Americans who subscribe to “traditional values” have had to put up with a lot from the left in the name of the First Amendment. From vulgarities on TV (self-described First Amendment defenders said things like, “If you don’t like, it change the channel”), to sexual scenes in movies (“If you don’t like it, don’t go”), to the ready availability of pornography on the internet (“use blockers if you don’t want to view it”), to books that offend parental values in public schools, to flag burning during protests, cries of “censorship” have been hurled at defenders of deportment and tradition.
It’s now Elon Musk and suddenly everything has changed. Musk is looking to acquire Twitter in order to expand the range of opinions and ideas that can be shared on the influential and popular platform. At first the Twitter board welcomed him to the company, but they quickly changed their minds and have now inserted a “poison pill” they hope will keep him from taking over. It’s complicated, but they would limit the number of shares that Musk could purchase.
Musk’s attempt to purchase Twitter has revealed the double standard practiced by the left when it comes to free speech. What is it that only those who agree with Musk’s purchase of Twitter are allowed to speak? Doesn’t the word “free” imply without cost? However, it also means much more. It’s also about not imposing the “cost” of telling people what they can and cannot say. People mostly agree on limits involving libel, slander and the old one about not crying “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, but what is happening now is different. It is political speech that doesn’t agree with the secular-progressive worldview that the left wants to control, even ban in some cases.
Twitter (and Facebook) have “standards” which, if violated, can get one suspended or in the case of Donald Trump, banned from their platforms. They define “hate speech” but it is often arbitrary, and the company in too many cases, seems to bow to the wishes of leftist organizations.
Max Boot’s Washington Post column recently showed that the accusations of censorship are shifting from the right to the left. Boot lamented that a billionaire like Musk could potentially have influence in deciding Twitter’s content. Ironically, his newspaper is owned billionaire Jeff Bezos. In his column, Boot calls for an entity to impose “content moderation” on certain speech. What would it look like? What about a government panel? Everybody has their own point of view. The idea that an individual or panel could monitor any content is absurd.
There were many opinions during the years of turmoil that led to the foundation of the country. Even so, George Washington said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
In an Aug. 8, 1950, message to Congress regarding the internal security of the United States, President Harry Truman wrote: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” The same could be said of non-government entities like social platforms.
When one doesn’t like the speech of another, the answer is to speak more and not less. That’s what freedom of speech ultimately means. It’s what Elon Musk appears to want to promote on Twitter should he get the chance.
About Post Author
