The new Twitter (X): Elon Musk and Freedom of Speech

[Estro Felino]

Thank you. I guess I stand corrected on Italy's blasphemy laws. Although this site appears to say otherwise:

Italy | Defamation Laws

legaldb.freemedia.at

I don't see any mention of religion in that list.
From your article: Art. 402 of the Criminal Code, which banned insult of state religions, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in 2000.

For myself, I would not seek to initiate any legislation curtailing anyone's freedom of speech. However, there are other things that I will defend to the death (such as human rights and personal property rights) before I will ever defend a Nazi screed.

I will defend anyone's right to express their political ideas.
Because God gave us free will.
I will not deprive a person of a God's gift.

Edited to add: That tweet of Elon Musk's that you just posted does not impress me. Actions speak louder than words, and Musk's words often ring hollow due to his hypocrisy.

Maybe you have a different notion of Anti-Semitism.
If you do...just say it.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

I don't see any mention of religion in that list.

Unlike many Americans, I will defend anyone's right to express their political ideas.
Because God gave us free will.
I will not deprive a person of a God's gift.


Maybe you have a different notion of Anti-Semitism.
If you do...just say it.

Scroll down the list until you get to "Criminal Blasphemy." Then click on it and read.

I'm really done with this discussion with you. I'm sorry if you might feel that my leaving this conversation is censoring you in any way, but I really have no interest in your assertion concerning "God's gift" tying in with your ideas about how hateful mouth-flapping surpasses the rights of others to freely withdraw their resources at their own discretion. Say whatever you want -- it doesn't mean that others are obliged to provide you with the means to say it. How's that for free will?

Edited to add: I see that you found the link I provided for Italy's blasphemy laws. You wrote: "From your article: Art. 402 of the Criminal Code, which banned insult of state religions, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in 2000."

As of 2017, there were still blasphemy laws in effect in Italy. See Artist Charged with Public Offense to Religion in Italy Over Image of Aroused Jesus. Anonymous artist Hogre has been charged under an archaic Italian law that punishes a public offense to religion with a fine of up to 5,000 Euros or a prison sentence of up to two years.

I presume that you will defend to the death Hogre's free speech rights to publicly depict Jesus as a pedophile?

 

[Estro Felino]

Scroll down the list until you get to "Criminal Blasphemy." Then click on it and read.

I'm really done with this discussion with you. I'm sorry if you might feel that my leaving this conversation is censoring you in any way, but I really have no interest in your assertion concerning "God's gift" tying in with your ideas about how hateful mouth-flapping surpasses the rights of others to freely withdraw their resources at their own discretion. Say whatever you want -- it doesn't mean that others are obliged to provide you with the means to say it. How's that for free will?

Honestly, I like debating with you.
You're very kind.

That's the point of this thread. We can disagree on many things and still be friends.

I don't understand why friends should agree on anything. That's impossible.

 

[Estro Felino]

As of 2017, there were still blasphemy laws in effect in Italy. See Artist Charged with Public Offense to Religion in Italy Over Image of Aroused Jesus. Anonymous artist Hogre has been charged under an archaic Italian law that punishes a public offense to religion with a fine of up to 5,000 Euros or a prison sentence of up to two years.

I presume that you will defend to the death Hogre's free speech rights to publicly depict Jesus as a pedophile?

As I pointed out in another post, I am for abolishing the blasphemy laws that still exist.

Being in a secular country, Hogre has the right to depict Jesus that way. Also because Christians can avoid seeing it.
They are not putting that image in a church or in front of a church.
Maybe it has more to do with the fact that there is a pornographic element, rather than the Christian element. I don't know.
Also because all the books about Jesus having an affair with Magdalene...are ok.

I am not saying that there aren't things which need to be fixed, in my country.
I am just saying that in my humble opinion, our freedom of thought protects you from intolerant people.

If you are a baker...you cannot refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
You cannot do that in Italy. You need to be tolerant.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Honestly, I like debating with you.
You're very kind.

That's the point of this thread. We can disagree on many things and still be friends.

I don't understand why friends should agree on anything. That's impossible.

I can be friends with you.

 

[Estro Felino]

The anti-woke party is way worse. They are working on criminalizing being transgender, even gay or lesbian. It's called Project 2025, it's gaining support and it's a serious threat to democracy in the US unlike the imaginary boogeyman they call "woke".

I am totally against the anti-woke ideology.

I do want the woke ideology to be free to spread their ideas.
I just don't want them to censor anyone. That's all.

 

[HonestJoe]

I would allow any political opinion.

So you're a free-speech absolutist but only conditionally? You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Estro Felino]

So you're a free-speech absolutist but only conditionally? You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Why don't you give me examples? So I can understand what you mean by freedom of speech.

Is insulting Trump freedom of speech?
Is talking against the gender ideology, as J K Rowling did, freedom of speech?

Give me examples...of freedom of speech and hate speech.

Abstract notions make it all confusing.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why don't you give me examples? So I can understand what you mean by freedom of speech.

The meaning of free speech isn't the issue here, it is the meaning of absolutist. Generally, free speech is recognised as having some practical limits (regardless of the difficulty in determining the exact lines).

The concept of a "free speech absolutist" would imply none of those limits should ever apply. In practice, what it usually means when someone uses it about themselves, is that they want to be free to say whatever they want without having to justify themselves (including shouting down, attacking or slandering anyone who uses that freedom to challenge them) but are still open to other things to be prohibited or punished as long as it doesn't impact them.

In reality, you (and Musk) believe there are practical limits to free speech too, you're just using the "absolutist" angle to push the problems of determining the lines on other people.

Is insulting Trump freedom of speech?
Is talking against the gender ideology, as J K Rowling did, freedom of speech?

It's all freedom of speech but that doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be limited. I can speak literally anything I want, because I'm in my own home on my own (though excessive volume could be an issue). I could post insults against Trump (or Biden) here, but not against you or any other poster, and not using certain prohibited words. I'd be even further restricted if I was a teacher in the classroom or a congressman in the house. Interestingly, there are also lots of things I wouldn't say in certain circumstance or environment, even where I legally could, due to social pressure, embarrassment or shame.

The bottom line is that this whole area is much more complex, circumstantial and conditional. You can't define a singular line because there isn't one.

Give me examples...of freedom of speech and hate speech.

I never said anything about hate speech. I don't think it is a useful term in this context.

 

[Estro Felino]

You can't define a singular line because there isn't one.

Unfortunately the lack of a univocal definition legitimizes and normalizes doublestandardism.

Will you admit that doublestandardism is something normalized in your country?

 

[Altfish]

- Why do certain people dislike Musk?
Has he ever actually invented or improved anything? He inherited a shed load of money and bought 'stuff' that he then sets about making worse.. The likes of Hyperloop is a total farce.
- Why don't they approve of the way he manages X?
Twitter was ok before he overpaid for it. Now I get feeds I do not want, usually from Right Wing MAGA nutjobs. The blue tick accreditation is now a joke.
- Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?
Oh, yes. With the normal exceptions (e.g. shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre)
But Musk doesn't agree with Voltaire.

 

[Estro Felino]

- Why do certain people dislike Musk?
Has he ever actually invented or improved anything? He inherited a shed load of money and bought 'stuff' that he then sets about making worse.. The likes of Hyperloop is a total farce.
- Why don't they approve of the way he manages X?
Twitter was ok before he overpaid for it. Now I get feeds I do not want, usually from Right Wing MAGA nutjobs. The blue tick accreditation is now a joke.
- Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?
Oh, yes. With the normal exceptions (e.g. shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre)
But Musk doesn't agree with Voltaire.

Thank you for answering the all three.

 

[HonestJoe]

Unfortunately the lack of a univocal definition legitimizes and normalizes doublestandardism.

Sure, that is an aspect of the problem. You're not offering any solution to it though, if anything you're contributing. The first step in addressing a problem is admitting it.

Will you admit that doublestandardism is something normalized in your country?

I wouldn't say normalised but it certainly exists, though no more or less than anywhere else. It also extends way beyond questions of free speech.

 

[Estro Felino]

I wouldn't say normalised but it certainly exists, though no more or less than anywhere else. It also extends way beyond questions of free speech.

In every courtroom of every courthouse of my country it is written, in big letters: The law is equal for all.

Which means that the State here defends your freedom of speech...and defends your neighbor's freedom of speech, equally.
Even if you two have completely different political views.

Doublestandardism is unconstitutional.

 

[HonestJoe]

In every courtroom of every courthouse of my country it is written, in big letters: The law is equal for all.

Just because it's written on the wall doesn't necessarily mean it always happens. Anyway, what happens in court is a tiny and very specific proportion of what happens in a country. Across the scope of most developed democracies, I don't see any major differences on this point.

Which means that the State here defends your freedom of speech...and defends your neighbor's freedom of speech, equally.
Even if you two have completely different political views.

It is commonly the State imposing limitations on free speech via the courts. And while the intent and aim is usually to apply those principle fairly and equally, they won't always achieve that (because, as per the actual point here, consistently achieving that in reality is extremely difficult).

 

[Estro Felino]

Just because it's written on the wall doesn't necessarily mean it always happens. Anyway, what happens in court is a tiny and very specific proportion of what happens in a country. Across the scope of most developed democracies, I don't see any major differences on this point.

It is commonly the State imposing limitations on free speech via the courts. And while the intent and aim is usually to apply those principle fairly and equally, they won't always achieve that (because, as per the actual point here, consistently achieving that in reality is extremely difficult).

May I know where you're from?

 

[Stevicus]

I consider Roseanne as a personal hero. I feel an incredibly strong empathy towards her.
I consider her a very intelligent person. Also, in my country, being outspoken is synonym with intelligence.
On the countrary, I believe she was dismissed because she said things that irritated Mr. Hussein Obama, and Jarrett, of course.
It has nothing to do with racism.

I was never a fan myself. I never could understand why she had such a large following for her show or why anyone thought she was funny in the first place. So, I'm largely indifferent to anything she says or the consequences she has to face for saying it.

It's not freedom of press, this.
This means that governments can do the most unspeakable things behind the citizens' back and nobody should dare expose these things.
They should stop it with the Assange thing...I guess.
It would be self-detrimental.

What I've noticed is that there are always loopholes or other laws they can use to skirt around any overt banning of free speech.

For example, as a way of quashing protests on college campuses, they didn't ban free speech, but they passed laws like "interfering with the peaceful conduct of an educational institution." Clever, huh? Other vague and creatively interpreted laws might also be used, such as "disorderly conduct." Many people believe that the drug laws and the so-called "War on Drugs" were just concocted to bring about a war on minorities. Likewise, during the 60s, they didn't like hippies and would find excuses to lock them up on BS charges like marijuana possession.

 

[HonestJoe]

May I know where you're from?

You mean you made the statement about "doublestandardism" being normalized in my country without knowing which country that was?

For all the difference it makes, I'm British.

 

[Ponder This]

As you guys know, I love Elon. He's a fantastic man, especially from a spiritual point of view.
He has a beautiful soul, as J.W. Goethe defined it.

Why? Because he values freedom of speech. He bought Twitter because he wanted to give people freedom of speech.

Freedom is the most beautiful thing God has given us. God treats us as His children, and wants us to be free. Free to express ourselves and to say things.

But...of course we all cannot agree on the same things. It's okay, if you don't agree with a person. But why should you censor someone you don't agree with? It's really irrational.

Voltaire used to say: Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort, pour que vous aviez le droit de le dire.

View attachment 81867

- Why do certain people dislike Musk?
- Why don't they approve of the way he manages X?
- Do you agree with Voltaire's sentence?

Thank you in advance.

I don't know why others like or dislike Musk. I wouldn't give him much thought except that he did single-handedly save twitter.
I don't approve of him calling it "X", but I imagine that Musk does a lot I don't approve of.
I can't say I agree with Voltaire, but I've read that the quote is actually a misquote and a misattribution and that it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who used the words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," to describe Voltaire's attitude about the burning of the book "On the Mind" written by Helvétius. One must therefore ask if the quote is really meant to refer to any and all speech or merely to certain forms of it from certain forms of attack and also ask if it was an exaggeration to say he would "defend to the death" or literally so and if by defend we mean he would argue verbally until his dying breath or take up arms and slay those responsible. As far as I know Voltaire didn't go around killing people. How exactly did Voltaire go about defending the right to say things? Did Voltaire risk life and limb for "On the Mind"? Supposing Voltaire would "defend to the death" against those responsible for burning "On the Mind", would he also defend to the death someone who constantly insulted his mother? I wonder.
I imagine that if the words are terrible enough I might step aside and say the man who spoke thus has dug his own grave.
There was someone who would post on twitter the times and locations of Elon's movements around the world despite Elon's polite requests that he not do that. And after Elon acquired twitter that account was banned for this activity. It's an interesting question: who would defend such a twitter account? It's not an argument or an opinion. It does nothing of benefit that I can discern. It would be like if I were to spy on my neighbor, make a record of his comings and goings, and then post the information in the local newspaper every day. It's the sort of information one might classify as idle gossip best left to an exchange among friends, but it was being collected and tabulated very publically for the world to see. What say you? Would you "defend to the death" a twitter account from being banned?
What if the President posted on twitter so that people could read what he had to say, would you ban his account?

 

[Estro Felino]

You mean you made the statement about "doublestandardism" being normalized in my country without knowing which country that was?

For all the difference it makes, I'm British.

Being British, you probably don't know how a Roman Law country works.
How a Napoleonic system of law works.

Doublestandardism is not allowed because there is the Montesquian principle of le juge bouche de la loi, so judges cannot interpret laws.
They are forbidden to interpret laws.