Documents obtained via hacks don't qualify under "free speech" and should be blocked, just like you'd block a list of people's social security numbers obtained via hacking, or secretly-recorded nude/pornographic material (without the subject's knowledge or consent).
"Whining about other people having different views" accounts for pretty much all political speech, and I don't understand why you're saying it shouldn't happen on this topic.
If you believe 1st Amendment protections extend to prevent censorship from private parties, as Elon et al claim to, then banning this material is unambiguously a violation of free speech.
If you don’t believe that’s what free speech is, then that’s fine too (and you’re right), but then stop using that as a cultural cudgel.
Correct. Which is why the right wing moaning about free speech with regard to content moderation is juvenile and, as OP illustrates, completely hypocritical.
I do agree that this is unambiguously a violation of free speech, though the first amendment doesn't enter into it. What I don't get is the last bit, which you've only restated- why shouldn't people be allowed to invoke free speech on the basis of their opinions on what it means?
Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protections, which this does not violate.
“Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
So when the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that's self-referential and does not refer to an underlying basic human right? Or are you saying that Americans just don't care about why the bill of rights exists anymore because the constitution is now their sole source of morality?
> everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.
That takes force. You can't ask the government to protect you from the consequences of your speech, because that violates the free association of others.
>Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protection
Which I took to be the part that tried to answer why 'whining that others have a different view on what “free speech” means' is somehow bad behavior in a way that other political speech isn't.
I really had no intention of discussing my position on free speech, but briefly: It is morally good for an entity to permit freedom of speech and it is morally bad for them to suppress it, but I don't think the government has any business pushing them in either direction.
I think it’s better if we don’t mix your preference for people to be nice to you with our hard-won guaranteed right from government oppression.
Maybe pick a different term?
“This content moderation is a violation of my personal content preferences!” has a nice ring to it, and won’t delude people into misunderstanding how our society works.
Or you could use "first amendment" to refer to the first amendment and I can continue using the term that predates it and is referred to within it to mean what it means.
I really do not get why "it's okay if a corporation takes away our rights" is such an important point to you that you are enforcing your vocabulary in service of it. It doesn't cohere for me when you suggest it's a right worth fighting for, but if anybody other than the government takes it away from you it's just a preference.
Correct^ In fact, even more philosophically, the marketplace of ideas needs ways to select ideas. The bad way to apply selection pressure is with the state (thus the 1st Amendment). The good way to apply selection pressure is to have other people tell you you are an absolute fucking moron and refuse to associate with you. That's what free speech really looks like.
For 33-45% Americans, the only source of morality is what the Orange Dear Leader says. That's why they are fine with supporting a candidate who openly calls for jailing people who criticize the Supreme Court judges and wanted to shoot protesters in legs.
Well, numerous jurisdictions have passed laws against "revenge porn", so they seem to agree with my suggestion. I will agree that information gathered via hacking can be seen both ways (much of Wikileaks was gathered somewhat nefariously) but the idea of blocking should not automatically be considered a suppression of free speech.
Except the indisputable public interest in having information about the person sitting on deck for the most powerful position in the world, as opposed to the prurient interests in seeing leaked nudes.
So that if we see his SSN released in a future hack we can be sure to text him a warning to freeze his credit, and he can apply for two months of free credit monitoring.
You mean like the nude photos of hunter biden, stolen from his personal laptop, and shared across twitter without any changes? That sort of free speech?
Ridiculous. He's a VP candidate so these things are definitely in the public's interest and reporters report on ill-gotten documents all the damn time.
As always, it is MOST improper on this website to actually read the article, but this is addressed in the article; Musk was upset when old-Twitter blocked an article containing hacked data. Appears to be a case of ‘free speech’ for me but not for thee.
You don't get to rummage through someone's computer just because it's in your possession. That's not how the law or property works in the US. The shop owner made an illegal copy of Hunter's hard drive and then went forward and shared it with a bunch of people.
It seems like you do, in certain situations, this being one of them. Otherwise someone would have been prosecuted for making an illegal copy, as you say. Further, such evidence would be considered "illegal search and seizure" and inadmissible in court as evidence against Hunter Biden. But that isn't happening, the laptop information is/was absolutely used as evidence.
He tried to get Hunter to pay for the repairs several times, and then took possession of the laptop as payment for services after a year or more. That is legal in the US.
Given how public this story was, if what he did was illegal, local DA would have prosecuted him.
Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop. The Intel agencies and the corp media tried to cover it up.
