Musk Shows He Does Not Understand COTUS

Elon Musk does not understand how the USA legal system works. Take a look at the basic fundamental error in this quote from him.

Musk suggested earlier this year that companies should align policies with laws like the First Amendment, because he says it’s what users want.

“If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect,” Musk tweeted in April this year. “Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

Source: Musk’s one-on-one with Kanye signals naïveté moderating Twitter hate speech | Ars Technica

That’s not how it works Elon. If US citizen’s want less free speech they can ask the congress to write a law and if the president signs it then it’s law, but only temporarily. That’s because of the First Amendment, something he clearly does not grasp at even an elementary school level. A lawsuit would promptly follow the law’s signing, probably from the ACLU or a similar org. If need be it will be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS who will promptly overturn the law based on the First Amendment.

See Elon you’ve got it exactly backwards, the 1st restricts what speech laws can be enforced by government, it doesn’t permit the government to restrict speech (with a miniscule number of exceptions).

The real way this is supposed to work:

If people do not want to listen to speech they find offensive they can NOT get help from the government, PERIOD. Instead they use capitalism to avoid the problem. Since the 1st Amendment only applies to governments in the USA, and a tiny subset of business functions (e.g. telephone wire providers), nearly all businesses and all individuals can restrict speech in any way they want.

Elon, you claim to support free speech but you actually don’t want to allow the inseparable part of free speech, the right not to speak or publish speech you don’t like. No right to do something is valid unless there is the right to not do that thing. Freedom of religion or speech is non-existent if they do not include the right to not have a religion and the right to not speak or promote speech with which you disagree. Businesses have these rights and your wanting to take those rights away makes you anti-First Amendment, you typical rich white authoritarian asshole.

I Worry that Mr. Silverglate is Suffering Age Related Mental Issues

Otherwise how can he now no longer believe in freedom of expression for all.

As Ken White’s article illustrates it appears that he now believes only his free expression rights matter. So sad to see this from a person who I formerly admired due to there insistence on free expression for all. Now he appears to be climbing on the money making faux-outrage persecution complex tour that is so popular lately with wealthy privileged people.

Source: The Philosophical And Moral Incoherence of “How Dare You Walk Out Of My Speech” (“Cancel Culture” Has Victims, But You’re Probably Not One Of Them)

Sadly Too Many Have Failed to Recognize the Reality

They are us. These oppressive laws are not built on a secular or rational foundation, they are entirely the product of peculiar religious beliefs of a minority that we’ve encouraged to flex and grow.

Source: The corruption is next door. Wake up!

The situation is old, it’s been this way my whole 60+ years of life as explained to me before I was 10 years old by my American Baptist Minister Dad. He clearly taught me that many, sometimes a majority, of religious people want to have their peculiar beliefs forced on everyone else by government. We were Danbury style American Baptist so our faith included the absolute separation of church and state, unlike the regressive and oppressive majority of Baptists (southern & independent).

This is why I voted No on the last Right to Repair ballot question

Josh Siegel, an assistant professor of engineering at Michigan State University who studies connected-car security, says the automakers might be right, and the system envisioned by the law may not be technically doable. Siegel says the ballot measure may have been “well intentioned,” but it wasn’t written “with a full understanding of the complexity of automotive telematics systems.” Those systems give access not just to data about what’s broken and why but also to the driver-assistance systems that enable emergency braking and elements of the drive-by-wire system that helps drivers control their cars. Asking the automakers to pull together a safe and open telematics system in just a few months wasn’t realistic, Siegel says.

“I think that they could create a platform that would meet some of the requirements of what the legislation is calling for,” he says, “but I wouldn’t want it in my own car.”

Source: A fight over the right to repair cars turns ugly | Ars Technica

The Antivaccine (Anti-Science) Party

Although there is much that is very good in the story, the overall framing is one that I see all too often (and that annoys me), namely that it’s “unexpected” that the right would ally with antivaxxers. It’s not unexpected. It never was unexpected. But the mainstream media have long labored under this delusion even though it hasn’t been even remotely true for at least several years, if not much more than a decade.

Source: One more time: The Republican Party is the antivaccine party – RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE