• 68silver@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    What has this have to do with technology? Wishing someone else is the next one.

  • Aquaphobi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    17 hours ago

    How does … he… have any authority over Microsoft employees… you know what I’ll just read the article

  • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    19 hours ago

    So, he wants to make it so just criticizing Charlie Kirk is off limits, now?

    Lol! Wut? I thought this guy told everyone he was a “free speech absolutist”. What a clown.

    • dmention7@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Without exception, “free speech absolutists” just want to say a specific brand of horrid shit themselves without social blowback. It never applies to free speech as a legal concept, and certainly never applies to speech they disagree with.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Without exception? No, I don’t think that’s true, it’s just the loudest ones, unfortunately.

        For genuine free speech supporters like me, this is a problem because it makes the phrase “free speech” look bad and thereby contributes to a decline in it.

        • dmention7@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          That’s why I specifically called out the phrase “free speech absolutist”.

          In my experience the vast majority of people who truly do advocate for freedom of speech are willing/able to understand nuances such as the fact that your freedom of speech does not grant you immunity from the social consequences of unpopular speech. I.e., other people exercising their freedom to disagree or opt not to use their private platform to host your speech. The “absolutists” will unironically call that censorship, rather than recognize other people are not compelled to engage with their speech.

            • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              I think that free speech laws are what stopped us from being proactive against these intolerant fascist views.

              They turn tolerance from a social contract into a “paradox” where we have to tolerate the intolerant until they take over.

              If we didn’t have such strict free speech laws, we could have deplatformed and jailed these people back when they were at the “protest with confederate and Nazi flags” stage and not had to deal with the neo-fascist government stage.

              To put it another way punching Nazis should be legal. A Nazi is a direct existential threat to Jewish people and other minorities. Parading with Nazi paraphernalia in public is violence towards others and punching Nazis is valid self defense. American free speech and self defense laws were written to exclude “inducement” of violence, but that’s been whittled away by the supreme Court, including a ruling that walking around with Nazi flags in a Jewish neighborhood wasn’t bad enough to permit the residents to retaliate in any way because of “free speech”.

    • parlaptie@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      14 hours ago

      His stance on free speech has been well established for a long time now. He champions free speech so long as it’s his speech. Any speech that disagrees with him is, in fact, itself an affront to free speech.

  • Duplexity@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    14 hours ago

    That means he’s very afraid

    Musk, name people around the world would perforate you if they had the chance. Better hide in your bunker

  • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    20 hours ago

    “I believe the rights enshrined in the 1st amendment applies to everybody I agree with.”

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      First Amendment guards against state repercussions for speech, with exceptions. Careful not to conflate the legal and colloquial usages.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        “I’m going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination.”

        • Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)
      • jaybone@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Which is why everyone needs to get off of twitter. Especially government accounts.

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Shut the fuck up, Elon. We’ll be celebrating your death, as well.