“Why Elon Musk’s Idea of ‘Free Speech’ Will Help Ruin America”
Saying the quiet part out loud.
The New Republic, pre-takeover, was liberal and believed in things like free speech and America.
Post-takeover by a Facebook billionaire and then assorted other leftists, it hates free speech. Literally.
“Why Elon Musk’s Idea of “Free Speech” Will Help Ruin America,” is the hot take headline.
You know this is going to be stunning when the leading argument is…
The pro-Musk arguments are complete nonsense, and there are innumerable historical and modern examples of why social media platforms with nearly unlimited freedom of speech produce horrors. The Supreme Court decided free speech isn’t absolute long ago, when Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted that you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for obvious reasons.
The “obvious reason” was a Socialist criticizing the WWI draft. That was the actual case in question.
No one at The New Republic predictably knows this. Certainly, the author, Mr. “Brynn” Tannehill, a RAND analyst and transgender advocate, has any idea that the dumb legal meme long ago joined the dustbin of history alongside segregation and slavery.
Tannehill squeals about “disinformation” while spreading it. The New Republic article is vintage hot take disinformation. Had anyone from the right written it, it would be pointed to as evidence that unfettered free speech spreads misinformation. But the Left doesn’t want a better marketplace of ideas, but a monopoly on bad hot takes and idiotic propaganda.
Any suggestion that the sort of “free speech” they envision can have highly undesirable consequences is met with howls of “Libs hate free speech” or other accusations of fascism. Similarly, warnings that unfettered free speech results in dangerous misinformation spreading are derided with “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” and the libertarian belief that in the marketplace of ideas, the best will always win out.
Only fascists want free speech.
Free speech doesn’t necessarily mean that the right ideas or the best ones, good ones or even decent ones will win out. It’s just the alternative to a totalitarian system in which the worst ones will be mandated by the government.
Fascists and other bad guys, including Communists and assorted leftists do exploit free speech (that’s why the ACLU came into being before it decided that it had enough power to get rid of free speech) and they shut it down in a New York minute when they take power.
The whole point of a marketplace of ideas is not that it rewards good speech, but that it prevents any one group from having a monopoly on speech. And that monopoly is exactly what the Left wants. It claims that only fascists benefit from free speech while defining, Soviet style, anyone who disagrees with it as fascists. That’s what progressive fascists do.
Wellington says
Demonstrating in microcosm the difference between old-fashion liberalism and modern liberalism (re the latter aka as Leftism).
In full disclosure mode here, I am a conservative who is of the conviction that even old-fashion liberalism opened up the doors to Leftism because of wanting TMG (Too Much Government). What is immensely important here to know, though don’t expect this to get reported by the MSM at all, staunch conservatives, who have always been of the conviction that government is best which ordinarily governs least, in decades past, e.g. William F. Buckley, Jr., extirpated from its ranks Far Right organizations like the John Birch Society. What has happened in our time is that mainstream liberalism has been hijacked by the Far Left and very few old-fashion liberals have fought this as Buckley and others on the Right did with the Far Right, Alan Dershowitz being one of these miniscule exceptions—and to his great credit though I still deprecate him announcing that he voted for Biden in 2020, a major error on his part no doubt.
Both the Far Right and the Far Left destroy liberty. This is a crucial truth. But what we are faced with in our era is that while a heap of liberals will condemn the Far Right, as they should, they will not condemn the Far Left, but again as they should. By contrast, the vast majority of conservatives have regularly condemned both the Far Left and the Far Right. Grasp this one factor, this major distinction between liberals and conservatives, in its entirety and then one will comprehend why the Far Left has taken over the Democratic Party and why the Far Right never has taken over the Republican Party. And yes, I know only full well that many purveyors of falsities, for instance the Democratic Party itself as well as other reprobate entities like the MSM and academia across the board from kindergarten through graduate school, aver it is the Far Right that has taken over the Republican Party, nevertheless in bitter ironic mode it is actuality the exact opposite that is the case—re the Democratic Party and here demonstrative of a sterling example of projection.
Matters very fluid. America, the single greatest experiment in man’s history respecting polities, has an uncertain future, not due to what the Far Right can accomplish to end this great experiment, but rather due to what the Far Left has been able to accomplish so far by way of taking over the Democratic Party, aided by ancillaries like the MSM and what passes for education these days here in the good ole’ USA.
Crunch time. No doubt. The fate of America and by extension the fate of the world hangs in the balance. If I know anything, I know this. As America goes, so the world goes. A la Abraham Lincoln, America is the last best hope of mankind. Anyone doubting me here, just imagine the last some hundred years here on Earth with one difference—no America. QED.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Wellington
‘Far Right’ is hard Libertarian, not Nazi or Fascist as you seem to be implying. In other words, your theory that the Far Left and the Far Right converge at some point is unfounded. Communists and Fascists are both Far Left: only difference b/w them is that the former are globalists, while the latter are natioalists but into empire-building, and do put their own nation above others
Wellington says
Respectfully disagree, Infidel. The Far Right does NOT include Libertarians. I would put Libertarians on the extreme right of the conservative mainstream but NOT Far Right and here’s the principal, though not sole, reason why, i.e., Libertarians, though I think them in error on wanting too little government (e.g., not even wanting zoning in neighborhoods which could lead to a gas station built across the street from my home) are still for freedom. No one on the Far Right is for freedom. Libertarians are in error because they take freedom to extremes without any common sense, contra the Far Right which never embraces freedom in the first place. As further confirmation of this verity, libertarians do not want to quash other political parties or deny freedom of the press but Far Right types simply can’t stand a multiparty system or freedom of the press. Surely you can see this, no?
As for your contention that all Fascists are Far Left, how would you describe Franco’s Spain or Salazar’s Portugal? The fact is that there is left-wing fascism and right-wing fascism. Hitler’s Germany after the Night of the Long Knives (June 30th, 1934) serves as another classic example of Far Right fascism.
As much as I agree with you on so many matters, I most vigorously disagree with you that the Far Right and Far Left don’t converge at some point. Oh yes they do—both are mortal enemies of freedom. And, btw, Islam in its “full” theoretical glory serves as yet another example of Far Right fascism.
Your turn if you care. And, as always, I write with great respect for you but here most definitely we have a disagreement.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I have 3 parameters on which I determine whether any entity is Right or Left, which can be graphically represented on a Cartesian chart- the X, Y and Z axes. Positive represents the greater allowance of freedom, negative less. If any entity is positive, it’s Right, if negative, it’s Left. The 3 parameters being:
– Capitalist vs Communist when it comes to economic freedom. More communist will fall on the negative i.e. Left end of the scale, while more capitalist will fall on the positive i.e. Right end of the scale
– Nationalist vs Globalist when it comes to devolution of powers: globalist would fall on the negative end, and nationalist on the positive end. Realize that for large nations, it would be important to devolve further to state and local levels, but there does come a point of diminishing returns: if all the power is just at personal level, then that would result in a food fight. So devolving it somewhere b/w globalist/nationalist to local would be optimal
– Religious vs anti-religious – the more religious an entity is, be it more Christian, more Jewish, more Buddhist, more Hindu, et al, the more positive/Right it is, since it allows for individual freedoms within certain rules. The more anti-religious it is, the more Leftist it is, b’cos then, the role of religion gets filled by the alternative powers. Note that in this analysis, I don’t include islam, b’cos it does not play the same role in stabilizing a society that other faiths play
So all the examples you offered above, due to denial of freedoms either in economic or personal or national or religious practices, are examples of the Left. Only way fascistic parties in Germany, Italy and Spain were different from the Soviets was that the latter believed in Communist Internationalism or world government – something that Albert Einstein too believed in. Whereas the former believed in their own nation’s government, but then controlling and ruling the world from that vantage point. Very subtle differences
Yeah, I do respect your views a lot on most things, but disagree w/ you on this (and a few others, like islam being a religion, or every Russian government in history being a force for evil)
Wellington says
By your reasoning, Infidel, it would be impossible for any political entity on the Right to be an enemy of freedom, no matter how far right it is. I have to simply reject this paradigm of yours. Nazi Germany after the Night of the Long Knives was solely Far Right and there was nothing free about that polity from 1934-1945.
Do you really want to maintain that Pinochet’s Chile was Far Left? What about Nicaragua under the Somozas? The Philippines under Marcos? How about the Papal States in the early and mid-nineteenth century under Popes like Gregory XVI and Pius IX—also Leftist? And many more examples could be provided demonstrating that the Far Right destroys freedom as much as the Far Left does. The one saving grace about the Far Right is that it tends to not destroy the economy and this is why a Right-wing dictatorship such as that of Pinochet, once it is ended, will see a country recover far more easily since at least the economy retained many capitalistic elements which Far Left dictatorships utterly destroy.
I don’t see how you can maintain that Franco’s Spain was Far Left. Franco fought against the Left and would not be amused to have been called a Leftist—to put it mildly. Again, by your reasoning there would be no such thing as a right-wing dictatorship. All political entities that destroy freedom by your reckoning are Far Left and I simply do not see things this way. I always told my students to avoid both the Far Right and Far Left because both destroy liberty. I am not convinced that I have been wrong here all along per what you have averred.
In closing, I would also note that I very much believe Islam is a religion but an evil one, just as Satanism is and as the religion of the Aztecs was. Where is it written that a religion cannot be malevolent? I also would like to correct an impression of yours that I think every Russian government has been evil. Some have been but not all, but what every Russian government has had in common is that it has never championed liberty as England, the Dutch Republic, America and certain other polities have, even though on occasion it has done the right thing such as Alexander II getting rid of serfdom. What all Russian governments have in common is not iniquity but an inability to realize how important true freedom is. And this goes to the heart of the great character flaw in the Russian psyche, though I have many times noted great strengths in the Russians such as courage and a sterling artistic tradition whether it be in architecture, music, literature, et al.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Wellington
If you look at the axes that I used, then all the regimes that you mentioned – Pinochet, Franco, Marcos, the Papal states and so on – were Leftist in one dimension or another. Pinochet, for instance, may have been Right wing in the aspect of economics, but he was certainly not that when it came to individual liberty. On the Z axis of the scale I mentioned (concentration of power), they would all be highly negative. I didn’t follow the Sandinista or the Marcos regimes, but I suspect that they’d be pretty similar
Also, where is it written that in a war, if one side is Left, the other side is automatically Right? The Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in the Soviet Union was one such example: the Spanish civil war was another. Franco had the same policies as Mussolini except that he had the sense to stay out of the World War, and therefore, his junta survived long into the 70s. But the average Spaniard was no freer than s/he would have been under a Marxist regime, had the other side won
On Russia, the importance of freedom is something that wasn’t fully realized until the 20th century worldwide (of course not including the US). So I wouldn’t fault past governments of theirs for not grasping that. Tsar Nikolai I for instance, totally dismantled the jihad empires in Turkistan, and ended what was for the longest time the hub of jihad in Eurasia. What started it? Not a lebensraum issue, since Russia already had an empire right upto the Bering Sea, but muslim raiders raiding the Russian frontier and enslaving Russian civilians and selling them in the slave markets of Buqhara and Xeva
On islam, how is it Right wing at all? Tell me one thing about it that is Right? It doesn’t allow freedom of religion even within islam (X axis), it doesn’t believe in democracy or allow individual freedoms (Z axis), it doesn’t even allow economic freedom, when 20% of one’s earnings needs to go to the relevant islamic authority, people should not buy stuff that’s not halal, etc. I recommend Rebecca Bynum’s book ‘Allah is dead: why islam is not a religion’. Or even w/o that, here she lists 3 major reason why it’s not:
➊ It is an amalgam of social, political and judicial systems as well as a belief system. It is neither one thing nor the other – Islam is unique
➋ Philosophically it is as far from other religions as it is possible to be. It lies beyond nihilism and its morality is inverted.
➌ In society Islam functions in the opposite manner from all other religions. Rather than producing peace and social harmony, it sows violence and social disruption.
In other words, even if one accepts your contention that a religion can be evil, point ➌ above demonstrates why even w/ that acceptance, islam is not a religion
Wellington says
Your last post proves my points, Infidel. What you don’t seem to grasp is that the Far Right is as much of an enemy of liberty as is the Far Left. You assume, quite fallaciously I would argue, that all those against liberty must be Far Left. I think this is a great mistake by you. And so this leads you into much erroneous “territory,” including Franco being Far Left (when he actually hated the Left) and Nazi Germany after the Night of the Long Knives also being Far Left, though it was anything but. As for Islam, just substitute a master faith for a master race and you also have it from its inception as a Far Right error, not a Far Left error.
Nationalism and crony capitalism are both features of the Far Right. Ordinarily, those on the Far Left decry both nationalism and capitalism. Marx and Engels surely did. For them, both of these were just two more ways to keep the proletariat down. Excessive nationalism (JFK made a noble distinction between rank nationalism and ardent patriotism) and crony capitalism have never been features of the Far Left, though at times when necessary a Leftist dictator might discard an aversion to nationalism as Stalin did once Hitler invaded the USSR in June of 1941. Stalin also allowed churches to open again and thrive temporarily in order to get rid of the Nazi invasion. Ah, this is another feature of the Far Right as opposed to the Far Left, i.e., it does not have an aversion to religion as the Far Left does. Indeed quite the opposite. Franco comes to mind as does Salazar in Portugal. And I would most certainly fit in the entire Islamic sphere of mankind in this Far Right paradigm.
I see a fundamental disagreement here between us respecting this entire matter. Well, either your paradigm is flawed from the outset or mine is. I’m sure you’ll understand that I favor mine.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
Another excellent post, my compliments.
Just a couple of observations:
Leftists have erroneously – but very successfully – painted ALL conservative as “Far Right”. Both you and I – as well as most of the other people who post here, would be erroneously classified as “Far Right” by Leftists. It’s inaccurate – as well as insulting. Actual “Far Right” people are both tragically misinformed – as well as dangerous.
And, you are correct, the “Far Right” has not taken over the Republican Party. Today’s Republican Party is comprised of mostly classic “establishment” type Republicans (Jeb Bush), RINOs (Mitt Romney), and the new breed of “MAGA” America First Republicans (Pres. Trump).
Also wondering if Leftists generally deny that classification – and insist that they are JFK Democrats (when they are not).
Yes, United States of America hangs in the balance.
And…
The midterms are for all the marbles.
Keep the faith good friend.
Wellington says
Thank you, James.
You know, one of the more intriguing factors in all of this matter of Right v. Left is that some two or more centuries ago it was the liberals, like Thomas Jefferson, who wanted less government and it was the conservatives, like Alexander Hamilton, who wanted more government.
Oh yeah, a complete 180 since then and surely almost begging for an answer respecting where the truth really lies, if indeed there is an absolute truth. Hey, maybe there is but then maybe there isn’t. I myself wish for absolutes all the while deeply suspecting that there are none. As Shakespeare observed, nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
gravenimage says
So true, James. I’m actually Liberal on a number of issues, but am still considered “Far Right” by many just for opposing Jihad terror and thinking that if someone thinks they want a sex change that it is best to wait until adulthood.
Devasur says
I respectfully disagree here, America is not the last best hope of mankind. Actually it is the single largest hindrance. Let’s take the recent ex of how America removed dying Pakistan from grey list, so that it can continue the terror activities.
Actually it is India which is the last best hope of mankind. As it doesn’t fund any terror activities nor invades other countries infact tries to find peacefully solution.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No, the attributes you mentioned don’t make India a best hope for mankind. It’s not the meek but the powerful asserting their power for good that signifies a hope for mankind. If India were all that, it would have gone well beyond CAA and liberated the Hindus and other non-muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh from islamic tyranny. Also, within India itself, it would have upheld the freedom of expression against all things including islam!
If you live in India, try saying something against islam in public and let us know whether you are not the one who gets arrested. Actually don’t: we want you to remain alive. In the US, you can say it, and if you are armed – which the Second Amendment allows us, then you have nothing to physically fear either. Although it could be rough handling boycotts and cancellations from the LeftYou are criticizing an America that is currently following a unique policy that it never historically followed – that of curbing liberty at home, and cozying up to terror regimes abroad (aside from the 80s when it mistakenly backed islam against communism in Afghanistan). But by that yardstick, until 2014, India too had a policy of blindly supporting the PLO and never opposing Pali terrorism against Israel. In fact, India recognizes non-existent ‘Palestine’ as a state, even though they would scream bloody murder if any country were to recognize ‘Khalistan’ as one
Wellington says
Excellent post, Infidel, a powerful refutation of what Devasur posted. Here we are definitely in agreement.
I trust that the two of us in the future will agree on far more than we disagree on. Indeed, I’m sure we will. Take good care.
Devasur says
The attributes I mentioned are just a few of the many attributes. Do you mean American imperialism is the condition to be the hope of mankind? Tell me when did the US lift people from Islamic tyranny? they let Yazidis rot in the Islamic hell hole. Unlike India, they don’t have a huge Islamic population yet America and the west fears and pamper them.
Even in the US and Europe, you can’t say it you will be arrested in the name of Islamophobia. So stop with your lies. As jihad watch itself has covered such incidents.
That’s a total lie America has been funding Pakistan for decades that’s not something that suddenly popped out of nowhere.
LOL, before 2014 there was a western puppet govt, and it’s quite ironic coming from people who fund PLO terrorism. India just recognizes it and also it was created by the west in the first place, not India, unlike Khalistan which never existed nor was recognized by anyone. if we go by that yardstick Texas, California, and the whole of America are occupied land.
America would start bloody invasion against any country which says this facts.
You are just defending the indefensible.
Just like how Kamsa sends various demons to kill lord Krishna, Your USA may fund as many terror countries like Pak to destroy India but it will ultimately fail just like how Kamsa failed and finally got killed by lord Krishna.
ntesdorf says
Go, Elon!
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Today was an absolutely great day for Social Media. First the news of Vijaya Gadde being shown the door: much as I disdain Agrawal and Segal, I thought that her firing was the most significant, since she was the person behind the bans on people on the Right. If personnel is policy, her firing is the surest signal that things are likely to change at Twitter. Contrast it w/ what happens in government, where disgraced personnel are re-instated if they are Democrats
The other great thing Musk did was lock out Twitter employees from their systems and have Tesla engineers audit their code. In fact, he’d do well just to do what he first said he’d do, and fire the bulk of their employees. After all, how difficult is it just to maintain a database, and review complains of actual misdeeds, such as doxxing people, publishing porn and so on, as opposed to shadow-banning, managing bots and so on? In fact, one thing they could do is go through the revision history of the code and settle of one of the earliest versions that existed way before this censorship regime started. Oh, and stop putting in people’s Twitter feeds the tweets of people they don’t follow, even if it’s about reading responses to people they do follow. There would be a lot less heartburn that way
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
Just wondering if Elon will soon find out that he vastly overpaid for this platform…
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Oh, he knows that he overpaid, and wanted to back out. The Twitter board wanted to hold him to it, b’cos they knew that that company’s market cap wasn’t gonna increase anytime soon, so they dragged him to court. A Delaware judge, who I suspect is a Dem, forced him to close the deal by today, so he went ahead and did it. So at the end of it, Twitter will go private, its stockholders would be compensated and then Musk gets to play havoc w/ the employees, as they richly deserve
It’s one of those laws of unintended consequences: this judge probably thought that she was screwing Musk, and ordered him to stick to the deal, in spite of discoveries that heavily altered its valuation (such as what percentage of activity was due to bots). Rather than appeal that in a higher court, Musk stuck to the deal and executed on it, and now, the purge has started, and the Left both in this country and abroad are screaming bloody murder
Like I noted above, I’m absolutely gleeful at Gadde’s departure even more than the other 2, but even beyond that, when I see TikTok videos of Twitter employees getting yoga rooms w/ yoga mats, free food and wine out of a faucet at Twitter hq, it’s clear that that they are spoiled, and also that the company wants full ownership of the employees rather than allow them to have a normal family life. I do hope that Musk ends that, and has a small moderation team that cracks down only on things like porn, doxxing, incitement to violence and so on, but leaves everything else alone, and abolishes the concept of ‘hate speech’.
James Lincoln says
Infidel,
Thank you for your well informed reply.
tgusa says
Free speech will help ruin America sez the America ruiners. They have been doing a good job of ruining America so I’m surprised they are fake complaining instead of real celebrating.
There is another meme going around… not voting for America ruining democrats will destroy democracy. These are people I literally cannot stand. They are insufferable. They suck the oxygen out of any room they enter.
Right left middle, I am sticking with the sane. The sane need to come up with a code word or some sort of signal so sane people can convey to each other, we are not the insane, we are the sane. Good lord, what a wonderful world. I miss the good old days.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Precisely! For people who hate America, it’s ironic to hear them bitch about what will ruin America
tgusa says
‘Precisely! For people who hate America, it’s ironic to hear them bitch about what will ruin America’
You and me both, brother.
I sometimes fear that I have fallen through some crack in the Universe in to an alternate reality. Sometimes, and then I wake up and yep, its real dammit!
tgusa says
I honestly believe that these modern US crusaders, where ever they might be what ever they might be doing, look back. They see the accomplishments of the past. Victory in Wars fought for the right reasons, world changing inventions of all kinds, advances in the rights of the people, among others.
They are crusaders in a time when many righteous crusades have already taken place. There are still righteous crusades out there but those are dangerous for these modern crusaders who value safety over everything else. Without a safe crusade they are lost and so they begin to have to invent crusades and that’s pretty hard to do but it is mostly safe, for them. Hence we see an advance in to the realm of the crazy. Perhaps, if mankind survives the crusades of the crazy historians will call these, The Crazy Times, the Crazy Ages.
gravenimage says
The Fascists at The New Republic Say Free Speech Will ‘Help Ruin America’
………………………………………
Who can be surprised by this, considering the source?