Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon & Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder how the free speech absoloutist would handle this? Doesn't seem to break any laws.


At least on this forum, I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist. I find the the tweet disgusting, and the poster shows their low-brow mentality. But there is nothing illegal about it, and objectively I can't find a legal reason for it to be pulled, unless there is some obscure law that it violates.

The problem with censoring things based upon "that offends me" is that there is NO CONSENSUS about where to draw the line. Everyone is offended by varying degrees of things, and so it just becomes a piranha feeding frenzy of content takedown requests.

Side note - owning a cloud services company I deal with this at least weekly. Someone files a DCMA takedown request for a customer's content (can be a competitor, jilted ex, etc.). I always draw a hard line with them and remind them that the DCMA is copyright law, and that if they are claiming copyright, they need to provide a copy of said copyright to me in order for me to have our clients take down the content. 90% of the requests never follow up when that is pointed out, the other 10% are usually legit and provide the copyright.
 
At least on this forum, I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist. I find the the tweet disgusting, and the poster shows their low-brow mentality. But there is nothing illegal about it, and objectively I can't find a legal reason for it to be pulled, unless there is some obscure law that it violates.

The problem with censoring things based upon "that offends me" is that there is NO CONSENSUS about where to draw the line. Everyone is offended by varying degrees of things, and so it just becomes a piranha feeding frenzy of content takedown requests.

Side note - owning a cloud services company I deal with this at least weekly. Someone files a DCMA takedown request for a customer's content (can be a competitor, jilted ex, etc.). I always draw a hard line with them and remind them that the DCMA is copyright law, and that if they are claiming copyright, they need to provide a copy of said copyright to me in order for me to have our clients take down the content. 90% of the requests never follow up when that is pointed out, the other 10% are usually legit and provide the copyright.
DCMA = Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
 
The problem with censoring things based upon "that offends me" is that there is NO CONSENSUS about where to draw the line. Everyone is offended by varying degrees of things, and so it just becomes a piranha feeding frenzy of content takedown requests.
Huh? Jokes about sex trafficking minors get taken down and the account warned/wrist-slapped. That wasn't so hard.

That's what she said! <-- totally ok

It's not super difficult to police these platforms rationally. Especially when you start by effectively eliminating all bots. I think that's Elon's plan.
 
Huh? Jokes about sex trafficking minors get taken down and the account warned/wrist-slapped. That wasn't so hard.

But Elon specifically said if it's not illegal, it should not get taken down- let alone anyone warned or wrist-slapped.

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. " -Elon Musk

Not just that, but it must be CLEARLY illegal--- "If it's a gray area, let the tweet exist" -Elon Musk

What law do you believe that joke clearly violates? (besides laws of good taste)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bkp_duke
Huh? Jokes about sex trafficking minors get taken down and the account warned/wrist-slapped. That wasn't so hard.

That's what she said! <-- totally ok

It's not super difficult to police these platforms rationally. Especially when you start by effectively eliminating all bots. I think that's Elon's plan.
But Elon specifically said if it's not illegal, it should not get taken down- let alone anyone warned or wrist-slapped.

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. " -Elon Musk

Not just that, but it must be CLEARLY illegal--- "If it's a gray area, let the tweet exist" -Elon Musk

What law do you believe that joke clearly violates? (besides laws of good taste)

BINGO!

Someone didn't ask me if it was in BAD TASTE. Absolutely, it's in horrible taste. But it's NOT illegal. And illegal, not bad taste, is where Elon is drawing that line.


EDIT - there were tweets during the previous administration that had memes of cutting the president's head off. Those were defended by the left as acceptable expressions of free speech. I think they are despicable, like the above tweet, but NOT illegal.
 
Elon Musk Twitter takeover deal in ‘serious jeopardy’

The planned takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk is in “serious jeopardy”, according to a report, sending shares in the company 4% lower in after-hours trading on Wall Street. Musk’s team has stopped certain discussions around funding for the $44bn deal, according to a report in the Washington Post, citing three people familiar with the matter. The report said Musk had concluded that Twitter’s figures on spam accounts – a bone of contention in the deal – were not verifiable.

However, legal experts said the world’s richest man, who is also Tesla’s chief executive, would struggle to terminate the takeover without a legal fight. The agreement to buy Twitter contains clauses that include seeking “specific performance”, which means asking a court in Delaware – the US state that has jurisdiction over the deal – to order Musk to carry out the deal at the agreed price of $54.20 a share. Shares were priced at $37.10 in after-hours trading.
 
Will he settle or is this going to be in court for years?

We refer to (i) the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among X Holdings I, Inc., X Holdings II, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. dated as of April 25, 2022 (the “Merger Agreement”) and (ii) our letter to you dated as of June 6, 2022 (the “June 6 Letter”). As further described below, Mr. Musk is terminating the Merger Agreement because Twitter is in material breach of multiple provisions of that Agreement, appears to have made false and misleading representations upon which Mr. Musk relied when entering into the Merger Agreement, and is likely to suffer a Company Material Adverse Effect (as that term is defined in the Merger Agreement).
While Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement requires Twitter to provide Mr. Musk and his advisors all data and information that Mr. Musk requests “for any reasonable business purpose related to the consummation of the transaction,” Twitter has not complied with its contractual obligations. For nearly two months, Mr. Musk has sought the data and information necessary to “make an independent assessment of the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform” (our letter to you dated May 25, 2022 (the “May 25 Letter”)). This information is fundamental to Twitter’s business and financial performance and is necessary to consummate the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement because it is needed to ensure Twitter’s satisfaction of the conditions to closing, to facilitate Mr. Musk’s financing and financial planning for the transaction, and to engage in transition planning for the business. Twitter has failed or refused to provide this information. Sometimes Twitter has ignored Mr. Musk’s requests, sometimes it has rejected them for reasons that appear to be unjustified, and sometimes it has claimed to comply while giving Mr. Musk incomplete or unusable information.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.