"He’s the ultimate entrepreneur, having started, and this is a partial list, payments titan PayPal; rocket-maker SpaceX; brain-machine-interface start-up Neuralink; and the Boring Company, which aims to dig transport tunnels in big cities. Despite a claim on Tesla’s corporate website, Musk did not start Tesla. But he did invest early on, and Musk became Tesla’s driving force.... His tweet Monday following the disclosure of his Twitter stake was the cryptic 'Oh hi lol.'... He might simply feel he can do a better job at running Twitter.... Twitter also provides a potential launchpad for bitcoin, another of Musk’s obsessions.... It’s equally possible Musk isn’t serious about taking over Twitter and that instead he is probing, goofing, needling and otherwise entertaining himself, his fans and his antagonists.... Would owning all of Twitter give Musk more or less leverage with the SEC? Might his friendly relationship with the powers that be in China, where Tesla operates a factory, help Twitter enter that market, where it is now banned?"
From "Why Elon Musk is buying up Twitter" by Adam Lashinsky (WaPo).
Who can know the mind of Elon Musk? I realize I'm mainly just hoping he'll be a benefactor. I want free speech on Twitter.
Here's the #1 comment over at WaPo: "If Musk really wants to serve this planet he should buy Fox News. Then kill it."
My fellow citizens don't love free speech, so I'm looking to the mogul to protect what I can't trust democracy to protect. What a tenuous situation!
The second-highest-rated comment is: "Musk wants to own Twitter, so he can dictate the rules of self expression. I.e. provide a platform to Trump, without limitation. The ultimate libertarian dream!"
I don't think that commenter and its up-voters share the free-speech dream. I think they hate it! And I don't think the article-writer even mentions freedom of speech!
ADDED: Jack Shafer has this at Politico: "Why Elon Musk Is Buying into Twitter/Like other billionaires, Musk can’t resist the siren call of owning big media."
Twitter is largely self-sustaining and needs no billionaire help to regain lost glory. Instead, Musk is that obsessive Twitterer who so loves its milk he wants to buy the cow.
The WaPo article-writer also used the milk/cow idea (which, by the way, is offensive to women). He said it's unclear "why Musk would need to own the cow when he drinks so freely of the milk."
Back to Shafer, who at least gets to the right point: "Musk look[s] like the person who doesn’t like the way Twitter censors messages, hence he’s buying the messenger." Yeah, cows make the same milk regardless of who owns them. A speech-platform is quite different.
Last week on his Twitter account, he asked, “Is a new platform needed?” The tweet received 333,000 likes. “Why is the ‘traditional’ media such a relentless hatestream? Real question,” he tweeted in February to 349,000 likes. And then there was this companion tweet: “Most news outlets attempt to answer the question: ‘What are the worst things happening on Earth today?’” In a March 23 poll, he tweeted, “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” More than 70 responded in the negative.
How much of Musk’s ire has to do with “free speech” is anybody’s guess. We do know he’s irate over the way the Securities and Exchange Commission has curbed his tweets....
पोस्ट्स
७९ टिप्पण्या:
I think you can't buy more than 10% of a company on the open market without making a tender offer to everybody for the rest, so the 10% may be significant. He only needs 51% of course.
Those fellow citizens are the ones who deal in feelings over structure. They see upsetting speech and that's the end of the matter for them. Who typically thinks like that? About half the population.
"Musk wants to own Twitter, so he can dictate the rules of self expression. I.e. provide a platform to Trump,
Letting people say what they want is dictating the rules. Freedom is slavery, liberals are liberal, the Washington Post is journalism.
I don’t think they share the dream either because libertarians do not dictate self expression. WaPo, where liberty has already died.
Here's the #1 comment over at WaPo: "If Musk really wants to serve this planet he should buy Fox News. Then kill it.
the Problem with Fox News is that they report information. This leads to people learning.
As the #1 commenter is fully aware of, True progressive strength comes from NOT learning
If more people are like the WaPo readers, More people will not learn dangerous things, and only 'know' what the government Wants them to 'know'.. This is how you make a people STRONG!
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
In the number of takes I’ve heard and read about the slap heard around the world not one has mentioned how it was a slap on freedom of expression. I’m old enough to remember when that would have been in the top five.
Trump is always and everywhere in the thoughts and minds of progressives. Absolutely amazing.
Why?
Because it was there?
To get to the other side?
Anyway, Buffett looks for value, for underpriced assets that can be bropught to a fair price with good likely hood because of what he can add. Perhaps, just perhaps, Musk (who it must be conceded has done that quite as well as Buffett in different industries, if over a shorter time trange) has a plan to get PAID out of this?
Such arrogant writers. Musk will speak for himself if and when he sees fit to do so. Until then, they’re just looking for clicks and to stir up angst about him.
“Yeah, cows make the same milk regardless of who owns them.”
Ahhh, but- do they? Hate for that cow to go dry!
Some of the stingiest farmers are the wealthiest. Wealthy to begin w/& invest in expensive flesh to then regulate every blade of grass intake and tablespoon of bedding. Then you have those who think- cow comfort. I wonder what kind of cow man Mr Musk shall be?
Generous.
B/c he’s in love w/the cow.
“Yeah, cows make the same milk regardless of who owns them.”
Ahhh, but- do they? Hate for that cow to go dry!
Some of the stingiest farmers are the wealthiest. Wealthy to begin w/& invest in expensive flesh to then regulate every blade of grass intake and tablespoon of bedding. Then you have those who think- cow comfort. I wonder what kind of cow man Mr Musk shall be?
Generous.
B/c he’s in love w/the cow.
First no one knows Musk's mind.
But
If his goal is to open twitter up to ideas that are not Democrat approved, I offer a hearty 'good luck'
I am reminded by the rule(unsure of author)that any organization that is not constantly managed, to be conservative, will eventually morph leftist.
If you are just now coming to the realization that your "fellow citizens" who read (and write for) WaPo are not in favor of free speech, you really, really haven't been getting it.
Good for you for highlighting this. But it's not like they make a big secret of it.
"Democracy Dies in Darkness" is aspirational.
If you all (and yes I am including althouse this time) that musk cares about "free speech" for anyone but himself, I have a feeling that you are going to be sorely disappointed.
Do you really think Musk, if he controlled Twitter, would not ruthlessly remove content critical of him and his companies?
Also--The problem with the milk/cow thing is not that it is "offensive to women" (What?!)
It's that it is idiotic.
Illiberal progressives need to be gut punched, and hard. Figuratively, of course. When you think the rules will always be in your favor, you have little incentive to care about having rules that are fair and good for society in general.
Elon Musk is my hero.
He might have saved Twitter. Then again we don’t know so it bears watching.
“Here's the #1 comment over at WaPo: "If Musk really wants to serve this planet he should buy Fox News. Then kill it."
Astounding.
In following my comment yesterday: Bill Gates created Slate and MSNBC. Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. Rupert Murdoch long ago developed right wing media outlets. In such a playing field, why shouldn't Musk acquire his own mouthpiece outlet? If you are an oligarch, it all seems quite logical and obvious.
As Musk was highly critical of Justin Trudeau's censorious words and party-line parroting by Canadian state media regarding the truckers a couple months back, he likely sees owning a mouthpiece outlet as necessary for a stable oligarchic reign.
I'm also sure he loves, loves, loves trolling the left by owning their favored platform. Twitter cost him pocket change relative to the grossly inflated Tesla valuation. Is he forcing self-awareness by any means necessary? With this move, the LEFT can now flee Twitter to create their own versions of Parler, Rumble, et al.
Turnabout is fair play. "Wake up, wokesters."
If Elon Musk wanted to buy up 51% of Twitter stock, he has the money to do so, and it wouldn't change his level of lifestyle. (Which, if I think about it, consists of work. Mostly work.)
Sometimes a thing is exactly what it appears to be. He may just be buying up enough to affect a change toward freedom of speech for this unbelievably censorious platform. That so many on the Left dive enthusiastically into the abyss of censoring things they disagree with tells you much about the philosophical base on which they stand. Their enthusiasm and self-congratulatory attitudes about it all are bizarre at best. One can only marvel at the ignorance of it all.
Other than that, never underestimate global level genius. Musk plays many levels ahead of the rest of us. His vision for his move is known to him only. A WaPo 'journalist' doesn't stand a chance.
Twitter is largely self-sustaining and needs no billionaire help to regain lost glory. Instead, Musk is that obsessive Twitterer who so loves its milk he wants to buy the cow.
Twitter operates at a loss. How can that be "self sustaining"
What is the "lost glory" the writer speaks of? Is that when it was open and free? Looks like the writer thinks Twitter has gone downhill.
If I can't get decent, unprocessed, milk at the store, buying a cow is one solution. Maybe that is Musk's logic?
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Illiberal progressives need to be gut punched, and hard. Figuratively, of course. When you think the rules will always be in your favor, you have little incentive to care about having rules that are fair and good for society in general.
The tone of this entire thread is not anger that your speech is being suppressed, but that you perceive you are not the ones who get to decide which speech is allowed
The poor metaphors are close enough for people whose intellectual honesty allows them to be what we call progressive in these times. It will be interesting to see what he does with Twitter but he seems to be effective in his projects. Speaking of Elon Musk projects, I'll be doing a trail race a few miles from his Gigafactory in Austin this Saturday morning. We moved to the DFW area in 2018 and it seemed to have shot up down there between one of my infrequent visits. The Gigafactory is 4.3 Million sq. ft. and the expansion is reported to be 1.6 million more. It's an impressive site.
WaPoo readers go full Ingsoc.
"Ignorance is Strength" is their motto and their watchword. Time for the five minute hate against Fox News. Tucker Carlson=Emmanuel Goldstein.
Any questions? There are no questions, only answers. The Party knows best.
The usual plan is buy 51% of the stock, replace the directors, and the new directors replace the management. If they turn on you, you replace them again. Sort of like Trump in the White House except there are no courts.
he doesn't have to buy 51% to gain operating control of the company. I worked for a company that was 30% owned by a group of (coincidentally) South African investors and it was very clear who was running things.
iowan2 said...
I am reminded by the rule(unsure of author)that any organization that is not constantly managed, to be conservative, will eventually morph leftist.
________________________________________
Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics
1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will
sooner or later become left-wing.
3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.
My fellow citizens don't love free speech, so I'm looking to the mogul to protect what I can't trust democracy to protect. What a tenuous situation!
Tenuous? Are you referring to the free speech part or the democracy part?
The very reason to have constitutional protection for speech is that it's anti-majoritarian. You need a First Amendment precisely because you can't trust your fellow citizens.
Sometimes a thing is exactly what it appears to be
Certainly this thing is exactly what it appears to be…
"Also--The problem with the milk/cow thing is not that it is "offensive to women" (What?!)"
Why are you having trouble understanding this? The old saying "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?" refers quite specifically to not marrying a women when you are able to have sex with her without marriage. It's a nasty way of insulting women and everyone knows that, except maybe you!
I think the WaPo and Politico writers should have thought better of their decision to use this cliché. Clichés should be avoided anyway, but one that shoots out an unintended reference to an insult is especially bad.
"Tenuous? Are you referring to the free speech part or the democracy part?"
It's tenuous to be relying on what democracy gives us when you can see that public opinion is going against freedom of speech.
My guess is that it will be difficult for twitter to suspend a board member's account (and 9.2% is likely enough of ownership to get him a board seat if he wants it.) Thus Elon will likely be able to tweet and retweet anything he wants without censor by the zealous entry-level content monitors.
Althouse writes, "I don't think that commenter and its up-voters share the free-speech dream. I think they hate it! And I don't think the article-writer even mentions freedom of speech!"
Of course not. If the NYT and the WaPo had any desire to promote free speech and the free flow of information Donald Trump would be in the second year of his second term as President of the United States with a majority Republican Congress at his back and Joe Biden would be facing trial for influence peddling through his coke-addled ne'er do well son.
It's very interesting that both these agencies of the Democrat MiniTrue have now acknowledged the genuineness of Hunter Biden's abandoned Macbook SSD, but they have not offered any explanation of their vicious attack on the New York Post in the fall of 2020 when the contents of that SSD could have easily turned the electorate against Joe Biden. (Polls have shown a 10-point swing to Trump if those mendacious attacks on simple truth had not occurred. Yes, Election 2020 was fixed. Get used to it, Freder.) What has changed? Nothing, except the American people are outraged that they have been played by Big Media for reasons that amount to elitist nihilism.
Why buy the cow…
Isn’t it a truism, though?
Marrying the woman traditionally turns off the sex.
I don't understand why he doesn't buy the new platform Truth Social? Everybody's talking about it being so free and easy to use much more beautiful than Twitter. Nobody's ever seen a communication platform like Truth Social. You would think someone who is supposed to be smart like Elon Musk would know this.
"Also--The problem with the milk/cow thing is not that it is "offensive to women" (What?!)"
Please please, lactating individuals.
Freder Frederson said...
The tone of this entire thread is not anger that your speech is being suppressed, but that you perceive you are not the ones who get to decide which speech is allowed.
Here's the #1 comment over at WaPo: "If Musk really wants to serve this planet he should buy Fox News. Then kill it."
The second-highest-rated comment is: "Musk wants to own Twitter, so he can dictate the rules of self expression. I.e. provide a platform to Trump, without limitation. The ultimate libertarian dream!"
Project much?
My best cow died today
I loved her in a speshul way
Freder Frederson said..."The tone of this entire thread is not anger that your speech is being suppressed, but that you perceive you are not the ones who get to decide which speech is allowed"
4/5/22, 7:16 AM
Not a single person said that.
Freder Frederson's 7:16am post seems to me obviously and entirely false. Where are the right-wingers saying "Ha ha ha! Now Musk can purge all the lefties on Twitter, ban them for ridiculous reasons, as they did Thomas Wictor, and the Babylon Bee, and thousands of others, subtract their followers a thousand at a time, make their lives as miserable as they've made ours! Vengeance!"?
Absolutely no one on this thread has expressed any such thought, and I haven't run into such thoughts on other sites I read. Rightly or wrongly (leftly?), right-wingers are confident they can win arguments and totally humiliate their lefty opponents without any need to ban them. It's better in every way to keep them around and keep mocking them than to delete them. Better to make them feel like pathetic losers than to make them feel like martyrs.
I must admit that years ago I thought Musk was a con man milking tax credits to support his Tesla business - another state hanger-on.
Over the last 4-5 years I have come full circle and find him a truly unique and positive spirit. Shaking up two stale industries, auto and space, is one thing but he also seems like a thinking human being and not just a collector of toys, edifices and accolades. The interview with him via the Babylon Bee was fascinating. The man has depth. I've known a few billionaires in my time and most are so focused on one topic, their business/assets, that they have no world vision outside of that. They are actually boring people, unless you are trying to get into their wallet. Musk is clearly an exception. He is on my list of people I would love to dine with.
"My fellow citizens don't love free speech"
Your fellow citizens in Mason, WI, and their comrades elsewhere.
"I don't think that commenter and its up-voters share the free-speech dream. I think they hate it!"
Correct. They don't, like progs everywhere.
But the Althouses of America can do something about it. Not change the hatred, of course--that has been prog MO since 1789, except occasionally, when speech served lefty interests. But voting their bastards out of office, every time, will tame it a bit. You could even get SCOTUS nominees who believe in freedom of speech as a natural right.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Do you really think Musk, if he controlled Twitter, would not ruthlessly remove content critical of him and his companies?
That is an interesting question. If he does, it will quickly become public knowledge. Censorship will magnify the criticisms, see Streisand Effect.
OTOH, if he allows the criticisms, which are mostly nitpicking anyway, criticizing the village chapel for not being a cathedral so to speak, he shows himself as open and gets brownie points. Or, he can permit the criticisms and push back on them, showing how they are wrong.
I don't know which way he will go. I'd be willing to bet a small amount on allowing the criticisms but only a small amount.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Ann Althouse at 7:42 AM
The old saying "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?" refers quite specifically to not marrying a women when you are able to have sex with her without marriage. It's a nasty way of insulting women and everyone knows that ...
I did not know that.
I never thought that the saying was insulting to women.
I always thought it was advising to women.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
It's tenuous to be relying on what democracy gives us when you can see that public opinion is going against freedom of speech.
Aren't public opinion and democracy more or less the same thing? Assuming we are really measuring overall public opinion as opposed to those making noise, usually a fairly small minority.
The US constitution is specifically designed to be anti-democratic for this reason. It can be changed, democratically, but it is a very ponderous process. It is a process that relies on supermajorities, not just 50%+1.
And that is a good thing, IMHO. I would really hate to live in a democracy. I rather like the system we have, even as corrupted as it has become.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Elon moves quick..Engadget reports this am that Elon has taken a seat on the Board.
How did you lose your country? Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Freder Frederson at 6:39 AM
o you really think Musk, if he controlled Twitter, would not ruthlessly remove content critical of him and his companies?
I doubt that Musk would ruthlessly remove content critical of him and his company.
Many people do believe in free speech. Musk seems to be one such.
At the current time, most of the proponents of suppressing free speech are leftists.
The main argument for suppressing free speech is that Blacks and other "marginalized people" should not have their feelings hurt. That is a leftist concern.
I've been wondering what Musk could do with 9% of the company, but they just appointed him to the Board.
Tucker last night played a clip of Twitter's CEO stating that the issues of the day are too important to worry about the First Amendment.
Is it truly the metaphor of, "Loving the milk so much one buys the cow," which is offensive to women? That would be the metaphor, "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?" Wouldn't it?
Completely different concepts, there, although the cows and their milk are involved in both.
And as a male, "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard" is both unoffensive and hilarious to me. My skinny daughter once sent me a pic of herself rock climbing, and when asked via text if she'd gotten even more wiry, responded with, "My peas bring all the boys to the yard." Funniest text ever.
I wouldn't expect too much from Musk. Billionaires "go native" when they move into media. Remember when CNN got started? They're headquartered in Atlanta, not NYC, DC, or LA. Ted Turner's a good ol' boy. Finally an alternative to the media monopoly. It didn't work out that way. Even Murdoch has intervened for the benefit of Blair and Biden.
If Musk does change things, it would be to loosen the censorship, not to make Twitter a mouthpiece for his own opinions. He's smart enough to recognize that openness and universality are what makes Twitter worth buying. Unfortunately progressives are so far gone now that just not banning Trump would make Twitter a Trump outfit in their eyes. For them, freedom for "dangerous" speech is dangerous , and they are the ones who define what is dangerous.
ga6 said...
Elon moves quick..Engadget reports this am that Elon has taken a seat on the Board.
"Oh, yeah, you'll scream, you big, fat, ugly cow!"
Some introspection appears to be called for, Fredo…
Rightly or wrongly (leftly?), right-wingers are confident they can win arguments and totally humiliate their lefty opponents without any need to ban them.
Well, yes, conservatives are convinced that they have the better argument. They don't want censorship. But are they really that confident that truth and logic always prevail? The system seems to be tilted against facts and logic, even without overt censorship. Also, I'd hate to think that politics has already become a humiliation game.
"Clichés should be avoided anyway, but one that shoots out an unintended reference to an insult is especially bad."
"Honi soit qui mal y pense," I respond. Being offended by a cliche is ok, I suppose, if the subject is fine literature, but clear communication of a concept is often well done via cliche. And calling "doubleplus ungood" on a cliche not for being an insult, but for being the opposite of that insult, in fact only an "unintended reference to an insult," is just denunciation without any due process at all.
Please understand, I am not using the cows of the linked cliche as a stand-in for human females, and the cliche's milk is obviously not meant to mean "sexual gratification of males," as in the insult Althouse decries.
The cows here clearly are jsut the means of production, and the milk is the product. Surely, Althouse, you aren't offended by someone appreciating a product so much that the means of production are secured by them for their continued use? Not in such a socialist location as Madison, WI, where property itself is reviled, even destroyed, by those who want to seize the means of production themselves?
Teach a man to fish and he won't starve. But a man with a cow, well, he can go into the ice cream business!
Musk's fights are with regulators, not critics of himself personally. He is a character out of Ayn Rand, in a mild way.
Musk is an idea man and a promoter, rather than an industrialist. Often such folks crash and burn if and when some of the ideas they sold don't pan out. That is when the regulators come for them. The legend will be that "he flew too close to the sun."
Think about the Theranos lady, Elizabeth Holmes. Did she set out to be a con artist? Probably not. She just ended up that way.
I wish Musk luck with Twitter. It isn't about free speech, is it? Twitter is about preventing "harm". It is about avoiding "hurt". It is about not letting that Hunter Biden laptop story see the light of day until everything is "safe". Don't let the Babylon Bee or the Federalist make merry with the absurdities of today's sacred cows. Don't look too hard at those Taliban accounts. Twitter is just like NYT and WaPoo. Your betters will decide what you should hear.
>Ann Althouse said...
The old saying "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?" refers quite specifically to not marrying a women when you are able to have sex with her without marriage. It's a nasty way of insulting women and everyone knows that, except maybe you!<
...and me, and, I promise you, a multitude of other people. Incidentally, lots of people are attracted to having sex without marriage and a lot of them are, guess what...women.
It's an "insult to women" only to those who are perpetually searching for insults to women. Otherwise it is simply an aphorism that states a well-known fundamental truth.
Can’t wait for Elizabeth Warren to tweet about this latest Musk move.
Who would buy the cow when you can have the milk for free was traditionally advice given by older women to younger women regarding managing their love lives and their marriage prospects. I never thought of it as particularly insulting to women; it was cautionary advice, as Mike Sylvester points out above.
An amusing counterpoint is provided in the Restoration comedy The Relapse, where the lively young widow Berinthia advises the heroine (who is defending marriage) that you should never take a lease for a house that you can have for three month's rent.
Could be most of the twitter employees will rebel. The result could be that twitter would die. But that's okay; Musk doesn't need the money, and the replacement(s) may be better.
Ann's question about Russian propaganda applies to the lefties who hate Fox News. The only news source that is not hard left. They know that they could convince everyone that woman with penises are normal if there was no alternative source of news. They would not get me convinced as I don't get my news from TV. I wonder how many others are getting news elsewhere?
It's so weird how openly hostile the left is to freedom of speech. It was a pillar of liberalism and even if we secretly wished we could shut our adversaries up, it would be shameful to admit that in the open.
We have made a mistake equating "progressives" with "liberals." Liberals care about rights and process. Progressives just care about the end result. If that means sterilizing citizens with low IQs well then Fuck-You-Three-Generations-Of-Imbeciles-Are-Enough. If that means freezing your bank account because you donated to an unpopular charity--whatever it takes to get you to comply.
There truly aren't many liberals left. Dershowitz, Turley, Greenwald, Taibbi.
Well, yes, conservatives are convinced that they have the better argument. They don't want censorship.
How can you look at history and believe this bullshit. Was the Hays Code in effect because conservatives had the better argument? And shouldn't the response to teaching primary school children CRT (which of course is bullshit itself) to present the "better argument" rather than outright banning the teaching of CRT?
We could continue with burning the flag, and on and on and on. I see none the progressives on this site advocating the execution of conservatives. I certainly don't want to see Achilles hanging from a lamppost (as he has wished on me) and I, unlike Bruce Hayden, don't dwell on the best ammunition loads to take out conservatives.
I doubt that Musk would ruthlessly remove content critical of him and his company.
Really?!.
Why didn't Trump buy 9% of Twitter?
Before Elon made the purchase, TWTR was trading around $39. That 9% cost Elon about $2.8B which is well within Trump's purchasing (or financing) power.
Why didn't he do that? Imagine the employee turnover he could have caused _just by hinting at it_!
Freder, the Hays Code ran from 1934 to 1968. Who ran Congress then?
Musk has a board seat now and owns a shitload more stock than any of the other directors. It is his duty as a director to act in the best interest of stockholders, all stockholders. The free speech or censorship issue may or may not routinely come before the board but he will have the ability to bring it to the agenda. The soaring stock price makes clear that the market believes the governance of the company and its value is greatly enhanced by his investment. By agreeement he can’t buy more than 15% of the stock. They have a tricky and disapproved two tier director program.
And Freder, he will have no more power to remove comments critical of him than you can.
It takes a Musk to raze... raise a virtual village.
"It's tenuous to be relying on what democracy gives us when you can see that public opinion is going against freedom of speech."
Free speech has always been in danger when you express an opinion that the majority dislikes. A brief perusal of the history of racial or gay rights will confirm that. What is unique now is that public discourse in our current culture tends to take place in media such that free speech is endangered when a particular *minority* dislikes it.
D. D. Driver: "It's so weird how openly hostile the left is to freedom of speech."
Especially when you consider that gay rights and gay marriage would not have existed without it. Although perhaps the lesson they took from that was that they need to control speech lest it be used against them as well as it was used for them. They also love to peddle the idea that speech = violence and therefore violence is justified to counter such speech.
The prevalent opinion they seem to have regarding the rest of the country is that the common person (especially those who voted for Trump) are a combination of stupid and evil and that they have every right and even an obligation or duty to stop people from misleading and deceiving those common people with wrongthink. Even particular words or phrases must either be redefined ("woman") or eliminated ("illegal alien"). It's perhaps trite but no less true to point out that Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. I'd like to see it read by every high school student in the country, or be required reading for every university's incoming freshman.
"Freder, the Hays Code ran from 1934 to 1968. Who ran Congress then?"
What does it matter? The hays code was not enforced or created by the government. It was a private standard primarily written by Christian groups, mainly the catholic church.
I just figured Musk was planning on a capital loss from Twitter stock offsetting his next large gain from the next block of Tesla stock he sells. Add to that the amusement value and it makes perfect sense.
cremes: Trump isn't liquid, he can't buy that big a chunk of Twitter. That's why he's running the inoperative Troof Social like a checking account by skimming off the cream as the Marks download the app. He needs to pay the lawyers somehow.
Why didn't Trump buy 9% of Twitter?
Because he has Truthsocial.com.
The Hays Code was pushed by Catholics? Then it was pushed by Democrats. Until Reagan, Catholics mostly voted Democrat. Through the twentieth century, tens of millions of Americans were strong on labor unions and other left issues, while being quite sexually uptight (by today's standards). Try again, FF.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा