X says that I’ve been suspended for “violating our rules against posting private information,” citing a tweet linking to my story about the JD Vance dossier.
Be aware that it fits an ongoing to campaign to limit free speech, especially in regard to goverment officials and public figures. They want to make it illegal or impossible to criticize government or powerful people, both of which are the foundations of free speech - those are the most important forms of speech.
They approach it in multiple ways that I'm aware of:
* They want the Supreme Court to change their precedent - as the current court has done many times for other areas of law - in the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which established that public officials only have a claim if they prove the critical speech was false and also was published with "actual malice"; that is "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." At least one of the conservative justices, I forget which one, has encouraged people to bring such a case to the Supreme Court so the justice could rule on it.
* They use or legally harass people into ceasing publication, including by having the state attack them. Examples include the lawsuit against Media Matters. Even if the defendants win, the financial impact can be enormous. Many can't afford to publish criticism.
In the end, everything comes down to politics. Politics makes the law, so it overcomes rule of law. If you don't get involved and make these things change - like our predecessors did to build the freedom the US already enjoys - freedom, including free speech will diminish.
It had his home address, phone numbers and social security numbers. A reasonable person would just redact those before publishing and then it wouldn't have been an issue.
Do you have evidence of this? Because otherwise it seems pretty reasonable to ban someone for posting that kind of information. If someone posted the same data on Kamala or Tim I’d expect to see them banned.
Do I have evidence of Elon Musk's private thoughts? Let me look ...
it seems pretty reasonable
It seems like overkill to me. Harris's and Wallz's residences are well known.
Sophisticated public manipulators - and I think we can call Musk one of those - of course don't openly discuss it. One way to analyze the action is to look at the outcome: Musk is certainly sophisticated enough to anticipate the outcome and that would factor into his choice. Cui bono?
Comments
Be aware that it fits an ongoing to campaign to limit free speech, especially in regard to goverment officials and public figures. They want to make it illegal or impossible to criticize government or powerful people, both of which are the foundations of free speech - those are the most important forms of speech.
They approach it in multiple ways that I'm aware of:
* They want the Supreme Court to change their precedent - as the current court has done many times for other areas of law - in the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which established that public officials only have a claim if they prove the critical speech was false and also was published with "actual malice"; that is "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." At least one of the conservative justices, I forget which one, has encouraged people to bring such a case to the Supreme Court so the justice could rule on it.
* They use or legally harass people into ceasing publication, including by having the state attack them. Examples include the lawsuit against Media Matters. Even if the defendants win, the financial impact can be enormous. Many can't afford to publish criticism.
In the end, everything comes down to politics. Politics makes the law, so it overcomes rule of law. If you don't get involved and make these things change - like our predecessors did to build the freedom the US already enjoys - freedom, including free speech will diminish.
It had his home address, phone numbers and social security numbers. A reasonable person would just redact those before publishing and then it wouldn't have been an issue.
There could be a bit of validity to the complaint, but don't imagine for a moment that it's not being used to pursue the larger issue.
Do you have evidence of this? Because otherwise it seems pretty reasonable to ban someone for posting that kind of information. If someone posted the same data on Kamala or Tim I’d expect to see them banned.
Do I have evidence of Elon Musk's private thoughts? Let me look ...
It seems like overkill to me. Harris's and Wallz's residences are well known.
Sophisticated public manipulators - and I think we can call Musk one of those - of course don't openly discuss it. One way to analyze the action is to look at the outcome: Musk is certainly sophisticated enough to anticipate the outcome and that would factor into his choice. Cui bono?
These are all redacted in the current version, including his real estate records.