'Free Speech Absolutist' Elon Musk Threatens Anti-Defamation League With Defamation Lawsuit
Plus: The doubling of the deficit, young Americans souring on college, and more...
'Free speech absolutist' Elon Musk is threatening to sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The group has allegedly tried to "kill" the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, with false accusations of antisemitism and advertiser boycotts, according to Musk. In a series of posts, the billionaire said that the ADL's pressure campaign on advertisers to leave X over its content moderation policies was primarily responsible for a 60 percent drop in the site's U.S. ad revenue.
"If this continues, we will have no choice but to file a defamation suit against, ironically, the 'Anti-Defamation' League," said Musk. "If they lose the defamation suit, we will insist that they drop [sic] the 'anti' part of their name."
If this continues, we will have no choice but to file a defamation suit against, ironically, the "Anti-Defamation" League.
If they lose the defamation suit, we will insist that they drop the the "anti" part of their name, since obviously … ????
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 4, 2023
In a subsequent post, Musk suggested that the ADL was responsible for destroying $22 billion of Twitter's value.
Based on what we've heard from advertisers, ADL seems to be responsible for most of our revenue loss.
Giving them maximum benefit of the doubt, I don't see any scenario where they're responsible for less than 10% of the value destruction, so ~$4 billion.
Document discovery of…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 4, 2023
The dispute between the ADL and X is not new.
Ever since Musk took over the platform late last year, the civil rights organization has accused the company of allowing hateful and antisemitic speech to proliferate through overly lax content moderation policies and practices.
The ADL was one of the groups reporting a dramatic rise in the use of racist and homophobic slurs on Twitter after Musk's acquisition. It also complained that the company was now less responsive to its requests to remove content.
Back in December 2022, Reason's Jacob Sullum argued that the rise in hate speech reported by the ADL and others was being exaggerated. The few thousand additional tweets containing racist and antisemitic slurs were still a tiny fraction of the content on the site.
Nevertheless, the ADL has continued to pressure X to be more aggressive in taking down what it deems hateful content. In a report published last month, the ADL even accused the social media site of running a "hate machine" for suggesting people follow accounts that have tweeted antisemitic content and memes.
The ADL, alongside other civil rights groups, had participated in other pressure campaigns aimed at getting advertisers to leave Facebook over its (supposedly) lax content moderation. In recent years, critics of the ADL also have accused it of being overly partisan and using dodgy methodology to inflate the number of antisemitic incidents it tracks.
In July, X sued the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate over what it claims were baseless accusations of failing to police hate speech.
Musk surely has some cause to dispute a lot of the claims the ADL is making about X. His company is within its rights to decline the group's content moderation demands. Nevertheless, the ADL is also well within its rights to argue Musk is running a "hate machine" and lobbying advertisers to take their business elsewhere. By threatening legal action against the group, Musk is ceding whatever moral high ground he may have had as a defender of free speech.
Instead, he's suggesting he might use the court system to bully the group into silencing their criticism of his company. That's hardly the action of a "free speech absolutist."
FREE MARKETS
The budget deficit is set to double this year, The Washington Post reports:
After the government's record spending in 2020 and 2021 to combat the impact of covid-19, the deficit dropped by the greatest amount ever in 2022, falling from close to $3 trillion to roughly $1 trillion. But rather than continue to fall to its pre-pandemic levels, the deficit then shot upward. Budget experts now project that it will probably rise to about $2 trillion for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for lower deficits.
Explosive piece in the Washington Post (by @JStein_WaPo assisted by @BudgetHawks) showing that the budget deficit is set to ???????????????????????? to $2 trillion this year.
This is basically unprecedented in U.S. history during relative peace and prosperity.????https://t.co/Kzfs78J5jr pic.twitter.com/KmZYXi2Emo
— Brian Riedl ???? ???????? (@Brian_Riedl) September 4, 2023
This explosion in debt is coming despite President Joe Biden's repeated claims that he's actually cutting the federal government's fiscal deficit.
FREE MINDS
Americans are increasingly saying "skool suks." Recent public opinion polls show that young Americans' attitudes toward college are turning increasingly negative, according to The New York Times:
The percentage of young adults who said that a college degree is very important fell to 41 percent from 74 percent. Only about a third of Americans now say they have a lot of confidence in higher education. Among young Americans in Generation Z, 45 percent say that a high school diploma is all you need today to "ensure financial security." And in contrast to the college-focused parents of a decade ago, now almost half of American parents say they'd prefer that their children not enroll in a four-year college.
Perhaps colleges being some of the last institutions to cling to insane COVID restrictions is playing a role:
At the @UMich, students testing covid positive must leave their dorms for 5 days & live in the community. A hotel room or a relative's house is ok.
This cruel policy is designed to spread covid from the university into the wild. It won't stop covid from spreading @umich. pic.twitter.com/Yfn58QKcut
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) September 3, 2023
QUICK LINKS
- According to technology journalist Tim Lee's parsing of data from the driverless taxi services of Waymo and Cruise, driverless cars might already be safer than human-operated motor vehicles.
- National Review on how the New Deal harmed black Americans.
- France is planning on banning all disposable vapes as part of an "anti-smoking" plan. Good luck with that!
- Former Democratic governor of New Mexico and 2008 presidential candidate Bill Richardson has died.
- Excavations at some Canadian residential schools are failing to turn up human remains in what were reported to be mass graves.
- Attendees are finally leaving Burning Man after a sudden storm made travel out of the desert festival temporarily impossible.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
'Free speech absolutist' Elon Musk is threatening to sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
You know who else went after a certain group of people?
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
I am now making more than 350???? dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything……. http://Www.Easywork7.com
The animosity between the ADL and an African-American business owner should have been foreseen.
How dare.
“By threatening legal action against the group, Musk is ceding whatever moral high ground he may have had as a defender of free speech.“
This is clearly another example of the need to simply criminalize lying .
When lying is criminalized won’t hate speech also be? Or is truth hate speech too?
Won’t baseless claims also be criminalized?
What say you, Kol Nidre boy?
How long would you give Musk to fight Zuckerberg before tossing Musk in jail?
How much time would Musk have spent in jail for lying about deal financing?
Don't you have some betters' cocks to suck?
That's a big list of betters for Rev. Artie.
🙂
😉
You know, Rev. Artie, for all of your yapping against reactionary, slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging bigots, you either don't recognize one when you address one or you damn sure don't have the stoneage to tell that bigot to "Fuck Off,Nazi!" as I do every time I see Herr Misek's stupid postings.
Carry on, you rag-doll Klinger, and keep your claw-hammer coat-tails under your flourishing cape! Fuck Off, Chamberlain!
You are a fucking nazi nutjob. The lying is absolutely part of free speech as long as it isn't done to perpetrate fraud or defamation.
^This
Funny, Fist doesn't look Jewish. Nor does anyone else here unless they identify as such.
And regardless of who's Jewish and who's right between Musk and the ADL, I think we can all share one sentiment about you:
Fuck Off, Nazi!
I found out recently that my mom's family is part German Jew. Enough that if my Great Grandmother had still lived in Germany during her life, it wouldn't have turned out so well. We never knew until my mom did a genetic genealogy. Me, I'm blond haired, blue eyed, very Scandinavian and German looking. But I'm part Jewish on my Mom's side, and even more Samish on my Dad's (his Grandma was half Sami). Not sure what looking Jewish even means. And I definitely wasn't raised or follow Jewish traditions (or Samish for that matter).
Clint Eastwood?
Charles Bronson?
John Wayne?
The ADL?
By threatening legal action against the group, Musk is ceding whatever moral high ground he may have had as a defender of free speech.
It's a requirement to let people lie about you to the point where it destroys your business if you believe in free speech. This is what Christian actually thinks.
Well, it's what he's paid to say, anyway.
Your theory is someone paid me to make a stupid joke about Clint Eastwood? I wish.
You are Christian?
His god is The State.
My theory had literally nothing at all to do with you, unless you're actually the author of the article.
My apologies. Followed the thread incorrectly.
Just a bird squawking all over the thread.
I noticed the same asinine point by the author. Free speech absolutism means free speech within the confines of the civil and criminal law free from government or corporate interference. It doesn't mean defamation law doesn't apply. This is so obvious it's embarrassing. I notice silly articles like this fairly frequently in Reason. It's almost like no one edits their content.
Seems like it's more like "we have to find something bad to say about Elon Musk so we'll still get invited to the cool cocktail parties".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the leftists that pretend to libertarianism at Reason appear to be suggesting that Elon Musk, defending himself from false accusations, defamation and bulling from the ADL, among other, is himself the bully?
They also seem to appear to think that refusing demands to censor content are themselves censorship of the folks demanding that speech be limited.
And people wonder why we call it 'clown world'.
"suggesting that Elon Musk, defending himself from false accusations, defamation and bulling from the ADL, among other, is himself the bully?"
- yes.
This has been their playbook for years. You are expected to let progressives spit on you and punch you in the face, and if you dare punch back you get labeled as the bully, "pouncing", or "why are you being so DEFENSIVE?!"
The ADL are progressives? How so? Defending Jewish people is a progressive value now?
[Disclaimer: Not an endorsement of the ADL's going after X. Just questioning Mike Parsons' throwing around the term "progressive" indiscriminately.]
Caw caw!
ADL has gone beyond defending Jewish people. In fact they are now attacking Jewish People. The lady behind Libs of TikTok is Orthodox Jewish. The ADL got her taken down from Twitter pre-Musk. All for posting what Libs post to TikTok.
Here's one example of the new head of the ADL, an Obama Staffer, changing the ADL mandate:
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/online-amplifiers-anti-lgbtq-extremism
I stand corrected, and apologize. I read some more about their current direction and they’ve definitely gone “woke”.
ADL fell to Conquest's Second Law and went hard left a while ago.
LOL wow brother Michael....
Maybe get up to date before trying to have adult conversations here. Do we also have to inform you that the ACLU as well, formerly a staunch supporter of freedom of speech even when evil nasty people say evil nasty things, has taken a hard left turn and is now actively for the suppression of free speech unless it aligns with left wing political orthodoxy?
You been asleep this whole time? Is this concept new to you? It's only happening every fucking day
Yes, they supported the American Nazi Party's right to march through Skokie, Il.
Now the only ones they defend is ANTIFA and BLM.
Stop resisting! Stop resisting!
Britschgi doesn’t preclude the possibility that both the ADL and Elon Musk are bullying. He does opine that Musk is trying to use the government to do his bullying, which is a particularly libertarian observation and concern.
However, if Musk goes to the government to protect himself from their speech, he cannot continue to call himself a free speech absolutist. That’s the point.
It is a retarded point. Defending one self is perfectly justified retard. Using courts to address grievances is not the state shutting down speech. There is not freedom from consequences.
You are wrong.
You should cease to opine in this forum...forever.
Sure. Whatever you say. Who are you, again?
And who the fuck are you, Laursen? You can fuck right off from this forum any time you'd like, but you stay here for the abuse and the superiority complex from muting those who know more and better than you gives you.
If you understood Libertarian theory, you would grasp that the civil judicial process is one of the valid functions of government. The only alternative is violence to stop an attack.
Anything Leftist adjacent that uses "Anti-" to describe itself, is nearly guaranteed to be doing exactly what it claims to be "Anti-". Standard lefty shit.
If they lose the defamation suit, we will insist that they drop [sic] the 'anti' part of their name.
To be fair, you put that in your name in the first place...
Then do Antifa. Amirite?
Oh, they've been fascists since 1932.
Why did the writer add [sic] to this statement? I don't see any grammatical error...
I wondered that too. Britches trying to be a smartass and making an ass of himself.
Doesn't Britches do that with almost everything he writes?
It also complained that the company was now less responsive to its requests to remove content.
Sounds like mission accomplished then, fuck ‘em.
Thought I’d drop this little “blast from the past”:
https://www.adl.org/resources/news/jewish-extremist-sentenced-california-bomb-plot
Around that time, Irv Rubin got involved in the Libertarian Party of California. He soon lost interest.
(Don’t ask me for a cite. This is something I witnessed personally.)
But then, if I recall correctly, we heard he died of a “suicide” where he fell off some kind of prison balcony or catwalk.
This explosion in debt is coming despite President Joe Biden's repeated claims that he's actually cutting the federal government's fiscal deficit.
This isn't the first time something explosive happened that the president claimed he didn't do.
When you sliding into first and you feel something burst...
Is that amore?
Joe Biden lied, must be a day ending in y.
Now c'mon man. Everybody knows a bunch of drunk Ukrainian dudes in Speedos blew up Nordstream.
Only about a third of Americans now say they have a lot of confidence in higher education.
Oh please let this bubble finally pop.
Why would a third have any confidence in it?
The third that is in academia.
Also gender-confused socialist freaks who would die from anxiety if they had to live in the real world.
Overall, 34% of registered voters identify as independent, compared with 33% who identify as Democrats and 29% who identify as Republicans.
What percentage of people think the earth is flat?
Don't know, but it would probably be shocking.
I am grateful my children and grandchildren will get the chance to compete economically with education-disdaining slack-jaws.
With "education-disdaining slack-jaws" running the public schools, there are sure to be plenty of them.
No they won’t. They’ll all be dead from climate change.
Yeah, because the outcome of apocalyptic societal collapse, as you betters predict, is always the flourishing of the elite fringe and never the survival of people who actually produce their own food and shelter.
Or you could be lying, right?
You don’t have any children or grandchildren. You’re liar just like Sarc. No one would ever breed with you. At least not willingly. And you’re too much of a servile weak piece of shit to have the capacity to force anyone.
I'm sure lots of plumbers are happy to compete in the financial marketplace with idiots that borrowed $200,000 to get a degree in Transgender Studies.
I'm not sure, but we do have survey evidence that fewer than 50% of 2016 Clinton voters know that the Earth revolves around the sun once per year.
"less than half of 2016 Clinton supporters (49.6%) are able to answer correctly both of two related questions: whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth (EARTHSUN) and whether that takes a day, a month, or a year (SOLARREV)."
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/01/30/trump-supporters-verbal-ability/
Haha. Rev Artie and his spawn represented here.
Democrats tell us that all MAGA types believe in a flat earth only 6000 years old. And then they put their masks back on to drive home alone for another aroma therapy crystal healing treatment.
ha!
nice juxtaposition 😉
...driverless cars might already be safer than human-operated motor vehicles.
Skynet starts with technology journalist Tim Lee in its pocket.
Sorry, I’m going to continue to be extremely skeptical for another decade or so. I’ll concede that they probably are better than very shitty drivers, and we have plenty of those.
Why do you think they are so popular among asians
Seen all those reports of driverless cars freezing and stopping and blocking traffic for no reason, or if you put a traffic cone on their hoods?
A stopped car cannot cause an accident, almost by definition. Of course they'll have a better traffic safety record!
There is also their explody problem
I'm waiting for the first report of one driverless car burning and attracting a fire engine, which in turn attracts the unwanted assaulty attention of a second driverless car.
Well, if recent reports are correct, the second vehicle will more likely end up blocking the fire truck.
BTW, they still have difficulties driving around a double-parked vehicle.
I believe they do very well when dealing with typical, expected road behavior. They almost certainly do a poor job of anticipating unexpected behavior.
For instance, a good, alert driver may see some kids playing with a ball on the side of the road ahead. They focus their attention on that and when the ball goes out into the road, they're hitting the brakes before the kid ever enters the roadway.
Self-driving car of course assumes it would be illogical for a person to suddenly jump out into the road in front of a car, and doesn't react until the kid is blocking traffic.
Most accidents I have seen-and I haven't been following too closely-that involve self-driving cars are incidents like this. A computer is naturally going to have faster reaction times than a human, but also don't have the ability to anticipate. For instance, a self-driving car ran over a blind athlete at the Paralympics in Tokyo in 2021. A normal driver might see someone with dark sunglasses and a cane, and anticipate that a blind person might not see the signal light, but the self-driving car expects him to obey traffic signals and stop walking at the light. A normal driver sees a dump truck with a poorly-secured load and thinks about the possibility of garbage falling out of it, or sees a car driving erratically while staying within the lines and is prepped for that car to do something stupid.
So you are saying cars are ableists?
Seeing through the eyes of driverless cars, Skynet is learning just what a nuisance we are.
Safer for the non-existent driver if the reports of the risks Uber drivers face picking up some passengers. I have a friend who used to drive Uber. His passengers were often the danger.
I will quibble with the assertion a stopped car won't cause an accident. A stopped car can cause an accident. A rear end accident or, if it delays traffic, a merging accident.
I suggest the other drivers are at fault for not seeing the stopped car.
Obstructing the free flow of traffic is a causative factor. That is why it is also a citable offense. Yes, the other driver should see the car that is stopped, but it's also a domino effect. How many times have you seen someone drive clear up to the end of a merge lane and then force their way into traffic. Oh pull right up onto a slow vehicle or stopped vehicle And then force their way into the other lane. Obstructing traffic is a danger to other drivers.The bad driver forcing their way into another lane is definitely more at fault, but the person obstructing traffic is also at least partially culpable.
If you are cruising in the right lane at 70mph in moderate traffic on a rural interstate, the guy that flies by at 90 in the left lane affects you... not at all. It's that clown 5 cars ahead in the right lane doing 52mph that fucks things up. Now you, the 4 cars ahead of you, and 10 or 20 vehicles behind you are scrambling to get around this jerk. The big trucks lose their momentum and struggle to get back up to speed while the 4 wheelers try to dodge around them. These are the circumstances that create the potential for interaction of vehicles and crashes.
I see someone else has driven on highways in New Mexico.
Or Montana or Idaho.
They do that shit in flat-as-hell Illinois.
That's my point about traffic obstruction.
"How many times have you seen someone drive clear up to the end of a merge lane and then force their way into traffic. "
Lol, that's what you're supposed to do, you cockwomble. It's not called 'forcing your way in', it's called 'merging in the right place'.
Who the fuck taught you to drive? Common courtes states if you know a merge is coming up, to signal, check your blind spot and merge over, not race up to the end of your lane and then force yourself into the flow of traffic. Can tell you're a real asshole who's probably forces others to brake because you feel privileged. Hint, you yield when merging not the person in the lane your merging into. That's actually the law dipshit.
Additionally, in most states you aren't supposed to drive to the end of the lane before merging, you're supposed to merge as soon as it's safe. Fuck, maybe driverless cars will be safer than assholes like Dave.
Lol, that’s what you’re supposed to do, you cockwomble. It’s not called ‘forcing your way in’, it’s called ‘merging in the right place’.
In slow-to-stopped traffic, zipper merging is useful for saving space, to prevent long single-lane backups. At highway speeds, merging should happen as soon as possible, to avoid the inevitable slowing caused by “cockwombles” like you who try to force their way in at the last minute.
France is planning on banning all disposable vapes as part of an "anti-smoking" plan. Good luck with that!
Britches is too provincial to slip in a bonne chance.
Buuut Bidenomics will fix it!
After the government’s record spending in 2020 and 2021 to combat the impact of covid-19,
There was virtually nothing spent to combat the impact of covid. The trillions were spent so that pigs could wallow in a trough while at home in their pajamas. The amount spent combating the impact of covid was maybe $100 billion maximum.
Oh those policies you wanted, didn’t work, so now those aren’t the policies you wanted?
Worse than sqrlsy.
I wouldn't go that far.
Still, he ain't wrong here. Multiple commenters here were pointing out that this wasn't going to do anything other than kick inflation into gear, and were ultimately proven correct.
JFree's right twice a day.
Most of you people were deathly silent when those trillion dollar bills passed. Dead comment threads.
Except when Amash – one of the less than a handful of critters who voted against the bills – justified his vote by recognizing that anti-covid spending didn’t require a big spending bill at all. And then lookee at all antiAmash shit slinging because what’s important for a libertarian is that they be pro-Trump.
You all are lying unprincipled assclowns. AND pajama-clad pigs snarfing up free shit from a trough.
Ha Ha you got caught.
Those threads - and the comments - are all archived here.
Let's dig 'em out, then!
And yet you linked to…none of them.
Most of you people were deathly silent when those trillion dollar bills passed. Dead comment threads.
You went from a cogent observation into pulling shit out of your ass again.
"Most of you people were deathly silent"
"You all are lying unprincipled assclowns."
Back it up with some evidence fuckwad. Threads were constantly filled with people complaining that every aspect of govt intervention, including the massive spending, was going to go the way govt intervention always does: costly, pointless, and with shitty results.
Also many talked about the inflation that would absolutely result from this.
Sorry that you backed a shitty horse (the govt and their COVID narrative) and now you are trying to pretend that you weren't their perfect useful idiot the whole time.
You remind me, perfectly, of the establishment R's/D's that have the nerve to critique the quagmire in the middle east, while conveniently forgetting to add that they were the assclowns who "followed the evidence" that WMD's were real and we HAD TO do it, for freedom. You are every bit one of these pieces of shit...notable that these same fucks are the ones who at every possible chance sign on for unlimited support for Ukraine.
The same kind of people that will fully support GND type of policies, and then have the nerve, 10 years later, to come out and say what a big waste it was and how could we not have seen that it would be an absolute boondogle.
You were right about your comment above, but the point you miss is it was your ilk that paved the way for the exact policies and spending you now "complain" about. The "DO SOMETHING!" nanny loving boot lickers club.
We haven't forgotten about your DAILY retard hot takes during COVID, Jfree
Pretty sure I damned it all multiple times.
https://reason.com/2020/03/13/politicians-declare-eviction-moratoriums-to-combat-coronavirus-will-they-give-up-that-power-after-the-virus-fades/?comments=true#comments
CTRL-F 'JFree' = 0 results
https://reason.com/2020/03/15/biden-promises-major-major-major-bailouts-in-response-to-coronavirus/?comments=true#comments
CTRL-F 'JFree' = 0 results
My accusation is that YOUR ILK was nowhere to be found anywhere back then spouting anything libertarian. I see none of your ilk on any of those two threads. Both of which had very few comments (ie were dead). You want a thread on that day?
Trump declares national emergency. 15 of the 97 comments are mine. About the same number are gray boxes but they will remain muted. No surprise Im still talking mobilizing the militia and doing whatever via interstate compact (where nothing federal can be mandatory and money/subsidy is difficult to turn into cronyism) instead even though by then its too late. You? - don't see anything from you
And yet there are plenty of others that go against your claims. You haven't refuted Minadin.
It's also very dishonest single out Trump in all this. Everyone put in the lockdowns at first, but only one party decided to lift them far later than it needed to be. They also objected to Trump in nearly everything he did.
I knew you were a retard, but I didn’t realize until now that you additionally are severely brain damaged. No one here that counts favored those bullshit spending bills. The only reason Trump got any kind of a pass is because all the people you live so much voted for them, plus a bunch of asshole RINO collaborators.
Those bills were of you, not us.
Chicken-little here keeps hoping we'll forget his support fer every damn statist policy fostered by every damn tin-pot-dictator.
We won't asshole; you OWN it.
You know all would be forgiven if you admit you lost your mind during covid and we're compleatly wrong about everything. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem
^this.
I dont want tips on fire safety from a long known, multi-offense, arsonist. I just want him to admit it, agree to stay away from gas cans, and pipe the fuck down about "what the fire dept SHOULD have done..."
So the government(s) created the "problem", forced a solution at 'gunpoint' which was infinitely worse, violating numerous laws throughout, and facilitated one of the largest wealth transfers in the history of this country. And your complaint is that the money wasn't spent correctly? Were you expecting it to be?
There was virtually nothing spent to combat the impact of covid. The trillions were spent so that pigs could wallow in a trough while at home in their pajamas. The amount spent combating the impact of covid was maybe $100 billion maximum.
This is sort of correct, in that the money wasn't spent combating covid, it was spent combating lefty shits like JFear's insane overreactions to covid that screwed over nearly everyone and the economy, and then double screwed the economy trying to fix what they fucked up in the first place. Fuck you JFear, this is your mess.
Attendees are finally leaving Burning Man after a sudden storm made travel out of the desert festival temporarily impossible.
The goddamn hippies came too close to a shower.
No, wait, better joke:
More like Drowning Man, am I right, goddamn hippies?
Whatever floats your boat, man.
whatever floats your gloat, more like - amirite?
but still... I did get a smile from those - something, something, shaudenfruede
Want some real schadenfreude? The dust on the Playa is very alkaline. So all those hippies covered in mud are getting chemical burns. They call it "Playa foot" among other things, skin irritation from being in contact with the mud too long.
Lord help them if they got that mud on their junk. Burning man, indeed.
Here’s mud in your eye!
😉
“They’re not people, they’re hippies!”
By threatening legal action against the group, Musk is ceding whatever moral high ground he may have had as a defender of free speech.
No. You can be in favor of free speech and still want defamation punished. Defamation is not free speech.
An individual can absolutely claim that X is a “hate machine” because it allows people to post memes. But when you start calling up advertisers and lying directly to them for the purpose of interfering in X’s financial relationships, you’re potentially outside the bounds.
I can defend free speech without claiming “Sure would hate to see this store burned down,” is just free speech when spoken by a mobster extorting protection money.
It’s currently hip to hate on musk.
And by hip do you mean official White House/DNC policy?
I'm waiting for Kathy Griffin, Stephen King and Jim Carrey to chime in on this.
Fountains of wisdom, all.
I didn't realize this was a Britches mourning lynx until I read the comments. Saw the
TwitterX diatribe against the ADL being responsible for their defamation and assumed it was what's-her-name still sulking about Mastodon not taking off.Why a supposed Libertarian rag is so opposed to Musk is beyond me, which is why I used the "supposed".
Translation: “diatribe” = fairly dry discussion of current event of interest to libertarians
Translation: Mikey refuses to discuss the issue itself, instead resorting to his usual off-topic side excursion into meaningless made-up semantics.
Pretty sure that lying, imbecilic pile of lefty shit is incapable of discussing about any topic.
That was a heck of a word salad. What do you want to discuss?
No one here wants to discuss anything with you.
You're the one who claimed I had referenced a discussion.
Go discuss your own lack of discussion. With yourself.
Cool, you had nothing interesting to say, but though you’d send up a little unReason signal.
And you squawked in response, bird.
Lol. You consider that a word salad? … and you gripe about Dillinger not using complete sentences. Just what is it that you want to see?
I mean besides no criticism of laursen.
I wonder if you would be motivated to focus on the discussion at hand through some kind of negative reinforcement. Like beatings.
It’s worth a try,
There is the odd assertion that pursuing a lawsuit against an organization with malice aforethought using fraudulent claims about you to deliberately harm you and your business is somehow a violation of "free speech absolutism".
Britschi is making a rather sophomoric criticism of Musk's free speech credentials here.
I disagree. A free speech absolutist, as Musk once claimed to be, would think it more important, even if someone’s words could harm his business, to support the speaker’s right to say those words. That’s the nature of absolutism.
Idiotic take, as usual.
Well, he IS an idiot, so……..
That might be true if any free speech advocate, anywhere, ever, had claimed that free speech includes the right to harm others with fraud or extortion.
Caw caw!
Note Mike is here to split hairs about definitions. He is unwilling to actually stick up for Britschgi's terrible take, so instead he wants us to argue about whether or not "diatribe" is an accurate description or not.
Classic Liarson Maneuver.
https://reason.com/2023/05/07/will-2024-bring-the-return-of-the-neocons/?comments=true#comment-10051072
It's never ever been effective. Not even once.
But every day he's pettifogging about some word in an attempt to discredit his interlocutors entire statement. Between the maneuver and sealioning he does nothing else.
He's a troll by any metric.
And quite worthless.
And he asserts that "free speech absolutist" implies a definition of free speech that no one ever has advocated.
Translation: "what’s-her-name still sulking about Mastodon not taking off" = ENB once wrote a bit about Mastodon.
Here's what stood out to me:
The ADL was one of the groups reporting a dramatic rise in the use of racist and homophobic slurs on Twitter after Musk's acquisition. It also complained that the company was now less responsive to its requests to remove content.
The ADL seems rather perturbed that they don't have a hardline to Twitter's jannies like they used to.
Also, one of the more telling aspects of Musk buying Twitter was the center-right joining the left in doing performative departures from the platform, which says a lot about how those factions are really aligned these days.
Yep, nothing is more hateful for revolutionaries than counter-revolutionaries. Especially after the revolutionaries consider themselves the establishment.
Perhaps musk should start an organization for the sole purpose of defending a pedofile by trying pinning the crime on a black guy.
I have to agree. In fact, I would argue that defamation protection is a core part of free speech. After all, if defamation is not actionable, then who can trust anything that is said?
Let's be honest. Does anyone trust anything said about any politician? You know it can be a complete lie and they can do nothing.
There is a strong difference between speech that you don't like and speech that is false and harmful.
"No. You can be in favor of free speech and still want defamation punished"
This is absolutely true, and once again, we see that Reason's editors are woefully incompetent. Not only did they allow this silly assertion to stay unchallenged in the post, but the lede of this entire post basically assumes this faulty premise.
For the record, part of allowing free speech is accepting consequences for that speech. If indeed someone is lying and causes damages as a result, that is either fraud or defamation. If it can be proven, then the guilty party should be held accountable for that speech.
Now maybe Musk is wrong- maybe the ADL isn't actually crossing the line into Fraud or Defamation. But it is absurd to suggest that Musk is ceding moral high ground here for expecting ADL to pay if it IS guilty of causing damages.
They are probably well over the line for tortious interference. I can see fraud being tossed because it's just an opinion, defamation might be there depending on how they worded their demand letters to advertisers.
I came here to say the same thing. The ADL's actions are clearly aimed at hurting X, additionally, they are not supported by the actual facts and are completely based upon the fact that Musk refuses to play their ideological game. As such, it is clearly, the ADL'S action, a violation of the NAP. It isn't being wishy-washy on free speech. Free speech doesn't mean no repercussions for clearly defamatory speech. This use to be a bedrock principle of libertarianism. Free speech, but allowing for defamation and libel when appropriate. This changed when Trump mentioned libel in regards to some extremely questionable stories. Suddenly, threatening libel and defamation lawsuits became anti-free speech (generally only when threatened by the right BTW). Remember britches also insisted it was a conspiracy theory that the government was pressuring private companies to censor, and tried to blow off the Twitter files when they first came out. Says all you need to know about his "principles".
I hope he destroys them. If we want libertarianism, we better not be afraid to destroy the forces that will otherwise eliminate our freedom and prosperity.
I only leave other people alone when they leave me alone. If someone is openly working to destroy me, then they need to go.
Yes. Musk is not threatening the ADL's right to criticize X. He is claiming that they are defaming his company by lying about it. They are free to defend themselves in court if it comes to that. Meanwhile they are free to trash X on X or anywhere else. They should not be free to lie to and pressure advertisers to harm Musk's or any other business. Reason's take as usual, requires that we accept their twisted logic because Africanamericanmanbad.
Ditto. There is no contradiction between advocating free speech and suing for actionable defamation.
It’s important to remember that most of the staff at Reason aren’t very bright.
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they are of average intelligence but disingenuous.
They're among the brightest leftists in media today, but yes, not bright overall.
Perhaps colleges being some of the last institutions to cling to insane COVID restrictions is playing a role...
If this plays any hand in their demise it will all have not been for naught.
The percentage of young adults who said that a college degree is very important fell to 41 percent from 74 percent.
Maybe they are realizing that the type of degree is important, not just any degree.
Or they could have been a plumber and make actual money.
True, but I was thinking about STEM fields.
Do you mean old-fashioned racist STEM, with numbers and everything? Or new, improved woke STEM, with anti-racist diversity quotas?
Racist STEM, of course.
I do not want a diversity-educated-hired engineer designing my bridge.
Well that's what you're gonna get.
That's OK. The bridge has to stand only until the diversity pilot flying your airliner crashes into it.
True, but I was thinking about STEM fields.
Shit, I've found that these trade guys do just as much STEM as any college grad.
I wonder how much the constant whining about not being able to repay student loans has affected people's perception of the value of a college degree? After all if the recipients of a college degree can't earn enough to repay the loan how much is the degree really worth?
I've been hammering on this point frequently here and in other forums. Maybe people are finally starting to wake up a bit.
Excavations at some Canadian residential schools are failing to turn up human remains in what were reported to be mass graves
I’m sure the apology letter is in the mail.
You guys need some human remains?
/John wayne gacey
Maybe Buttplug or Jeffy could supply some children's bones.
This was the only time the muckrakers were wrong.
Racist! In woke world apologies only flow down the Power Structure.
Note reasons tepid responce. It was a hoax that led to the burning of over 80 churches
Yeah cuz churches are icky. Duh.
You know it's 2023 when the excavation of mass graves turns up nothing but a bunch of groans of disappointment.
We were so *sure* those White Catholic European Colonizers murdered all those Indians and then put a school on top of the burial ground. The narrative was too good not to be true!
"we Canucks want so badly to be as evil as our evil American benefactors."
It really is religiosity. Religion is on the decline, and yet people still have this need to seek atonement, in order to cleanse and seek purity. Doing that when it means confronting your own behavior is very difficult because you want to be justified in your own action. So you seek out behavior you hold no moral culpability for and begin apologizing for it to prove that you're One Of The Good Ones.
It also helps that people advocating for reparations assume they're not going to have pay any of it, that Rich People will end up paying out, and you're doing justice by apologizing and then visiting that damage upon the sinners.
Societal-level self-flagellation. That's what happens when you breed all those icky Western-male tendencies out of the population.
It's like the myth of the small pox blankets. Yes, a British officer did suggest it during a siege, but there is no evidence it ever was implemented. Additionally, small pox was probably introduced by the besieging French forces, as the records seem to indicate the first cases of small pox appeared in the French camp. Additionally, siege warfare in the 18th century (or any time really) was a very intimate affair. Even if Smallpox first showed up in the British fort, the intimate nature of siege warfare would have easily transmitted it to the French and Native forces without the need to give them blankets (additionally, after the British surrendered the native forces slaughtered the retreating British and civilians and raider their camps anyhow, so they stole blankets from Smallpox survivors and other clothing etc. themselves).
It is even worse than that. This originally started at Ft William Henry. The Brits and French negotiated a peace, but the Indians allied with the French ignored the terms, and raided a garrison, scalping many of the patients in the hospital. They then took home the supplies at that hospital, which included contaminated blankets from the smallpox patients they had just murdered.
At that point, it was figured out that this is a form of biological warfare. When Ft Pitt was beseiged, the commander allegedly (by his own words) gave the small pox blankets to the besieging warriors during a parlay.
Now, according to Geneva Conventions, this type of biological warfare is a war crime. But it was not at the time, and in fact sieges were a particularly nasty affair, as you note. Sieges were essentially the classical version of nuclear warfare. It took enormous cost to lay siege, and it took enormous cost to withstand it. So it was not uncommon for very bad shit to happen to the losing side. This is why besieged cities were often razed if they didn't surrender. It was not uncommon for besieging armies- including Indian-led armies- to attempt to poison the water-sources of besieged cities.
This is not to excuse this Swiss general working for the Brits. He cheated during a Parlay. That alone was immoral by the standards of the time. But calling this an act of genocide is just plain hyperbole.
The fact is that smallpox was already present though in the French camp even before the parley. So, it's questionable if the giving of blankets (if it occurred, which is debatable) caused the outbreak of smallpox in the native camp. Smallpox and sieges went hand in hand (as did dysentery and cholera). As both the majority of French and British forces were made up of colonists, who had largely not been exposed to smallpox at the same level as European regulars, when enclosed with European troops, smallpox outbreaks were nearly inevitable. A similar smallpox outbreak in the American Revolution nearly cost the American forces the war. And caused more deaths than combat.
It's also noteworthy that the Brits at least contemplated infecting the Continental Army with smallpox, but is not clear if they ever carried it out.
I think it is enough that Ecuyer claimed in his own writing to be trying to infect the enemy. And Amherst would later do the same in another battle. And (as noted above) Brits later endorsed doing the same to Colonials. The tactic of using biological warfare to thin out your enemy was not novel, it was contemplated by the Brits, and it wasn't an attempt at Genocide.
Let's note that the story I was told as a kid was that blankets were distributed on the first reservations to deliberately kill the tribes. That is a far exaggeration from using biological warfare to target active combatants besieging you.
The fact that there is a small grain of truth here has led to this myth continuing for years.
And biological warfare had long been a part of siege warfare. Flinging corpses of animals and soldiers into enemy strongholds dates back at least to the Greeks. It is also strongly suspected to be how plague was spread to Europe in the 14th century. Turks flinging plague corpses into a castle held by the Venetians (or maybe it was the Geneose, I don't remember which at this time). Who then spread it to Italy after they abandoned the fort. Although there is many questions as to rather this is apocryphal.
Or possibly even coincidental. That plague was already present before the Turks decided to fling corpses into the fort. Much like smallpox. Its likely the actions had little or nothing to do with the disease propagation, as the proximity of besiegers and besieged was likely to result in an outbreak in both camps anyhow.
My understanding is that the plagues came in largely due to fleas from the rats on the ships.
It was brought in by ships, but the story goes that the Turks were besieging an Italian Merchant fortress on the Crimea. After the Turks lifted the siege (the Turks had plague in their camp during the siege), the merchants abandoned their trading post and sailed back to Italy, and that was the first recorded outbreak of plague in western Europe, the so called Black Death.
The story of how plague was spread in the 14th century is actually FAR more interesting. In fact, it was the Mongol Empire that spread the disease as part of their trade network.
The Mongols were horsemen, and their caravans were basically long horse trains. The fleas that carry the plague, however, hated the smell of horses. So when they were being transported in grain and other caravan supplies, they stayed off the horses and the Mongols who tended to smell like horses.
This allowed the Mongol caravans to spread the plague to all corners of Europe. Usually a virulent disease like the plague would kill its hosts before they could spread too far. But the fact that they could carry the plague-bearing fleas without being infected meant that they could continue spreading the disease from city to city.
Ghengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World is a very accessible book that I recommend picking up.
Maybe it was the Mongols and not the Turks that were the besiegers, now that you mention it. Yeah, the Mongol empire really changed a lot of things we don't even realize.
It’s also noteworthy that the Brits at least contemplated infecting the Continental Army with smallpox, but is not clear if they ever carried it out.
That shit was spreading pretty naturally and broadly on its own during the period. Doing biological warfare would have been pretty redundant and likely backfired, as the British never really had the mass numbers of troops that people like to think they did. Getting blowback from a smallpox epidemic would have crippled their warfighting capability significantly.
They relied heavily on loyal colonists to make up for their short numbers. As colonists were more susceptible, even if contemplated it would have been self defeating, because they never had enough less susceptible European soldiers (Europeans had been exposed to smallpox more frequently than the colonists, as it was more endemic in Europe than North America).
Whether it was spreading naturally or not, we have contemporary records of British generals calling on their subordinates to use arrows tipped with SP effluent to be fired into forts. Again, it is not clear if these orders were ever followed (just as it is not clear if Ecuyer actually DID what he claimed in his writings), but it says something that the Brits on numerous occasions saw this form of biological warfare as acceptable for reducing armies.
Again, none of these examples include the often used charge that Americans intentionally infected TRIBES with Small Pox. It was British soldiers attempting to combat warbands.
That said, Americans (like many warring peoples throughout history) were guilty of what we would call war crimes today, including targeting non-combatants for collective punishment, forced displacement, and even poisoning civilians. Being clear on the circumstances around each of these crimes is important PRECISELY because broad paintings cheapen the severity of the crimes, and can lead to them being dismissed or even perpetrated again.
^Totally this. Warfare in the 18th and 19th century was a completely different creature. You mentioned the unwritten rule about razing a town after a siege. Fuck, Wellington allowed the British forces to go on a 24 hour raping and pillaging spree after the fall of Badajoz, and the Spanish were his allies. Oh, he condemned the actions but did very little to stop it for 24 hours. And he and other British generals did the same thing multiple times in India.
Except for the fact the Canadian government did have a policy of forcefully removing Indian children from their families and sending them to these schools. Kidnapping is wrong whether or not it ends in murder.
And thankful the victims of this policy are wrong on the mass murder aspect. Hopefully these kids went on to have decent lives.
Just because kidnapping is wrong doesn't mean it is ok to upgrade it to murder. Doing so dilutes the moral outrage of kidnapping, and undermines exactly the moral clarity we want to see.
Meh, getting details wrong isn't a big deal especially here. Kids were kidnapped and never returned - murder is a logical conclusion ergo worth investigating.
"Meh, getting details wrong isn’t a big deal especially here."
Bullshit. Over 80 churches were vandalized as a result of this "detail" being spread irresponsibly. It is a very big deal.
Was there any evidence of this outside of bullshit Marxist claims?
No one denies the kidnapping portion. The problem is the addition of unproven grievances. Like the smallpox blankets.
Except its not like the smallpox because they did have the policy. Just because the victims got some of the details wrong, well I can excuse them - seeing that having your children stolen from you, never to return is already akin to murder.
No one denies the policy. It's not getting some of the details wrong. The added details, which resulted in over 80 churches burned today, with no evidence. The jumping to conclusions about past actions, caused damages today. Because of the unfounded conclusions that were made without evidence, and accepted, without evidence, people were harmed today for something that didn't occur (mass graves) according to the evidence. People also lost their jobs, for pointing out the lack of evidence. You're missing this point. The kidnappings were terrible and rightly should have been called out. But they claims of mass graves, with no evidence, caused harm too. And harms the cause of the very people impacted by the kidnappings. What happened to the natives in the US and Canada was terrible, but not necessarily unique in history and hardly the planned genocide that activists try and portray it as. By leveling false charges, these activists undermine their cause and make people suspicious of all their claims, even the ones with solid evidence.
How many supporters, in Canada and the US, of Indian boarding schools and other assimilation policies were the progressives of that era?
Almost every single one. It was definitely championed by progressives in both parties.
Overt and soldiermedic76 - Thanks for the most interesting thread of the day.
^^
Yes. Very interesting discussion. That's why I come here.
Shit like this use to be the norm on here a decade or so ago. It's definitely gone downhill. The sad thing is that people like Liarson and Sarc blame others but are as guilty if not more so than the ones they blame.
The problem is the addition of unproven grievances. Like the smallpox blankets.
Slight disagreement. Not unproven, unprovable. Less provable than the smallpox blankets. That is, while it's nonsensical to apply modern conceptions of germ-warfare to pre-germ theory and pre-genetic theory eras, we can all objectively reach the same conclusion in the modern era even if applying those criteria retroactively is inappropriate.
The Sixties Scoop, OTOH, invokes an inherently nonsensical/oxymoronic notion of "cultural genocide". A conception that science rather specifically indicates can't be defined and, even if it could, modern cultures, East, West, and Other, between various immigration, education, child welfare social welfare, and "reproductive welfare" policies, are "guilty" of on a scale that makes the Sixties Scoop look like having cookies and punch at Sunday School. Seriously, the entirety of the Sixties Scoop (which lasted almost 30 yrs.) is *several fold* less than *1* yrs. worth of *either* kids in-and-out of foster care *or* abortions.
The Canadians should drag the current regime into the streets and burn them at the stake.
These folks are confused:
"Mexico places piece of Berlin wall near US border: 'May this be a lesson'
[...]
"The Mexican government placed a piece of the Berlin Wall just a stone's throw from the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana, sending a clear message to border-security advocates in the U.S..."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/mexico-places-piece-berlin-wall-near-us-border-may-this-be-lesson
Like commie hell-holes the world over, the Berlin Wall was built to keep a population from leaving, not to encourage it to do so.
Hey, there must have been at least two or three retarded but dedicated commies that tried to break into East Germany.
western intelligence agents defecting probably
unholy mole-y
Well, there is that imbecile who ran *into* North Korea a couple of months back. Just guessing he's by now learned that wasn't a real good idea.
I think part of the attraction of the monument would be to bring all your family and friends... and a ladder... to the monument and then take pictures climbing over it. If/When they, ironically, try to arrest you, just claim you're all Antifa trying to show up those fascist bastards that kept people from climbing over the wall.
That would be hilariously ironic.
"The budget deficit is set to double this year, The Washington Post reports"
Trump's fault, right?
Perhaps colleges being some of the last institutions to cling to insane COVID restrictions is playing a role:
Based on those figures, I doubt it has to do with COVID. Zoomers and their parents are probably realizing that a college degree isn't worth the return on investment unless you're going into a STEM field, that you don't need a degree to go into a trade school, you certainly don't need one if you're getting ad revenue from social media platforms, and if you're not an insane leftist, there's no point in sending tens of thousands of dollars to people who hate you. I mean, look at this:
The percentage of young adults who said that a college degree is very important fell to 41 percent from 74 percent.
I mean, that is a MASSIVE drop. I'm even seeing it in my own social circle--my buddy's daughter is choosing to go to cosmetology school instead of college. Her father and her aunt are both college grads, one in nursing and the other in law, and her grandfather was a lawyer as well. And her dad is perfectly fine with that because, as he told me, "College is too fucking expensive now to waste time studying something she doesn't really want to do, on top of paying all of her other bills. If she wants to get a degree in business later on, that's perfectly fine, but she likes doing people's hair and makeup and I'd rather she have a career doing something she enjoys, and college will always be there."
I expect to see a lot more of this in future years- kids deferring college until their mid or late 20s. Back in the day, this was discouraged because parents would always say "if you don't go now, you'll never find time for it." But back in the day that happened because kids got married and started families a lot earlier. That no longer happens.
When I graduated in the 90s you could still make a go of it in tech without a degree. Having a degree was great to accumulate skills, but the great thing about software engineering was that either the software worked or it didn't- and so kids who knew how to get shit done would be hired no matter what. Flash forward to 2015, and my CEO would just shitcan any resume that didn't have a degree. Period. She just argued that it was better to throw away 100 decent candidates than accept one bad one.
Finally it seems like this tide is turning the other way. My current company still wants kids trained, but they would rather hire from these software bootcamps, rather than hire kids with a full BS. The latter have lots of fundamental skills, but they don't know how Continuous Integration/Deployment works. They don't know how to collaborate on a git repo, or how to build modular code.
I think Zoomers are starting to realize that they can have "the college experience" of getting drunk and having promiscuous sex (at least the ones getting out of the house) without spending tens of thousands of dollars to do so. We could end up seeing a trend where Zoomers and Gen-As in about 10-15 years do a cost-benefit analysis and only go to college if they see a direct pipeline to a career out of it. On top of that, there's really no benefit for young men in particular to deal with all of the Critical Theory insanity that dominates academia these days, so female attendance rates are going to go up quite a bit as well.
Colleges are going to have to adapt or go under. The recent instance of West Virginia University talking about dropping its language programs would be the first shot across the bow of not requiring a bunch of gen-ed credits that don't pertain directly to a person's major. A "liberal arts education" is just an indulgence when these people can't even figure out how to pay back their student loans.
Your point about businesses, especially in STEM, wanting people with a particular suite of capabilities is going to be another thing that forces colleges to adapt. The most obvious avenue is coordinating direct work-study programs and sponsoring those bootcamps as weekend seminars, so the college can still make money while providing employers with grads who have the skills they seek. We'll see if they're clever enough to actually pull anything competent off without the Greivance Brigade in the humanities and social sciences cutting it off at the knees. My expectations are pretty low in that regard.
My niece graduated a couple years ago with a useless degree. Been a waitress ever since.
She starts school again next week. For nursing. It was hard not to smirk, but I held back and congratulated her on her new career choice.
I’m sure she feels entitled to have her loans “forgiven”, but that’s another issue.
Give her credit for going into nursing. Hospitals are screaming for help after stupidly laying off their staffs during COVID.
Refreshing to have a round up free of abortion and sex work.
Remember the guy who use to do ascii art of a penis in the comments?
I miss him
I miss Chumby, as well.
"Recent public opinion polls show that young Americans' attitudes toward college are turning increasingly negative, according to The New York Times"
OMG!!! How are progressives, Democrats, anti-racist racists, socialists, nanny-staters, and scientismists going to complete the indoctrination of young Americans they began in government-funded preschool?
The University of Michigan COVID protocol sounds like a variation of the Cuomo Plan. Since that worked so well.
Musk is ceding whatever moral high ground he may have had as a defender of free speech.Instead, he's suggesting he might use the court system to bully the group into silencing their criticism of his company. That's hardly the action of a "free speech absolutist."
Ae you serious that is the most libertarian thing is to sue someone who is harming your business. He is using the government to protect himself which is the only purpose of government.
As well as Musk is asserting that the ADL's claims that being used against his business are fraudulent.
Free speech absolutism does not provide absolute legal protection to libel and slander.
And this should need to be stated on a libertarian publication. But here we are.
You just made an exception. Once you've made an exception it is, by definition, not absolutism.
Mike is hilariously wrong here.
Legally protecting you from the consequences of your speech is not the same as protecting your right to speak.
Even when Mike engages in the liarson maneuver, he beclowns himself periodically. It's kind of pathetic, really.
He is one stupid pice of shit.
Cite?
I'm not wild about every application of defamation. But when a group is deliberately and explicitly attacking your business with the intent of doing you and your business harm, then it seems pretty reasonable that it be actionable.
And particularly if they are doing so as a result of that business not catering to their requests.
Obviously, what constitutes actual defamation will have gray areas and some room for interpretation. This is why we have judges to dismiss frivolous lawsuits, and juries to rule on the merits of a specific case. The fact that it can be difficult to prove is a feature of defamation laws, not a bug.
If its claims are false, yes. Otherwise, a company selling poisoned milk to schoolchildren would be able to sue those who denounce it for doing so.
Yes, of course. Truth should always be a valid defense. Though in this case, the claims made are fairly subjective and hard to judge as true/false; the real harm is in pressuring advertisers.
Ah, no zeb, they’re claiming racism. This is not to be questioned.
Don’t you even woke, brah?
Seeking redress through the courts is the libertarian way. It’s not like he’s lobbying government to establish legislation or regulations that silence his enemies.
It is 100% libertarian to hit back and not be a punching bag for Marxist trash.
>>>Nevertheless, the ADL is also well within its rights to argue Musk is running a "hate machine" and lobbying advertisers to take their business elsewhere.
siding with ADL because Elon hurt your feelings jfc
They can claim, but their actions of calling his advertisers and lying to them crosses the line into causing harm, what part of that doesn't britches get?
Darling --> Despot because one billion dollar purchase & a can of Raid
Can you explain further how Elon Musk hurt Christian Britschgi's feelings?
Look, it's the Liarson maneuver again. Like 3 times in one morning.
To be clear, whether Elon Musk hurt Britschgi's feelings or not has jack shit to do with the narrative of this story. But Mike really, really wants people arguing these tangents rather than talking about the fact that an ostensibly libertarian magazine is suggesting that defamation lawsuits are anti-freedom of speech. So he does this nitpicking.
Mike has never made an argument of substance in the entire time he's commented here. It's all drive-by misdirection, red herrings, and motte-and-bailey arguments, and because he has 80% or more of the board muted, he gets to pretend that no one ever refuted any of his dumb assertions.
Why should we indulge you, faggot?
>>National Review on how the New Deal harmed black Americans.
1992 called.
After the government's record spending in 2020
Did NOT happen according to the Trump Cult.
Or - Nancy tricked Donnie and Mitch into that massive spending. Because, you know, the House can overrule the President and Senate.
Pray for a TDS vaccine.
Naah. We can hope TDS is fatal and TDS-addled lying piles of lefty shit like turd die a long and painful death.
Any thoughts on BIDEN spending more than anybody in history with no "world-ending pandemic" to blame it on?
Someone said Nancy and the Democrats actually wrote those record spending bills Pluggo mentions.
Big if true.
I can’t imagine why totally-not-a-Democratic-Party-shill Buttplug would fail to mention that though.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Sevo, how did you get to be such a bitter old fag?
Leave the Bay Area dude. Scooping up sperm in the Tenderloin is not a career.
How did you get to be such a hated, TDS-addled, lying pile of lefty shit?
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
He's not bitter to me or most other people here.
He just rightly hates you Shrike. That's not being bitter, that's being wise.
Why do people hate turd on sight? Saves them time.
Yes, that spending was awful. Trillions of dollars to enrich the well connected. Trump and most other republicans did nothing to stop it. That did happen.
But now Biden is taking it as the baseline and claiming he's somehow being responsible. That is fucking insane.
They also tricked Trump into insisting his signature be on the checks that were distributed to American households.
Or because spending bills are constitutionally required to originate in the house of representatives you retarded fucking pedophile.
>>explosion in debt despite President Joe Biden's repeated claims he's actually cutting the federal government's fiscal deficit.
don't know whether to thank you for criticizing Brandon or laugh at the milquetoast but something > nothing so ...
The first one. I know it is painful to admit Reason criticizes Democrats, too, since it goes against the conservative victimhood narrative.
everything after the but is the thanks.
Why is "free speech absolutist" in inverted commas in the same line as a defamation suit? Is reason confused yet again about what those concepts entail?
I suppose one could be an absolute absolutist about speech where anyone can say absolutely anything in any circumstance.
But Musk never claimed to be any such thing and pretty much has always added some kind of "within the law" modifier when talking about twitter and free speech.
I still don't understand what the subtle suggestion is... it's like someone who said "I'm a free speech absolutist" wouldn't be allowed to sue a business partner for fraud or something.
>>I still don’t understand
try approaching it like you’re a teenage girl.
With TDS. Reason used to understand the difference. That changed in 2015.
By Reason's logic, if you favor "Wrongful Death" lawsuits for a person accidentally shooting an innocent bystander, you must not be a 2nd Amendment Absolutist.
I'm not sure when it became necessary to remove any and all repercussions for actions taken while practicing your freedoms but that seems to be Britches take here. The libertarian argument used to be we don't need government to curtail freedoms because the private sector or civil proceedings (courts) can do a better job of dealing with misuse than laws and regulations ever will. Now it seems we have a lot of faux libertarians actually arguing for anarchy. If there is no repercussions for bad acts, that isn't liberty that's anarchy.
Maybe we ought to bring dueling back, if civil suits are a curtailment of rights. Do whatever you want, but also be prepared to be challenged to a duel. Eli Musk and the head of the ADL, with pistols at dawn.
Well Musk and Zuck are planning something like that. But without the firearms.
Never quite understood "the courts can take care of it" strain of libertarianism.
If someone ignores a court ruling (many do), who enforces it?
The courts are better then the alternative, they largely replaced other actions, such as dueling.
In medieval Europe, trial by combat was part of the legal structure, the court of last resort, after nothing to resolve the suit by the 'lower courts' could be found.
The thing about trial by combat, is that it was so terrible and so unpredictable, that it was rarely used because the opposing parties would generally find any reason to avoid it. Including agreeing to a compromise. Sort of like dueling. Outside of a few professional duelers, most people did everything they could to avoid being put into a situation that could result in a duel.
"most people did everything they could to avoid being put into a situation that could result in a duel."
Most people will do just about anything to avoid putting their fate into the hands of lawyers, judges, and officers of the court. With trial by combat, the worst thing that could happen is your opponent takes your life. Our modern court system could take your life, your freedom, your property, your children, to say nothing of your time, energy and attention.
"If someone ignores a court ruling (many do), who enforces it?"
There are many different mechanisms for handling this. When two parties agree to arbitration, you can require an escrow. Or, if a party fails to adhere to the results of arbitration, that could jeopardize their ability to get arbitration in the future. For people living in communities, this is generally enough to ensure voluntary compliance with the results.
There are exotic notions of collecting damages via bounty-hunters, or insurance companies that pay off your damages and try to collect them from the guilty party- but who ultimately make money from (investing) premiums instead of collections.
Nevertheless, whatever system you choose will probably trade liberty for the likelihood that you can get your judgement enforced in the case that you need it. I personally would be willing to accept a lot more risk of default if it meant I had more liberty. Of course I am not looking to get child support from a deadbeat spouse, or trying to get money from a drunk driver who crippled me.
I do think people who say "Libertarians haven't thought about X" often haven't really talked with libertarians about X to understand the nuance. And often those people expect the libertarian solution to have a level of perfection that our current systems don't even guarantee.
It’s a quote directly from Elon Musk: “Sorry to be a free speech absolutist.”
Which Mike knows has been modified many times by Musk. But Mike isn't here to argue in good faith. He is here to sow chaos.
Why is it in inverted commas in the same headline describing a defamation suit?
As I answered, it is a quote of something that Elon Musk said, that is why it is in single quotes.
You seem to be saying they are using a Unicode “inverted comma” instead of single quotes. If so, good eye for typography!
Of course, what you are actually saying, in your typical oblique way, is the same point others above made more directly: you are of the opinion that one can be a free speech absolutist and still make an exception for not allowing defamatory speech.
Don’t know why you can’t just say that.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I disagree: by the very definition, one is no longer an “absolutist” if one makes any exceptions.
By the definition that you just pulled out of your ass.
"you are of the opinion that one can be a free speech absolutist and still make an exception for not allowing defamatory speech."
This is how silly Mike is. He is just SOOOOO invested in ad hominem. He is obsessed with showing up in these comments and trying to make his ideological enemies appear to be stupid, deluded, or hypocritical. He is so obsessed (and certain of his own intellectual superiority) that he can't help but to make stupid arguments like this.
For the umpteenth time, no one is calling for "not allowing defamatory speech." They are suggesting holding a person/company accountable for damages that they cause using defamatory speech.
The typical purposely misstating the situation. Musk isn't calling for defamatory speech to be banned. He is instead stating that defamatory speech has consequences. Say whatever you want, but also be prepared to deal with the consequences when you cross over into defamation. Libertarians used to believe that abuse of liberty can carry consequences. These so called faux libertarians who advocate for consequence free actions are actually anarchists not libertarians.
If reason wants to take position of speech absolutism, then when can I start posting about n1ggers?
Has anyone tried to stop you? I'm pretty sure "nigger" doesn't automatically get flagged or anything.
Conceded about nigger, but the larger point stands. Reason automatically flags certain speech but not others. This is yet another "hoes mad" moment for an ostensibly libertarian shitshow.
To be fair, Reason is probably more lightly moderated than even X.
Do they? Outside of things that they could actually face legal action for (like CP links or doxxing people) I haven't noticed. People can sit here and call ENB a cunt all day and encourage people to kill themselves and they don't seem to do much. Lots of things to criticize Reason for these days, but I don't think a heavy hand in the comment section is one of them.
The only moderation annoyance I've noticed here is some links being blocked, seemingly at random.
I've never seen any board/comment section less moderated. And it must be an embarrassment to them and likely hurt their bottom line.
On the other hand, it's the only libertarian content left here.
why should it be an embarrassment? They don't write the shit, the comments do. Or are you one of those that feels everything someone says should be controlled by someone else it case it hurts someone's feelings? Hint, this is a supposedly libertarian site, ergo, unless it causes direct harm, libertarian principle is you're free to be asshole and make yourself look like an asshole. Is that a hard concept for you to understand?
I think his point was that they are at least sticking to principle on comment moderation even though they disagree with lots of commenters and take a lot of abuse in the comments.
Yes, what Zeb said. I meant the comments ripping them apart are an embarrassment to them, not the fact that they are not moderated. I commend the fact that they let us have freedom to be assholes here without moderation.
" here without moderation."
Moderation itself is not so bad. It means avoiding the extremes, excluding things like hateful death threats/wishes or spam. Without moderation, these and other comments with nothing to add would be removed. I praise Reason, not for its lack of moderation, but for allowing varied views. I've been banned from other sites for expressing views contrary to their line of thinking. As far as I know, Reason doesn't ban commenters from the site. Maybe if they're trying to hack the website, do something malicious with the software, but even freedom of speech has its limits.
I’ve been told directly by high-level Reason manager that they are embarrassed by the commentariat — and that is why the comments section is hidden by default when you go to any page on the Reason website.
They were talking about you.
I believe Dizzle was banned for calling ENB a cunt.
When was that? I've seen ENB called a cunt here daily and repeatedly by the same commenters. Maybe they have just given up as is evident in the rate of bot posts?
I experienced quite a few death wishes, but no threats. I wonder if there is a line there? More likely, I'd guess no one at Reason even looks at the comments at all.
I certainly encourage leftists here to kill themselves on a daily basis. Often many, many times per day. I’ve never noticed any of those comments removed.
Is that actually censored here? I know they shut down links but didn't know of any specific words that are censored.
Fuck even muting and flagging people doesn't actually get stuff removed. I'm not sure what he's talking about.
They might take that position, but they did not say so in the above blog post. Britschgi is commenting on whether Elon Musk is being consistent with his self-declaration that he is a “free speech absolutist.”
if he was serious about his work he'd decry the ADL but instead he nitpicks the target of his jealousy.
Jealousy? How in the world is jealousy coming to play in this scenario?
That's easy, it's the fact that Musk is doing a better job than Britschgi at maintaining a libertarian principle--you are free to state whatever you like but you cannot avoid the consequences.
spot on
Musk will be lucky if they let him launch Starship
none of his critics are fit to polish his slide rule
Perhaps colleges being some of the last institutions to cling to insane COVID restrictions is playing a role:
Yeah, what other things might the institution of universities also be pushing? Normies want to know!
And then the coop de grace... Reason includes a tweet from "fringe epidemiologist". What's next, Reason, a contribution from Jordan Peterson?
"coop de grace"?! Is that where chickens go to pray for the demise of KFC?
An old model of Cadillac if I am remembering correctly. No, no, different coop as well.
Don't get me killed, new guy.
Is this... racism from... black Democrats? My head hurts trying to work out the math on this.
Are we approaching the day when a majority of blacks realize that Democrats really don't give much of a fuck about them beyond being a reliable voting bloc?
Black men for sure. Black women still seem to be okay with it.
No.
^
Democrat support of genderism seems to be becoming a wedge between Blacks and Democrats. And Democrat opposition to school choice.
"majority of blacks realize that Democrats really don’t give much of a fuck about them beyond being a reliable voting bloc?"
The Democrats also co-opt and corrupt the black leadership, slotting them into roles in Washington where they can be tamed into supporting someone like Biden over Bernie. Angela Davis supported Biden over Bernie, saying, essentially, that Bernie was a racist.It's corruption. Angela earns tens of thousands a pop on the lecture circuit.
That's also the problem with Majority Minority districts. It means idiots like Waters keep getting reelected, while also resulting in minorities getting less consideration from representatives from non majority minority districts. Cramming the majority of a group into a single district, with a guaranteed safe candidate actually reduces the power of your vote. If group A makes up 20-30% of my district, I need to consider their needs (because winning elections is about building coalitions of voters). If they make up a single percentage of my district because they've all been grouped into a single district, with a perpetually elected representative (often without any competition), why would I need to consider their needs at all? My job is to represent the people of my district and get elected.
I have no problem with Waters. There are better examples of corruption in black leadership. Waters is solidly working class and a sound anti-war advocate. Who cares how smart she is? She has a backbone and is not afraid to speak against the powerful of her party. True, she didn't support Bernie but she said it was because he wasn't capitalist enough for her, rather than ridiculously tarring him as a racist. I would have thought you'd respect that.
As for failing to 'consider the needs of all,' that's impossible given that the needs and desires of constituents in a representative democracy are often in conflict with one another.
It's not impossible. Also, the larger your voting block the more your needs are considered. 1% likely ignored, 20% probably gets some attention.
As for Waters, she's so stupid she's incompetent. Can't respect her because she refuses to adjust her opinions even when presented with facts contrary to her opinions. Not a huge fan of blind ideologues.
“As for Waters, she’s so stupid she’s incompetent. ”
Again, Waters’ intelligence and competence is of little interest to me. We were discussing the corruption of the black leadership by the Democrat party. You prefer to focus on other matters.
"Also, the larger your voting block the more your needs are considered. "
That's baked into the system of representational democracy, where one person is responsible for representing thousands.
I just want to know who got that first lady's vote.
Yeah that's the problem. Vallas at least had a track record in the public schools. But the teachers union made sure he was stopped. As long as that corrupt institution remains a corrupt and failed institution, Brandon is doing his job. But crime and illegals are part of the package. Most people in Chicago don't bother to vote at all probably because they they know that if there is ever a real threat to the regime they'll just crank up the fraud machine. It's easy to say you get the government you vote for but lately I wonder if a majority are actually electing these clowns.
"...But crime and illegals are part of the package..."
She might be too stupid to understand that, but she got what she voted for.
Silly goose. Blacks can only be racist when the don't vote Democrat anymore.
Just ask Buttplug about Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott.
I mean, if defamation is speech, then why does this rag give a fuck what Trump says about anybody? It's all fwee speech.
Mean Tweets, er Xs, violate the NAP.
Example of a Reason writer caring what Trump says about someone?
https://reason.com/2022/09/07/biden-and-trump-stoke-division-while-complaining-about-it/
Criticism Is Free Speech, but getting the Law Involved is Crossing a Line.
Like Musk does have a right to moderate "X" as he see fits, but anyone from the ADL also have the right to say what they think about that, Musk have the right to say anything about the ADL as a response, and everyone else have the right to express how they feel about the whole situation, and the Law must stay Completely Out of it. That's what Freedom of Speech should be about.
Also Murray Rothbard did argue that No One owns a Property Right to Other's Thoughts and Opinions therefore Defamation shouldn't be a Free Speech Exception, and tho Rothbard have been a pretty divisive figure even in Libertarian Circles, putting all that aside he may have a point about reputation. Also, there are probably plenty of people who hate me for all the wrong reasons, that is a fact of life for pretty much everyone, and most people either try to explain how they are wrong without the law, or simply accept it and move on with their lives
lol from the ADL's own web site
Hate Crime Laws: The ADL Approach
ADL Shapes White House National Strategy
Amicus Brief Database Amicus curiae, literally "friend of the court," briefs have proven to be one of the most effective means of addressing antisemitism, hate, discrimination and bigotry.
yes, please tell us more about keeping the law out of this
I missed this 2 weeks ago but the ADL was upset with X/twitter over a community note stating Leo Frank was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Mary Phagan and that the conviction stands.
That's indisputable fact
France is planning on banning all disposable vapes as part of an "anti-smoking" plan. Good luck with that!
Burning police cars and hurling firebombs at cops on a Paris street will still be permissible.
"If they lose the defamation suit, we will insist that they drop [sic] the 'anti' part of their name."
What is [sic] about this? A court won't do it, but requesting that the Anti-Defamation League drop the "anti" so that they are accurately named the Defamation League, is straightforward both as a matter of English and as a matter of logic.
They are so upset they misread the room on Trump's mugshot that they are trying to get him in trouble for making use of it - https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/donald-trumps-mug-shot-merchandise-145457593.html
sounds like something underhanded enough for Democrats to do.
I remember the glee at his mugshot the day before and how the left was all fired up that it needed to be released. He releases it and it backfires, now the same ones are pissed.
ADL: Asshole Democrat Lovers? Anti-Democracy Losers? Absolutely Devious Lowlifes?
So... Musk took over Twitter. Refused/Refuses to do leftard requested government-censorship so the man who, "Prior to heading the ADL, Greenblatt served in the White House as Special Assistant to Barack Obama" sends his attack dogs after Twitter.
The problem is the SPENDING in D.C. directly contributes/subsidizes this type of lawlessness. That's exactly what [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] leads to time and time again.
There is no such thing as ensuring Liberty and Justice when the government starts running entirely on [WE] mob RULES 'democracy'. The Supreme Law is FAR more important than which [WE] gang WINS.
The ADL is part of the SPLC, right?
It's sad that such hate groups have the influence they wield.
Just remember, criticizing the ADL is HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!
I didn’t realize that being pro free speech meant ceding the right to seek redress for libel, defamation, or slander. The brief doesn’t cite the material in question but how “exaggerated” does it have to be to be actionable?
The ADL today is a far-left propaganda operation. They've slandered countless people, and it's about time they faced the music for it.
-jcr
From what I understand, they've already lost a couple of such lawsuits; just none yet of the magnitude that losing to Twitter/X would entail.
Indeed!
When is the "free speech absolutist" going to carry through on that "general amnesty" he promised on Twitter before the EU hauled him into their office and spanked him?
As soon as possible. Objections?
Advertisers couldn't possibly be shying away from X because of Elon Musk's erratic management or the flood of Russian bots on the site.
Cite?
Sure. Here you go:
https://www.investopedia.com/twitter-advertisers-6835691
“The chaos from Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover has driven away advertisers as the company struggles to hang onto its most significant source of revenue.”
Here’s another:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65067707
“Hundreds of Russian and Chinese state propaganda accounts are thriving on Twitter after Elon Musk wiped out the team that fought these networks, the BBC has found.”
I would consider anything the BBC says about as much as what CNN or PMSNBC says, meaning total b.s. The BBC is a government run propaganda machine, no different than PBS or NPR or the rest of the MSM.
The BBC still hasn't recovered from the Jimmy Savile/ child molester scandal.
They left within days of him, taking over Twitter, You must’ve been on vacation with no Internet available at that time.
Cite?
“… to bully the group into silencing their criticism of his company. That's hardly the action of a "free speech absolutist."
Using the court system to referee the outcome is bullying? The only bullying going on is the ADL who uses peer pressure and not the legal system to force companies to take noncontroversial positions. While this is very anti-free-speech, the media also coerced by the ADL will never call it censorship.
Using peer pressure rather than government coercion is quite in line with libertarian /free market philosophy.
[Disclaimer: I don’t agree with Britschgi that it is bullying, but I understand his point.
For one thing, it’s premature to accuse Musk of using the courts for bullying when all Musk has done is talk about filing a lawsuit.
Also, Musk is bluffing. X has lost way more advertisers than could be accounted for by ADL pressure.]
I like how people think they are smarter than Elon.
Renaming Twitter X? Not smart. Now J, that would be smart.
Case in point.
I think you too easily ignore the government coercion already going on.
Do you really think ADL is the creation of a free-market? 25% of it is directly government funded, and another 25%(very lien estimate) of it is funded by entities/agencies 100% government funded and who has the time to look-up how many Nazi-Grants the ADL takes. What is known is they lobbied HUGELY for STOLEN(tax) money for their cause.
"ADL asks that the Homeland
Security Grant program be sufficiently funded in FY 2024, that no less than $77 million be set
aside"
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2023-02/ADL%20FY24%20Funding%20Request%20to%20OMB.pdf
Like that brings up some questions about the whole concept of Reputation and whether or not it should be seen as a Right or Privilege. Like if we put aside any claims by the ADL, Musk did a lot to harm his own reputation.
Like Filing a Lawsuit isn't even the most egregious act of Free Speech Hypocrisy, Musk did cave in to the Turkish Government to Throddle a number of Accounts during the recent Turkey Election. And last year shortly after Musk acquired Twitter, people asked if he's going to reinstate Alex Jones Account, but Musk refuse stating "Anyone who Profits off Children get No Mercy from Me", however at the same time he reinstated Andrew Tate, you know that guy who Traffics Minors. Say what you will about Alex Jones, but he comes no where near the thongs Tate had done, and it's pretty clear that Musk is full of shit about "Profiting off Children" excuse
“While this is very anti-free-speech”
Using peer pressure to persuade disputants is very free speech. It’s also much cheaper and probably less time consuming than going to court. Your solution clogs up the courts with matters that could be settled elsewhere. Bad for lawyers, I grant you, but most of us aren’t lawyers and don’t trust the legal system to solve our problems. Musk apparently does, but he’s got good reason. He’s a billionaire.
“the media also coerced by the ADL”
BOO HOO! The media made their bed, let them lie in it.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Correction: The government made/funded their bed to lie in.
The ADL is an anti-American hate group. Its members should be gassed.
How about a nice toasty oven?
I've never seen an ad on Twitter until Musk came along. Seems corporations also used Twitter to censor people. They had twitter accounts but how many users would sign up to read that.
“ADL was responsible for destroying $22 billion of Twitter's value” — reminds me of that joke where a Jew in need of uplifting news reads Der Sturmer, “because there I read that Jews rule the world!”
"...'Free speech absolutist' Elon Musk is threatening to sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)..."
Amazing! A-2 absolutist objects to being shot by criminal!
Nevertheless, the ADL is also well within its rights to argue Musk is running a "hate machine" and lobbying advertisers to take their business elsewhere. By threatening legal action against the group, Musk is ceding whatever moral high ground he may have had as a defender of free speech.
LOL what happened to Reason? you know damned well he's suing ADL because ADL dishonestly enforces left-wing ideological censorship in the guise of opposing anti-Semitism
that isn't free speech, that's fraud and defamation
The Point is that as much as Musk have the right to Say Anything about Anyone, people at the ADL have the Exact Same Right, and the Law shouldn't be involved.
Also, Musk owns one of the Biggest Online Platforms, he can Easily Refute any ADL Claims without Suing Anyone. The Solution to Bad Speech is always More Speech
The ADL was created to defend child rapist and murderer Leo Frank (Jew) . Frank was convicted anyway and they hung him.
The ADL is nothing more than a hate group that criminalizes free speech. Anyone they find who dares offer up an opinion that doesn't go along with the official narrative is vilified as "antiSemitic".
Thus the ADL has nearly everyone in congress by the balls and even the MSM.
Anyone can run afoul of that nasty little Zionist lot just by voicing an unpopular opinion.
Maybe he was guilty like the jury said, maybe not, but we can’t rely on the impartiality of the jury here. The likes of you infected the trial with massive out-of-court antisemitism.
The governor commuted the sentence to life – questions about the reliability of the evidence – but the newly-reborn Ku Klux Klan (the “they” you so slyly refer to) lynched Frank.
He got a posthumous pardon:
“Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State’s failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State’s failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon.”
(from Wikipedia)
It would be implausible if the ADL was wrong about *everything,* and being against the lynching of a Jewish American was the right stance (duh).
Today, the JohnZs of the world have a lot less power, though they will still post their persecution fantasies on the Internet.
Which is not the same as saying the ADL stayed pure throughout its career. It seems to have declined considerably. Not because they’re Jews, but because they’re kneejerk progressives.
You do know Mary Phagan's blood was found on the cloths of someone named Jim Conely. And not only that but so many years later just before his death, Conely Confessed that he Murdered Phagan.
Also the reason why charges weren't brought to Conely is because the investigators thought a Black Person didn't have the mental compasity to Lie and Scheme, so they went after the Jewish White Person Leo Frank instead