Speech, Part I (Twitter)

I am not on Twitter.  However, I find it comical that the hypocrites and liars of the Left are acting as twits (pun intended) over the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk.  Musk says he wants to open up Twitter to more speech, not ban speech.  Elizabeth Warren was quite troubled by the deal.  Warren:  "This deal is dangerous for democracy."  Honestly, it is difficult to tolerate such blatant lying by those who do not favor democracy.

Here are some questions for Warren:  were you outraged when Twitter suspended the account of the New York Post, after that media outlet broke the Hunter Biden laptop story?  Were you outraged that most of the mainstream media referred to the story as "Russian disinformation?"  Did you say anything after the New York Times confirmed that the story about the laptop was legitimate, and not Russian disinformation?  How concerned were you when the effort to delegitimize the Post story about the laptop - before the 2020 election - may have actually thrown that election to Biden?    

Here was part of one letter to the editor in the New York Times:  "But what we have not heard from him (Musk), so far, is whether he will adhere to ethical standards embraced by mainstream newspapers and, to a lesser extent, social media (Facebook et al.)."  That one sentence tells us just how brainwashed those who rely upon the mainstream media are.  Ethical standards?  This blog has recounted dozens of times just some of the many lies told by the mainstream media.  By what ethical standards was the mainstream media operating under when it engaged in non-stop fabrications about the "Russian collusion" story?

Here is part of another letter to the New York Times:  "What Mr. Musk, a politically naive libertarian, apparently does not understand is that a platform that allows big lies to propagate may be supporting 'free speech' in the short term, but will end it - along with our democracy - in the long term."  What can we learn from this brainwashed individual?  Like so many on the left, it is taken for granted that any conservative speech, any speech that does not track with the Democratic Party line, is a threat to democracy.  Those on the Left actually believe that.   

That attitude about speech - the less speech, the better - is strictly a left-wing attitude.  Classical liberals, of which there are few currently, always believed in more speech.  They believed in debate.  (Classical liberals actually share many values with conservatives.  Leftists do not share the values of either liberals or conservatives.)  But we have seen time after time after time how often the Left seeks to shut down speech that is "offensive" to their worldview.  We have seen it happen on college campuses, on social media, on TV and in the mainstream media.  And, the Left always categorizes speech to which they object in some negative fashion - a threat to democracy, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., etc.  Delegitimizing the speech in that fashion makes it inherently objectionable.  

It is worth repeating here a quote from the 7/17/16 post (Classical Liberalism) by John Stuart Mill, a 19th century classical liberal:  "If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." 

But one letter to the New York Times had it right:  "I never cease to be stunned by those in the journalism business who feel threatened by the prospect of...freer speech."  And this:  "How is it remotely better with 'experts' determining community standards, how to protect those who get offended, what is appropriate speech, who should be heard, who should be banned, etc."  The very notion of having "experts" dictating what we should hear or read, is completely contrary to our notion of free speech and liberty.