Elon Finally Finds A Government He’s Willing To Stand Up To: When The Censorship Demands Target His Political Allies

from the it's-not-principles-when-it-only-helps-your-buddies dept

Over the last few years, Elon Musk has repeatedly said that his definition of free speech means “that which matches the law.”

Image

He says this whenever anyone calls out that he’s not actually the free speech absolutist he claims to be. He regularly and expeditiously caves in to censorship demands, without any protest, from authoritarian governments in places like India and Turkey. When those governments demand Musk remove speech of government critics, his response is to do so immediately (and in the case of India, globally) while insisting that nothing can be done, he’s just following the laws.

However, there’s now a big story brewing in Brazil. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes is demanding the removal of content that was spreading nonsense in support of former President Jair Bolsonaro. This is regarding the Brazilian equivalent of the January 6th storming of the Capitol in the US, when Bolsonaro supporters stormed the Brazilian Congress on January 8, 2023.

ExTwitter originally agreed to take down the content, but Musk reversed that decision.

Image

That’s a post from ExTwitter’s global affairs team saying at 2:52pm on April 6th:

X Corp. has been forced by court decisions to block certain popular accounts in Brazil. We have informed those accounts that we have taken this action. 

We do not know the reasons these blocking orders have been issued.  We do not know which posts are alleged to violate the law. 

We are prohibited from saying which court or judge issued the order, or on what grounds. 

We are prohibited from saying which accounts are impacted.  We are threatened with daily fines if we fail to comply. 

We believe that such orders are not in accordance with the Marco Civil da Internet or the Brazilian Federal Constitution, and we challenge the orders legally where possible.

The people of Brazil, regardless of their political beliefs, are entitled to freedom of speech, due process, and transparency from their own authorities. 

Less than one hour later, Musk announced the decision was lifted.

Image

To be absolutely clear: I applaud this decision by Musk to finally stand up to a nonsense, censorial government demand. It’s about time he did so. It’s just notable that he only seems to have done it when it came in support of Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing extremist. And it never happens when the demands are coming from right-wing extremist governments.

It’s almost as if Musk’s support of free speech is highly conditional. Which is the same thing as saying he’s not a free speech supporter at all. He simply supports those he aligns with politically and pushes back against those he disagrees with politically.

For what it’s worth, we’ve highlighted Brazil’s slip-sliding down the slope of censorship before. We mentioned this very Alexandre de Moraes, back when he was a government minister. Indeed, de Moraes has built up a reputation as a censorial asshat. So I’m glad that someone is pushing back. But it sure does seem quite selective by Musk.

When he says “we follow the laws of the country,” it’s noteworthy when he follows through on that, and when he suddenly pretends to take a stand for free speech.

Meanwhile, Musk made sure to play to his fans who believe he’s always willing to stand up for free speech. He did this by directly replying to de Moraes on ExTwitter asking why he was demanding so much “censorship” in Brazil (de Moraes’ tweet has nothing to do with any of this).

Image

In response, de Moraes announced an “investigation” into Musk.

Musk has said that he will continue to fight this, even if it means having to pull out of Brazil altogether:

Image

If, as Musk says, “principles matter more than profit,” then how does he square that with the fact that he was willing to comply basically everywhere else? Remember, a study from last year found that Elon complied with over 80% of government takedown requests, significantly up from the around 50% under the old regime.

So, seriously, it’s great that Elon is fighting this one particularly problematic judge. But the fact remains that he caves basically everywhere else and throws up a nonsense “we believe in complying with the laws.” Except in this case.

That’s not principles. It’s supporting friends. Which is anything but being a free speech supporter.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: twitter, x

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Elon Finally Finds A Government He’s Willing To Stand Up To: When The Censorship Demands Target His Political Allies”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
253 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Dan B says:

Re: Re: Re:

Free speech is not a suicide pact.

Endorsing speech restrictions is a lot more likely to hurt you, personally, than allowing free speech is.

Whatever laws there are against speech will be enforced by whomever has political power. We have thousands of years of history showing us how “giving people with power the ability to silence those out of power” works out.

Consider the topic of censoring people for spreading election lies. Here in America in late 2020 and early 2021, the country’s military and federal law enforcement were controlled by Donald Trump. He decreed that people who thought Joe Biden had won were liars, fraudsters, and criminals. If the federal government had the power to ban “lies about the election”, people would have been jailed for opposing Trump’s power grab. Most people would never have even been allowed to see the huge piles of evidence proving Trump was a liar.

When it comes to politics especially, unrestricted speech is the only way to go.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If someone truly believes Donald Trump is going to be an authoritarian fascist and use his power to jail or kill his political enemies, for what reason wouldn’t that person be justified in using preëmptive violence to kill Trump before he can win the election, return to power, and use the military/the police to “handle” a hit list of enemies?

Ninja says:

Re:

Not to mention it is not only legal but upheld by a constituent power composed of people of all political alignments at the time it was enacted. It is not targeted at people who spread lies only. It’s targeted at criminals so it is not a slippery slope indeed.

The problem here and with the replies is that they use the US Constitution as the metric and as if the absolute freedom of speech in it is the only way. Other constitutions like the Brazilian and German ones consider that you can speak your mind but you must face the consequences of your speech. And advocating for things like eugenics, racial supremacy and other idiocies like that pose threats to individuals and must not be tolerated.

As much as this approach has pros and cons, the absolute freedom of speech enshrined in the US Constitution has those too. We are actually watching these consequences unfold as the very social fabric of the US is being destroyed by it. I’m not entirely sure what is the right approach but absolute, unrestricted freedom of speech doesn’t seem to be the one. At the very least some speech we recognize to be actively harmful like nazi ideology that preaches the annihilation of those that don’t fit into some idealized concept of human has to be thoroughly blocked (the paradox of tolerance and so on).

Anonymous Coward says:

THIS JUST IN…
Rich guy sticks up for people that he agrees with, and we should hate him because he’s rich (and he doesn’t agree with us)
MORE AT 11.

And no I don’t like electric cars, nor own Tesla stock. No one know when, or even if, the earth’s oil supply will end, so let those who wanna drive gas, electric, and/or hybrid drive what they wanna drive.
Diversification, just like in investing, is vital in energy production and consumption.

THIS JUST IN…
The earth’s oxygen supply is ending. O2RUS stock rises.
MORE AT 11.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Rich guy sticks up for people that he agrees with, and we should hate him because he’s rich (and he doesn’t agree with us)

The issue isn’t that Elon is sticking up for people he agrees with. The issue is that Elon isn’t doing the same for people with whom he disagrees. Defending “free speech” means defending even the people whose speech you hate or find deplorable (e.g., the ACLU sticking up for the civil rights of Illinois Nazis). That Elon isn’t caving on the Brazil issue even as he regularly gives in to censorial requests from authoritarian governments is evidence of his hypocrisy.

As for why people “should” hate Elon: His wealth is one reason, sure, but even setting aside his wealth and his “free speech” hypocrisy, he’s given us plenty of other reasons to think he’s a jackass.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s only jealousy though.

I have no envy or jealousy of Elon Musk. Sure, I wouldn’t mind being at least 1% as wealthy as he is, but I’m more than happy to live my life without being (A) globally famous, (B) at the center of several legal controversies, (C) openly mocked by millions of people every time I post online, do an interview, or have a legal deposition made public, and (D) someone who thinks himself a genius only because of privilege and wealth.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

NerdyCanuck (profile) says:

I don’t know what to think, whether this Judge is overreacting or not, (for example have there been death threats against him and other members of the judiciary? or even violent acts since the Jan 8 insurrection?? etc.) but I DO know that the situation reminds me of the paradox of tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.[2]

It seems that this is the fundamental flaw at the very basis of the American concept of free speech and thier 1st Amendment… which is a shame because it’s such a powerful and freeing construction otherwise.

Also, Germany is the prime example of a country that is now extremely intolerant of intolerance, in the way that it outlaws being a Nazi, whether that’s Nazi speech (including in private), symbols, organizing, politics, actions, etc… a couple years ago they ran a huge sting inside thier own military and police and special forces, to root out and arrest hundreds of Nazis. I can’t even imagine the USA ever doing that, and yet unless they do something to increase their intolerance of tolerance, then the slide down the slippery slope towards intolerable fascism seems inevitable.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

this is the fundamental flaw at the very basis of the American concept of free speech and thier 1st Amendment

If it’s a flaw, it’s a beautiful one. With rare exception, no American can be (lawfully) arrested for speaking their mind⁠—and that includes criticizing the American government. The same freedom that gives racists every right to espouse Hitlerian “blood and soil” rhetoric is the same freedom that gives me the right to call Joe Biden a middling centrist needledick.

The consequence of having the freedom to choose what we can say is that some people will choose to say some remarkably heinous things. The consequence of trying to limit that freedom is that speech you might like will eventually come under fire by the same censors who would ban racist rhetoric. Censorship is a slippery slope⁠—ban one book, one word, one way of thinking, and all the others will come into question sooner or later. The First Amendment is our safeguard against sliding down that slope.

As for tolerance: Try thinking about it as a peace treaty instead of a moral precept.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I read the peace treaty piece. It sounds to me like the people who instigated the coup for a fascist like Bolsonaro, and people here in the U.S. like Chaiya Raichik who use their First Amendment protected speech to steer people toward threats, harassment, and violence to hospitals, drag shows, schools and more, are violating the peace treaty of tolerance that is discussed. After all, “Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn.”

Chaiya Raichik and her followers have broken the treaty and have refused to uphold it multiple times over, and this is thanks to the freedoms provided to her by the First Amendment. She has used her intolerance and numerous violations of the peace treaty of tolerance to propel herself to a political position; a library panel in Oklahoma where she can now help decide which books are acceptable for kids to read in schools. She has caused multiple deaths and much pain for the communities and institutions she targets.

What feasible tools does this peace treaty framework allow people to use in order to push back against and eventually stop Chaiya Raichik from being able to use her First-Amendment-protected-speech to cause so much harm by repeatedly breaking that treaty?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

What feasible tools does this peace treaty framework allow people to use in order to push back against and eventually stop Chaiya Raichik from being able to use her First-Amendment-protected-speech to cause so much harm by repeatedly breaking that treaty?

We already have the tools to push back against her. That they’re the same tools used by Raichik to do what she does is an irony that isn’t lost on me. As for “stopping” Raichik? That would likely require her death. And I want to be crystal clear about this: As much as I would feel a sense of relief and schadenfreude if she were to die tomorrow, I am not advocating, have not advocated, and will not advocate for anyone to inflict actual physical violence upon Chaya Raichik.

Stopping people from speaking their mind isn’t really possible under the framework of U.S. law. Chaya Raichik being able to do her bullshit without being silenced by the government is a consequence of that fact. Someone going to jail for hurting her, no matter how noble-minded their violence may be, is also a consequence of that fact. I’d be happy to hear suggestions on how to stop her, but if they involve using the law or violence to stop her from espousing legally protected speech (regardless of how vile that speech is), I won’t be on board with those “solutions”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

We already have the tools to push back against her. That they’re the same tools used by Raichik to do what she does is an irony that isn’t lost on me.

People have been using social media, news sites, YouTube videos, and more to push back against her for a long while now. Raichik has been able to keep up her follower-base and her campaigns of harassment and hate in spite of well-followed people like Alejandra Caraballo and others cataloging and calling out the false rhetoric she spews.

Counter-Speech-With-More-Speech, the supposed wonder-tool, is not working. Every other country, except for America, it seems, has been learning lessons from history. Brazil is putting the lessons from the coup into practice with what de Moraes is doing. Germany put their lessons from WWII to practice and they have not descended into a dystopian nightmare over the last 80 years. America has failed to learn from the Civil War, and it abandoned its attempt at Reconstruction. More recently, it failed to learn from the events of Charlottesville, the events of the Trump Administration, and it failed to learn from the attempted coup in 2021. History seems doomed to repeat, only on a much worse scale, if we try to keep using this broken tool.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Counter-Speech-With-More-Speech, the supposed wonder-tool, is not working.

So long as she isn’t making actual threats of violence or encouraging others to commit acts of violence, her speech⁠—vile and odious and horrific as it is⁠—remains protected by law. We can’t jail her for what she’s said because that would set a horrific precedent that any future government that is sympathetic to her and her cause could use to jail people who disagree with her (or that government). Assaulting or killing her would be criminal acts, too.

What could possibly be done to Raichik that doesn’t involve the life-altering power of actual physical violence or massive government overreach (including censorship that opens the door for worse censorship)?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

What do you, personally, want people to do that’s currently within the legal bounds in the U.S., that would minimize the harm that Chaiya Raichik and her hateful rhetoric is causing?

Because nothing is working right now. That’s the issue. Nothing we’re doing right now is working. Hospitals, schools, Fitness Gyms, and more are still getting threats. People like Nex Benedict have been murdered because of her. What should we be doing, given that what you say we should be doing is not working?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I don’t have an answer to that. I don’t think anyone does, really. The double-edged sword of the First Amendment and “free speech” is that some people will use their rights to push horrific ideas into the open, and the only real way to fight back (that doesn’t involve censorship or violence) is to push back against such speech with more speech (including protests). I’m not happy about that; I imagine most people would feel the same way. But trying to silence her through either censorship or violence isn’t a solution I’m willing to endorse.

I mean, let’s say someone kills Chaya Raichik tomorrow. (I am once again noting for the record that I do not endorse any act of violence against Chaya Raichik.) Okay, the killer managed to silence her. But that will only turn her into a martyr for her transphobic cause and embolden people like her to seek “revenge” for her murder⁠—possibly by attacking and killing trans people. The violence meant to silence Raichik would only create more violence and lead to a spreading of her message.

No easy, effective, snap-your-fingers-and-fix-everything solution exists to this problem. The solutions that could be offered up often lead to even worse problems down the road. “More speech” isn’t the solution, but neither are “censorship” and “violence”. This problem will always exist; solving it will always be nigh-impossible, especially in a society where a significant part of said society incentivizes the kind of speech espoused by Chaya Raichik with attention and money. I wish I had a solution. All I have is a wish.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

if you can prove it

Assume for a moment that the medical examiner and the cops are telling the truth about Nex Benedict having died by suicide. If that’s true, Nex was most likely bullied into suicide, and the beating he suffered the day before he died (and the response to it by the school administration and the police) was likely a major contributing factor in his decision. It wouldn’t be hard to draw a line from that beating back to anti-trans/anti-queer rhetoric by Chaya Raichik and Ryan Walters, some of which I’m sure Nex heard⁠—from those two assholes and from the people bullying him⁠—in the days, weeks, and months before his death. Now, I wouldn’t necessarily say in this scenario that Nex was “murdered” in the sense that Nex was intentionally killed by a premeditated act of physical violence. But if Nex was bullied and beaten enough to choose to die by suicide, I’d say the people who bullied him⁠—and the adults whose rhetoric inspired those bullies⁠—would certainly have some blood on their hands. If not for that bullying, Nex Benedict would most likely be alive today. His death may not have been a murder, but it sure as shit wasn’t an accident.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Since you clearly lack reading comprehension, I will make it transparent. You alleged that Nex Benedict died from an overdose of drugs, but the only drugs in their system were drugs that can’t kill even if too many of them are taken, meaning that Benedict clearly died from the brain injury they obviously sustained, going by the symptoms they had.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

No. I am affirming how they “feel.”

Just because it isn’t exact doesn’t mean there isn’t a comparison.

Apples and oranges are both fruits, sometimes it makes sense to compare them to each other as opposed to comparing them to a vegetable.

Agreeing with people does make them feel better, even if it is a negative against themselves.

Anorexics and trannies are both talking about how they feel compared to what we see with our eyes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Weird how consistently the law protects fascists and binds marginalized groups. Like it’s all rooted in a document that treated black people as both property and 3/5 of a person.

I’m frankly struggling to see why I should respect any of it. When evil people are writing evil laws, the only actual law is “don’t get caught.”

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

By that logic, one could (attempt to) justify murdering someone by saying “I don’t respect laws against murder because it’s bullshit that I can’t kill people who I believe are fascists trying to take over the country”. The political alignments of the killer and the victim wouldn’t even matter. Hell, Chaya Raichik could kill me and use that excuse because they think queer people are fascists. Justifying lethal violence with “society is unfair” doesn’t strike me as the best way to go about “fixing” that society.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Neoliberals are not “the left.”

“The left” in this country disappeared when Reagan took the stage and the New Dealers died off. Clinton’s “third way” was the final nail.

“The left” in this country has spent half a century racing to meet the right.

Yeah. Liberal complacency has been and is a factor.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I recognize and despise the horror state we’re living in. But other than “preëmptive” lethal violence, the suspension of habeas corpus, or anything else that would upend the entire rule of law that holds together our fragile society, I don’t know how to make things better. I’m just a lone jackoff who believes in only as the absolute last and most desperate resort; if I had the power to change society without hurting people, I would, but I don’t, so I can’t.

And I know someone will come along and insult me for my stance and imply that I’d be one of the people turning their heads when the Nazis came for my neighbors and all that. Coward, hypocrite, enabler⁠—heard ’em before, will hear ’em again. (They might even use one of my furry screen names because they think that’ll scare me into silence or convince me to agree with them.) But I’d rather stand by my principles and refuse to engage in violence unless doing so becomes absolutely necessary than even think of becoming a bloodthirsty asshole who is willing to kill anyone in a MAGA hat because “fascism bad”. If that makes me [insert insult here], so be it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

I’m just curious at what point it no longer becomes “preëmptive,” and whether that point occurs before one is individually surrounded.

Florida has built a pipeline, for instance.

Forced outing in schools > homelessness for lgbtq youth > homeless camps.

Sparkling new. At what point, for a trans person getting dragged down that pipeline, is violence no longer “preëmptive?” For their cishet friends?

As far as I can tell, the answer is “when it inconveniences liberals.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

No doubt. They’re in these same comments trying to paint me as a Tankie. I used to just lurk and watch people more domesticated than me talk about this stuff like it was all academic.

Just from where I am on the political spectrum, though, it’s dismaying to see the left-libertarians and social democrats that comprise Techdirt getting branded as “Neo-Marxists” and whatever buzzwords now pass as thought in the modern GOP/MAGA/Fascist movement. Fox “News” is still reinforcing that. Tucker is the new Limbaugh with better hair, still reinforcing that.

One side is actually killing people en masse. It’s the ones who stopped counting maternal mortality and spun up pipelines from the schools for “homeless camps.” Their worst are represented by the calls to round up queers and liberals. The left-wing foil to that would be calls to round up landlords and MAGAts.

The truth of the matter is it’s not a new phenomenon on social media. All things left-wing, especially and including labor unions, were crushed. All things right-wing were given kid gloves.

Nobody in government is building a landlord > camp pipeline. The queer > camp pipeline is being pioneered egregiously in Florida, with conversion torture in the mix there as well as many other forced-outing states. This is not by accident.

Nobody in the Techdirt comments is calling to round up landlords or MAGAts. Plenty such calls exist in the TD comments regarding queer people and liberals alike.

To be clear, I’m not putting this on TD. I believe thid disparity highlights the Overton window in broader society.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

feel free to explain why preëmptive political violence on a national mass-murder scale would be a good thing

Because that’s what conservatives want to do to us.

We already lost the right to abortion.

Do you really want to risk losing your right to kiss another man on the mouth, Stephen?

Is that the gamble you want to make?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

I will always refuse to endorse the idea of political violence (including mass murder) under any circumstance besides “absolutely all peaceful/non-violent methods have been exhausted and violence is the only solution to this specific problem”. Insults, threats (implied or direct), and the usage of my name (government or otherwise) won’t change that position.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

I could speak a comforting lie and say “absolutely not”. But I can never know for sure if I would’ve stood against slavery back in the day. I live in an age where denouncing slavery is easy, especially for those privileged enough to avoid considering the history and ripple effects of slavery on a regular basis. Saying “I would’ve stood up to the enslavers back then” is a lovely fantasy⁠—but that’s all it is.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

Any further discussion would only result in me repeating myself and, most likely, you continuing to needle me into accepting political violence (up to and including mass murder) as a first-and-best solution instead of an absolute last resort. I’ve said all I need to say. If you feel so strongly that I absolutely must give up my principles and values to support your political ideology, say it through email⁠—I’m not that hard to find. Otherwise, this conversation between us ends here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Unfortunately, we are at that stage where fascism is aging ground internationally, no thanks to the white supremacists exporting their shitty, anti-human ideology outwards.

It is NOT just in Africa.

They have to be stopped. And they’ve already proven they want to commit violent acts to maintain Trump’s fascist rule. If that isn’t an indicator for you to at least learn how to shoot a gun…

While I’ll wait to see what the Supreme Court does, I do not have high hopes, and Roof Koreaning is the least anyone can do if they value their lives.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

As somone who has handled both swords (sharp AND blunt) and firearms, and as the same asshole who you claim “wants to commit violence”…

The Overton Window has moved so far right that violence is now part of the conversation.

Saying that we should learn how to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property is the absolute bare minimum we all should be doing. The enemy, Trump and his white supremacist thugs, are more than happy to commit war crimes, up to and including launching nukes at liberal cities. The nukes might be hyperbole, but the intent was always there.

You, asshole, are the doomer here, and I’d advise you to shut the fuck up with your low-level and frankly childish harassment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The people who think the same way, and for whatever reason feel validated to do the awful shit they want to do because Raichik said a thing, are the problem.

So if you want to do prefrontal lobotomies on everyone who might feel motivated by the “wrong” ideas, not sure what you want to do.

Popular speakers or “leaders” do not exist in a vacuum, and create followers ex nihilo.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

As for tolerance: Try thinking about it as a peace treaty instead of a moral precept.

You may not have noticed, but the treaty is already strained. One side is building up units, and they’re pointing them at us. And some of y’all are more worried about the treaty than you are the units.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Tempting though the idea may be, preëmptive violence against those who are “building up units” won’t solve this particular problem. If anything, such violence would only accelerate their own plans for violence⁠—and if they truly are “building up units”, they’re going to be well-prepared to commit mass violence in the name of whatever cause (or person) they see fit. I don’t know if this problem can ever be solved peacefully. But I know I can’t endorse violence as the solution until it is the only possible solution left.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

what you’re defending is the right to foment a coup

I’m not going to endorse the idea of preëmptively killing, jailing, or censoring people for what we think they might do or for how awful their speech may be.

As was pointed out in another comment, Donald Trump held the Oval Office between Election Day 2020 and Inauguration Day 2021. To endorse the idea of preëmptive action against people whose speech one finds appalling would be to endorse the idea that Trump would be well within his rights at the sitting POTUS to assassinate Joe Biden and any of his supporters within or outside the government in that specific period of time because he found their speech appalling (and because he wanted to stay in the White House). I wouldn’t dare dream of doing such a thing, and I wouldn’t do it if the names in that scenario were reversed.

Yes, I would prefer that the government stop potential coups before they even get off the ground, let alone get as close to success as the one on the 6th of January 2021. No, I won’t endorse an infringement upon people’s civil rights (up to and including extrajudicial execution by the government) as a solution to that problem. Like I said before, I endorse violence only as the absolute last resort after all non-violent options have been exhausted. I don’t believe we’re at that point; I hope we never get there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Florida has a brand new legislative pipeline. School LGBTQ forced outings > Homelessness > Homeless camps.

Is it “preëmptive” for those getting dragged down the pipelines to the camps?

Probably, given the way we whitewash X and King while patting ourselves on the backs for putting them on stamps.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Shannon Vanshoon (profile) says:

Re: Here We Go Again?

but I DO know that the situation reminds me of the paradox of tolerance…

Ah, to save Mike a bit of stress having to deal with this again: use of Karl Popper’s ‘paradox’ should be done carefully, since it’s so easily misunderstood. (Which I admittedly have done myself in the past, including a certain famous picture/comic that is usually the source of the confusion.)

As for the Brazilian court’s decision, as Mike mentioned, disregarding Bolsonaro being a [i]complete bellend[/i], this isn’t the right way to go, so you could say that Musk is right to do this… insofar as he’s potentially ‘required’ to do anything. Not that it changes the main point that Musk is a massive hypocrite, of course, which he definitely is.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The thing about liberals “shooting back” is that it’s not real. The bad guys could come and drag away a liberal’s entire neighborhood. As long as they don’t come for the liberal himself, though, that liberal will never even load a mag.

In fact, when the liberal sits on a jury, he’ll vote to convict the people that did shoot back in defense of their neighbors.

Liberals simply are not coherent enough to pose a credible threat to fascism.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

wants to preemptive violance

I’ve advocated no such thing.

Preemptive violence would not be possible, in any event. The violence from the right is already occurring and escalating. The only question at this point is whether and when liberals will be willing to recognize it as such.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

The violence from the right is already occurring and escalating. The only question at this point is whether and when liberals will be willing to recognize it as such.

We do recognize it. But other than encouraging left-wingers to preëmptively escalate violence against right-wingers to “national-scale mass murder” levels, how do we solve the problem?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Other than the fact that your handwringing is for the law, while the fascists actively use the law to kill marginalized groups?

At what point in Nazi Germany did the liberals finally stop participating? Fascist Italy?

Never. They carried on with their heads down from start to finish, and then onward after.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Other than the fact that your handwringing is for the law, […]

I’m going to stop you right there. I am not stating any position on the larger discussion. I’m asking you to provide evidence for your claims about liberals. Anything that is not evidence (like your opinion on my views even though I haven’t even stated my views) is irrelevant.

At what point in Nazi Germany did the liberals finally stop participating? Fascist Italy?

At what point did those further to the left finally stop participating in those governments? The answer is the same.

And, again, this is irrelevant. You made specific claims. I’m asking for evidence of those claims, not more claims.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

And it never happens when the demands are coming from right-wing extremist governments.

I think you’re giving Musk too much credit for consistency. India and Turkey are led by right-wing extremists, too.

My theory is that Musk has his own custom Magic 8-Ball, except instead of answers like “ask again later” it has ones like “cave immediately”, “get on high horse”, and “do some ketamine”.

Anonymous Coward says:

The problem is the laws differ in many country’s and many country’s have laws that ban speech that insults religion especially in Muslim countrys speech that’s legal in America may not be legal in France the eu or Saudia Arabia
Scotland has a new law that bans speech that maybe insulting some minority groups it could be illegal to criticize the Chinese government if that’s seen as insulting Chinese people

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Punctuation, what’s it good for?

But moving on…

it could be illegal to criticize the Chinese government if that’s seen as insulting Chinese people

The Chinese government will always argue that criticizing it is an insult to Chinese people. There is no down-side to it making such a claim.

In a similar fashion, criticism of the Israeli government has been labeled “anti-semitism” (see: October 7 Hamas attack), though the strictly partisan defenders have been accompanied by citizens (in the US, elsewhere) who don’t grok the distinction. In some cases, nuance has been toxic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The primary reason the nuanced argument didn’t work is that everyone knew it was bullshit. Harvard and UPenn have some of the most restrictive speech codes in the country and routinely punish much less offensive speech than the hypothetical involved. The honest answer would have been “we don’t consider Jews an oppressed minority, so we don’t care what people say about them”, but that wouldn’t have gone over well.

The downside to having no actual respect for freedom of speech is not getting to play the “but free speech!” card when challenged.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

A (highly condititional) Defender of Free Speech(tm)

‘I agree with your speech, therefore I will defend it with my very last breath! Unless that’s going to cost me something in which case you’re out of luck, and don’t even bother asking for even that much if I don’t agree with you or what you’re saying.’

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ninja says:

Free speech isn't absolute in Brazil

Late to the party but important to note that Brazilian Constitution is more like the German than the US one in terms of free speech. It is not absolute like in the US. You can’t (at least in the letter of the law) do rallies supporting nazism, white supremacy and other lunacies we see in the US. And it doesn’t mean it’s censorship even if it seems to be if evaluated with US-centric lenses.

There are more important points that are being ignored as well:
– Musk is accusing Brazilian justice of overreach in requests for user information related to probes into the organized crime, specifically against PCC (basically the equivalent to the Italian Camorra or Russian Bravta). Needless to say all the requests are covered by Brazilian law.
– There’s a dispute over a huge lithium mine recently uncovered and the meteoric ascension of BYD in the electric vehicles field in Brazil and in the world: https://www.intercept.com.br/2024/04/08/seguimos-o-dinheiro-que-movimenta-os-ataques-de-elon-musk-a-alexandre-de-moraes/
– There is evidence of coordinated actions from the far-right both internationally and internally. The supreme court was largely responsible for avoiding a coup recently and ex-president Bolsonaro, the favorite far-right moron in Brazil, is at risk of being arrested over multiple accusations including attempted coup. He is already barred from participating in any election over electoral crimes. Something the US joke of a justice system failed miserably to do.
– Not entirely related but very dear to the far-right, several politicians both elected and from past legislative houses are to be arrested over the political assassination of councilor Marielle Franco. This execution has all the fingerprints from the Bolsonaros and it is a thorn in the Brazilian far-right side and they need smoke veils, distractions to turn the general public attention from this case. It’s in line with other coordinated movements from international far-right players in other moments where they needed to divert attention from damning information.

While there are some procedural issues with some actions from the supreme court, there’s no censorship going on and no overreach. In fact, the supreme court has been correcting early wrongs sponsored by themselves that allowed Bolsonaro to reach office by wrongfully arresting Lula as shown extensively by data obtained by The Intercept and analyzed for authenticity by many traditional news outfits in Brazil.

Gabriella says:

In brazil we have different laws

In Brazil we have different freedom of expression laws, it is difficult to try to understand our laws with a colonialist mind. In the case of the Brazilian storm in the capital, we are ahead of the US in the process, including investigating fake news (which includes “x”) to show how advanced our free speech laws are.

Anonymous Coward says:

Normally, it's Timmy that comes down on the wrong side

Musk is only ignoring it because he wants the far right to win the elections. Which is based upon wanting access to Brazil’s Lithium deposites.

As to the free speech, Brazil doesn’t allow for pink slime, or nazi content. The judge in this case has been part of the clamp down from the jam 8th attempted coup.

Say what you want but it’s normally Timmy that comes down on the wrong side of the law. Absolute “Free” speech leads down the road to snake oil salesmen attempting coups. You complain about Telcom lobbying but side this way is hypothetical.

Tom Larry (profile) says:

Hire Someone To Take My GED

Hire Someone To Take My GED

We provide support for those looking for ‘Take my GED for me’ or ‘Take my TEAS exam’ solutions. Need help with your GED or TEAS exam? We offer services so you can pay someone to take your GED or TEAS exam, hire someone for exam assistance and solutions.

For More Information Visit:
Hire Someone To Take My GED

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »