Free speech is a right granted in the Constitution to limit government
Freedom of speech is not granted as you said in the first sentence above, it is a natural human right that is, as you said in the second sentence below, affirmed and guaranteed. The amendments are largely an affirmation of the limits on a proper government, that it has no basis for infringing on fundamental rights as discussed in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. (Fundamental not meaning limitless; e.g. convicts can lose rights based on legal judgment, but fundamental meaning it is not granted by government. Freedom is not the same as anarchy.)
and has NOTHING to do with private companies.
One can get quickly stuck in the mud debating the private vs public venue issue, because lines are not so clear in many respects. If the town government builds a park with a "Town Square", but all the benches, sidewalks and grounds are leased and/or maintained by private entities, does that override the right of citizens to exercise free speech in that venue?
As long as the Constitution is in effect you have free speech and is a right guaranteed.
Any different form of government constituted by a different document, would not revoke the principles of natural or God-given rights. If it were written or could be interpreted that way, it would not constitute a proper government. Again we have to go back to the Declaration and, if you like, a study of the debates and writings of the time, to understand the principles.
Also when someone says something Elon doesn't like or agree with he then blocks them on Tweeter. Proving Elon is a flawed human just like the rest of us.
I don't argue that Elon has no flaws, but I don't see that he should be obligated to entertain each of his critics and hecklers on Twitter or anywhere else. So that is not flawed behavior IMO.
Your right to free speech does not imply my obligation to listen to you. I am free to turn away or cover my ears, or the technological equivalent (blocking ignoring, unfriending etc.) However, in a general sense, your freedom of speech prevents me from preventing your speech.
I certainly believe that the core problem is that we are losing the generally-understood principles of free speech, essentially that our constitutional and freedom- loving origins should inform our
culture to abhor censorship, shouting down, canceling and all those ugly forms of idea control.Those things are worse and more dangerous than the ideas they seek to suppress.
Now he should forget Tweeter and get back to what he does best. Tweeter could be a GIGANTIC waste of money since it doesn't produce or own any real assets (it is a fad compony). Also if he sales Tesla stock to buy this will tank Tesla stock (which it is already effecting). In 10 years Tweeter could be as relevant and valuable as My Space is now. Hell even Elon said Twitter was dying. Let Tweeter die then (plus any idea of involvement) and concentrate on cars, energy and space, you know things that we KNOW will be relevant and valuable in 10 years.
I personally have had nothing to do with Twitter up to and including the present time, so I'm not about to defend its importance or relevance. I might be more inclined to participate if I felt that it represented a basically free platform. My original reasons for not joining up probably had more to do with the short-comment limit. You might infer that I'd have trouble with that
; I don't think there's a lot of evidence that it is made the platform more socially constructive, though admittedly it may have helped make it popular.
help.twitter.com
