Monday, November 07, 2022

"I Don't Own Any Boats"

The law according to, you know, the law?

Or Tom Fitton Fantasy Law?

One of these things is not like the other.
I think Elmo should yell more at advertisers. Pwning the libs. And Twitter users. And Twitter users who are advertisers! A two-fer! I think he's been throwing that sink at people. Or maybe he's holding it in reserve as everything but...
He told the Financial Times: “I’m not doing Twitter for the money. It’s not like I’m trying to buy some yacht and I can’t afford it. I don’t own any boats.

"But I think it’s important that people have a maximally trusted and inclusive means of exchanging ideas and that it should be as trusted and transparent as possible.”

Unless there's parody involved!  ("I don't own any boats"?  Is that his idea of a metaphor, or something?) Or advertisers who question the Chief Twit's decisions!

Yes, we're almost back to where we started. And there we are. But does Elmo recognize he is the "extreme antibody reaction" to free speech? Or not? And does he understand neither he nor Twitter is the government, and so can censor whatever the hell he wants on Twitter, because he owns the platform? He can do it, he just want win plaudits for doing it; because somebody is always going to complain. I'm pretty sure that's a publicity still from a Twilight Zone episode where Billy Mumy talks to his dead grandmother on a toy phone. Appropriate, somehow. Then again, so it this: Kind of sums it up; but unfortunately, we can't stop there. I'll stop there to offer a bit of commentary. "Principled defenders of the First Amendment" is one group, and their defenses of the First Amendment are largely misunderstood (sometimes by the "principled defenders"). But there I'm limited the PD's to First Amendment jurisprudence, a thing separate and apart from "free speech" in the common parlance. "Free speech" is not necessarily consonant with First Amendment jurisprudence, and so you get those who champion "the spirit of free speech." Whatever the hell that is.

Mostly, of course, the latter is the general American attitude that we can say what we want when we want where we want.  Social custom restricts us from yelling back at the preacher in a church service, or cursing aloud at a funeral, or shouting belligerently in a hospital hallway.  If someone tells you to be quieter in a library (no one "shushes" people to silence there anymore), no one cries that their "free speech rights" are being suppressed.  They are, of course, strictly speaking; but what's being suppressed are not your First Amendment rights (that's where the jurisprudence comes in).  First Amendment jurisprudence and 'free speech' are not necessarily congruent on all points.
Well, yeah, that almost goes without saying.  But the problem with Musk is not that he's overtly full of shit (what else is new?), it's that he wraps up his ideology in the flag of the First Amendment, declaring he is all for "free speech" so long as it accords with the law, which in turn reflects the "will of the people" (which majority of the people agreed to a tax code that favors the wealthy is another expression of the "will of the people", I guess).  Musk's argument, IOW, is bullshit.  His censorship on Twitter (banning Kathy Griffin, for example) has nothing to do with "the law" and everything to do with King Thinkskinnius.  Musk is not violating the law nor the First Amendment; but he's sure talking bullshit.

Then again, the common definition of "free speech," at least in America, is that I've got an individual right to speak my mind, and you've got an individual right to shut up if you don't agree with me; especially if what you say pisses me off.  So we seldom mean "Freedom of speech!" when we talk about it.  What we mean is "Freedom for me, but not for thee!"  So Trump can't say stupid things at his rallies which might inspire people to violence against Nancy Pelosi or anyone close to her, or about judges he doesn't like, because that's not "freedom of speech!"  Although it is.  And Nikki Haley can declare Raphael Warnock is less of an American than she, a second generation immigrant, is.  That's freedom of speech.  And Ye can declare the Jews the root of all our problems.  That's freedom of speech.

Just as Adidas is free to cut all commercial ties with Ye.  Or advertisers are free to walk away from Twitter.  Or voters are free to be repulsed by Donald Trump.

So Elmo is free to declare comedy "legal" on Twitter; and then to ban parodies (especially of his name!) on Twitter.

And we are free to say he's full of shit.

Freedom of speech, bay-bee!
at

No comments:

Post a Comment