-we-pay.”
Well, if MMFA have no ground in Ireland, the case will simply be dismissed. Now if they have some presence in another country of the EU (or even EEE), this will be out of the court of Ireland jurisdiction so it must be filled in this specific country (even if Twitter have no presence), but then, it could be also dismissed the judge decide that the US laws must be applied (since the “damage” is coming from US).
It may be a desperate move to silent any initiative in EU but most EU countries have tough laws about excessive useless cases that would certainly financially hurt Twitter, without concerning MMFA in any way.
'I support free speech and I'll sue anyone who says otherwise!'
Honestly at this point it’s almost like it’s a challenge. ‘How blatantly anti-free speech can Elon get and still have people believe him when he says he’s a free speech supporter?’
Well if nothing else by his actions he’s showing just how much he and his supporters absolutely loathe the concept of free speech to anyone who might have been confused into believing otherwise, so silver lining I guess.
Re:
Meh. That’s not even in the same league as Trump’s public credulity challenges.
Re: Re:
Isn’t that the horrifying truth…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Cry harder, Mike. Elon’s still never gonna acknowledge your blogging existence!
Re:
Cosplaying as a troll is even dumber than trolling
Re:
No woman will ever acknowledge your existence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Why would that matter to a fag?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I continue to be amazed at how quickly liberals will resort to homophobic insults when attacking someone of the “outgroup”. (fat shaming, belittling, other body-centric insults are also popular) Much quicker, I think, than you’re typical conservative dude.
There’s probably something to that.
I’ve been married many years, btw.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your fake outrage is noted, and put in the shitcan where it (and people like you) belong.
Fool.
Re: Re: Re:2
This person is no more a typical liberal than David Duke is a typical conservative. (Note I said “conservative”, not “Republican”, everyone. These are very different things.) In my personal experience, this sort of thing is no more prevalent among liberals than among conservatives. Maybe you just tend to provoke it more often among liberals than conservatives.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Sure, if you have no idea What SLAPP or Free Speech is
You’re an idiot who knows nothing about the law, Masnick.
Media Matters lied, materially, provably, and while these sorts of defamation suites are notoriously hard to prove, this is one of the more open and shut cases out there.
I notice you don’t gaslight much about Gov agencies violating the 1A in court, anymore Masnick…perhaps because it’s been proven multiple times in court and SCOTUS is even likely to support the remedy? A honest “Journalist” would print a retraction.
The more people donate money to Media Matters just means there will be more to seize. The damages very clearly exceed their networth.
Yeah…you understand that supporting a lawsuit isn’t a defamatory act, right? The lie is. Of course not, you don’t understand ANY of this.
For what it’s worth I see no problem with Alex Jones being unbanned. What’s the accusation? That he says nonsense? If you think people should be banned over that you absolutely do not support free speech But of course you don’t.
What a fucking partisan hack.
Re:
Then why didn’t Elon sue for defamation, and why can’t you provide the evidence of those lies instead of insulting everyone who tells you that Elon’s lawsuit isn’t making a claim of defamation?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
They did, Masnick is just making shit up.
It’s never worth my time digging up citations for you people, but sure, here you go. Please note that unlike Masnick, Dan MClaughlin is actually a lawyer.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/11/media-matters-picked-on-the-wrong-guy/
No no, going to continue to do that, if you think the defamation suit didn’t claim defamation you’re an idiot.
Masnick just makes things up sometimes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Basically the whole document alleges defamation, but probalby the real meat starts at #25.
Masnick is just lying.
https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/X-Corp-v.-Media-Matters-Complaint.pdf
Re: Re: Re:
Apart from the causes of action, which are the important bits.
But sure, keep lying about what the lawsuit actually alleges.
Re: Re: Re:
Do a ‘Find’ in that document for the word ‘defamation.’
Then come back and tell me that I’m wrong and that it’s in there somewhere via coded language, or some other goofball bullshit.
I’m certain a suit revolving around ‘defamation’ would have the word somewhere in the filing, wouldn’t it? It’s a specific legal term with a specific corresponding meaning.
Its absence is pretty clear. Are you trying to distract from some of Elmo’s other ‘problems’ due to his freeze peach:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-musk-twitter-takeover-lawsuit-gains-steam-as-judge-advances-investors-claims/ar-AA1lmdx7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=27e83bc397ca489a889ddaa8ec9bf9f7&ei=46
Re: Re: Re:2
To be fair, the word “defame” appears twice and the word “defamatory” appears once. They’re just used anywhere but the actual allegations.
Re:
Media Matters lied, materially, provably
Musk saying so isn’t ‘provably.’ He’s got to get a court to believe him, so don’t start your victory lap just yet.
and while these sorts of defamation suites are notoriously hard to prove, this is one of the more open and shut cases out there.
Where have I heard that before?
For what it’s worth I see no problem with Alex Jones being unbanned.
Me neither. He’s got to get his tubby ass to work hawking his anti-liberal taint spray so he can pay the millions he owes in judgments against him.
What’s the accusation? That he says nonsense?
That’s the least of his problems. Broke-ass bitch needs to pay his bills, and he can’t do that without jackasses like you being unable to support his grift.
Ha, Mike posting my donation where he immediately critiqued my choice of words: “censorious” vs “censorial”. I’m not a particular fan of MM and they’re not the type of organization I typically donate to, but I do this to support their right to freely speak and criticize Twitter and Elon.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“Critique”? Sure. But the thing about it is that they lied.
Re: Re:
Then why doesn’t Elon Musk’s lawsuit againt Media Matters dispute the truth of their reporting or charge Media Matters with defamation?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It did.
Seriously, Masnick just makes up a lot of shit. Not really a good source of information, dude.
Re: Re: Re:2
Prove it, slime mold.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Prove shit that Masnick himself does not bother to prove?
Interesting.
Re: Re: Re:4
Your argument is that because someone else didn’t provide evidence(even though they very much did), you shouldn’t have to, either?
The width and depth of your intellectual laziness knows no bounds.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m saying there’s nothing to refute. Masnick claimed that the suit didn’t allege defamation but it most certainly did. The complaint had 41 claims prior to requests and nearly every single one alleges defamation, but the meant of it probably starts at #25.
I don’t know what to tell you, Masnick is just lying.
Re: Re: Re:6
My goodness you’re a stupid fuck. You don’t even know what a claim is. The lawsuit has THREE claims, not “41.” You’re so fucking stupid you think each paragraph is a claim? Lol.
That’s not how it works. Paragraphs are not claims. Claims are claims. The lawsuit has three of them.
And none of them are defamation.
Masnick was correct. And you’re a fucking fool.
Re: Re: Re:7
Bratty Matty has on every occasion he talked about a case proven that he lacks basic reading comprehension and that he doesn’t understand legalese even at a layman’s level. Plus, he has the bad habit of quoting things out of context.
All this is built on his belief that he is smarter than everyone else even in fields he have no knowledge of, which makes his every post here a prime display of his Dunning-Kruger.
Re: Re: Re:2
It did not. You can look at the lawsuit. It’s not hard.
There are three claims.
Claim 1: Interference with Contract
Claim 2: Business Disparagement
Claim 3: Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.
Note what’s not there? Defamation. Business Disparagement has some similarities to defamation but is, notably, not defamation (and, even more important, is harder to prove than defamation).
If X were claiming defamation or that MMFA lied, it would have put such a claim in the lawsuit.
It did not. No matter how many times you flat out lie.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You’re just repeating a lot of dumbshit Masnick said. Turns out that’s not true. It’s basically never true.
Re: Re: Re:4
No. I looked up the fucking complaint and literally copied and pasted the 3 claims in the fucking lawsuit you fucking idiot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I suspect you didn’t, but you get that “business disparagement” is just another word for defamation, right?
No, of course you don’t, “you idiot”
Re: Re: Re:6
Media Matters is publishing statements about the social media site formerly known as Twitter that could possibly harm its “revenue”.
They are not trying to defame Elon, you insurrectionist dipshit.
Why do you think he needed lawyers to file this?
Re: Re: Re:6
Cite the part of the lawsuit filing that alleges defamation, Matty.
Though I suspect you’ll refuse(as always) under the guise of intellectual superiority.
Re: Re: Re:6 tell me
No, I do not get that. I know the elements of defamation. What do you think the elements of ``business disparagement” are, and are you sure they are identical to those of libel or slander?
Just for convenience of reference, defamatrion requires unlicensed publication of injurious falsehood. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1,4 (1990). In Florida, the specific words, and their falsity. must be alleged. Hawke v. Broward Nat’l Bank, 220 So.2d 678,679 (4DCA 1969).
We idiots will be fortunate to be educated as to business disparagement by those like Mr. Bennett, who tower over us in so many ways.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Do you? I have now read the entire 15 page document, and nearly the whole thing describes those elements point by point, as well as the “Second Cause of Action” you so scornfully cited. Falsehood, malice, it’s all there.
You are either an idiot or lying. The Complaint alleges and describes textbook defamation in great detail and looks for redress for that.
You are either an idiot or lying. Choose one.
Re: Re: Re:8
Except they keep referring to “X” when mentioning defamation. You can’t defame a company; that’s called business disparagement, you illiterate tool.
So no, the filing doesn’t actually allege defamation.
Re: Re: Re:6
Said the dumb fuck.
Re: Re: Re:6
“I suspect you didn’t, but you get that ‘business disparagement’ is just another word for defamation, right?”
<— practicing lawyer. “Business disparagement” is not, in fact, another word for defamation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
So wish to exemplify the expert fallacy in real time, then? Cause that Cause of Action very much describes defamation, regardless of whether you think that phrase is a synonym (it is, obviously, you’re an idiot).
The entire document details the defamation, that Cause of Action summarizes it, and lists disparagement, monetary loss (damamges), false statements of fact, and malice. (i.e. defamation)
Where are you a lawyer, so that I may make sure I never accidentally hire you? I prefer my lawyers to understand law.
Re: Re: Re:8
My goodness you’re stupid.
If you’re making a defamation claim, you need to actually lay out defamation as a cause of action. Your protests aside, this complaint doesn’t do that.
And it doesn’t do that on purpose, because they know it would get laughed out of the courtroom.
Business defamation has similarities to defamation, but requires different elements. As multiple lawyers in this thread keep trying to tell you.
Where did you get your law degree and can you still get a refund?
Re: Re: Re:8
It doesn’t matter what it “describes”. The cause of action is literally titled “Business Disparagement”.
I know your illiteracy is that of a 1-year old, but come the fuck on.
Re: Re: Re:8
I prefer my lawyers to understand law.
Like how you prefer your doctors working at Tractor Supply.
Fool.
Re: Re: Re:8
Lawyers: “Matty, when you’re in a hole, stop digging!”
Matty: [Throwing down the spade] “Lower me an excavator!”
Re: Re: Re:8
Are you seriously claiming to understand law better than multiple lawyers? And you have the gall to accuse Masnick of pretending to have more legal expertise than he actually does?
No, disparagement and defamation are not the same thing. They are similar, but similar doesn’t mean same. While they share a number of elements, they are still distinct for a reason. Defamation requires damages to an person’s reputation; disparagement requires damages to a corporation’s revenue. Defamation per se (where damages are presumed to exist due to the nature of the actionable statements) exists, but there is no such thing for disparagement; damages must be alleged and proven in a disparagement case.
And yes, when you’re talking about the law, distinctions like these are important.
Re: Re: Re:6
I literally ALREADY responded to that false point in my comment above, you dumbshit. Clearly you can’t even fucking read.
Business disparagement is not defamation. It does have similarities to defamation, but it is categorically different from defamation.
Re: Re: Re:6
I suspect you didn’t, but you get that “business disparagement” is just another word for defamation, right?
And I suspect that you didn’t realize the detail that disparagement is with respect to business property rights, rather than reputation.
So again, you slow motherfucker, you – defamation is not in the claim, despite you wanting it so, so bad. Go cry yourself to sleep now, confident as ever in your stupidity.
Re: Re: Re:2
Elmo’s never even going to know your name bro.
Re: Re: Re:2
That you continue to think we only base our judgments of the facts solely on what Mike Masnick says shows that you seriously can’t comprehend the idea that other people might reasonably disagree with you based on the original complaint.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Funnily enough, Masnick, a guy who barely matters, isn’t gonna know yours either.
Re:
It’s almost like that’s part of the point of posting AC, dipshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yeah, dipshit, and I’m making fun of you for it.
Re: Re: Re:
For not seeking Masnick’s attention like a fanboy?
Re:
Yo Matthew dude.
Do you charge by the hour or the post? You’re good. You derailed these arguments without even breaking a sweat and kept them all running around in circles. Damn sweet work dude.
I got a job you’d love, and we’re paying by the post AND by the hour and its Auntie Tran.
Contact: stikitooem@lonely.org an
Sigh. When you’re a great big billionaire who has been paid to destroy a functioning social media platform, you don’t just destroy the single platform. You destroy the whole idea of bullshit-free, social-media, because you and your billionaire friends – the ones paying you – want to make it impossible for the general public to ever be able to truly know anything for sure, ever again.
For fun and profit.
And what is wrong with having two kinds of social media networks??
I mean, come on. Even utter and complete fools deserve freedom of expression. And nobody who does not want to, has to listen to any of it. Hmmmm – is that two negatives??
Re:
It would be a tossup whether the second one was shut down within the week(if not day or hour) thanks to illegal content or because it was filled with so much horrendous content from ‘trolls’ that it was utterly useless for communicating.
Even ‘everything goes’ platforms will learn real quick that moderation isn’t optional if you want to keep a platform operational, there must be limits/rules and there must be content removal or you quickly find yourself with a platform where no-one wants to be and/or one that has numerous government agencies knocking on your door to ‘talk’ about.
Re: Re:
Well, yes, the current state of legality does not allow such to exist, because of the rules already in place. The question was more to the point of why should assholes not be allowed to piss and shit on their food as often as they wanted to.
Remove the current laws that restrict conversations to decency expectations and lets see if these kind of social networks can exist. After all, assholes, morons and republicans love to have others repeat and support their bullshit and there appears to be no end to the numbers of folks who would join such Soc.Nets for exactly that reason. Trump proved that part.
And just think, Law Enforcement would have a wonderful time what with all the crazies posting on one network.