Elon's Antics
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,434 comments
- 99,937 views
- 29,580
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I don't.
Hate speech is, fundamentally, speech that offends. Because offense is subjective (I'm not likely to be offended by speech targeting some demographic of which I'm a part, let alone one of which I'm not), speech that offends can't reasonably be said to be legitimately harmful. Only that which legitimately harms should be subject to penalty. Penalizing a speaker for offensive--but not inherently harmful--expression violates the expressive rights of the speaker without preserving anyone's rights. Laws should preserve rights without violating rights. There is no right to not be offended, just as there is no right to legitimately harm another. If a law preserves rights of some but violates the rights of others, it should be amended so as to not violate rights. If a law preserves no rights at the same time that it violates rights, it should not be a law.
Even if we're talking about speech that legitimately harms, the onus should not be on the non-speaker party to remove speech that it otherwise hosts absent awareness that specific speech legitimately harms. This is the basis for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The provider of such a medium has an expressive right to remove content that it deems objectionable. That the provider of a medium removes content it deems objectionable is not a reasonable basis for the expectation that it removes content deemed objectionable by other parties. Conditioning the expressive right to remove content on an unworkable burden effectively deprives a party of that expressive right.
- 15,363
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
Your definition of hate speech is leaving out a major component.
Hate speech is specifically language that is targeting individuals or groups of people based on their race, religion, etc. and is illegal in the EU, unlike the US.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33178
If Twitter wants to be accessible in the EU, then they should abide by EU's laws on hate speech, just like how Twitter should abide by EU's GDPR.
In Massachusetts hate speech can be a component of harassment, which is illegal and is not considered protected speech
Hate Speech Law in Massachusetts
Hate crime and hate speech are related, but not identical topics.
www.mass.gov
- 29,580
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
The inclusion doesn't fundamentally alter what I said.
"Hate speech" is illegal in the EU. Its being illegal doesn't preserve rights by preventing or remedying legitimate harm. It's illegal only because it's prohibited by law. Prohibiting it weighs feelings of the individual against the expressive rights of all.
Harassment is unprotected, that "hate speech" may figure to some degree in harassment notwithstanding.
Falsity is also broadly protected expression. Some categories of unprotected expression may be unprotected due to falsity, such as fraud, defamation, and perjury, but the fraud, defamation, and perjury are what represent legitimate harm rather than falsity itself.
- 2,755
- United Kingdom
Gosh.
That little dude in the left/right meme has stopped sprinting to the left of this bitch and hopped on a motorcycle to cover some serious distance. That's the only way to explain it.
Want him to expand on this "sterilisation of children" claim.
Very harmful rhetoric.
EDIT: Just saw there's a discussion on hate speech. Am clarifying that by "harmful" I meant the potential damage it could cause to people dealing with gender identity issues - whether that's family seeking care for a child or the individual themselves (not forgetting the healthcare team involved).
Wasn't a comment on whether it should be legal or not (or if it even is hate speech)
Last edited:
- 2,755
- United Kingdom
Desperate.
- 86,325
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Just seeing if I can remember which party is the one that reminds me of the one that seized power in V for Vendetta. They were led by someone big on religious imagery who demanded party loyalty and fealty to him over all else, whose government was big on banning and burning books and punishing degeneracy and deviancy (such as homosexuality and Islam) even though key personnel were paedophiles, absolutely loved militarised police with overblown budgets, and had an ego so fragile that it couldn't take any jokes directed at it.
Nope. Drawing a blank here. Wonder if Elon Mouth can give me a clue.
Nope. Drawing a blank here. Wonder if Elon Mouth can give me a clue.
- 4,777
- Connecticut
- Ridley-X4
I am convinced that Musk is an elaborate fraud. He is no genius, but I don't know if I'm really saying something controversial there.
Allow me to build on this. I was at the NY International Auto Show on April 9th with my dad, as we've been going almost every year since 2004. All three electric trucks from Ford, Dodge, and Chevrolet were going to have a more affordable trim for workers - y'know, to use as an actual work truck. Ford has already sold thousands of the F-150 Lightning while the so-called "Cybertruck" hasn't even hit a showroom yet. The Cybertruck, if it's released, will be wonderful - that is, for those who are shorting Tesla.
If I'm going to bet on an auto manufacturer that's into electric cars, I'd much rather pick Rimac when it goes public, as they've already worked with some seriously high-end brands, like Porsche and Aston Martin. Or possibly Porsche, especially if/when their eFuels become much more affordable and accessible. Except Porsche (which went public in some markets under the symbol P911) doesn't seem to be available on American exchanges...
Allow me to build on this. I was at the NY International Auto Show on April 9th with my dad, as we've been going almost every year since 2004. All three electric trucks from Ford, Dodge, and Chevrolet were going to have a more affordable trim for workers - y'know, to use as an actual work truck. Ford has already sold thousands of the F-150 Lightning while the so-called "Cybertruck" hasn't even hit a showroom yet. The Cybertruck, if it's released, will be wonderful - that is, for those who are shorting Tesla.
If I'm going to bet on an auto manufacturer that's into electric cars, I'd much rather pick Rimac when it goes public, as they've already worked with some seriously high-end brands, like Porsche and Aston Martin. Or possibly Porsche, especially if/when their eFuels become much more affordable and accessible. Except Porsche (which went public in some markets under the symbol P911) doesn't seem to be available on American exchanges...
Last edited:
- 11,723
- Marin County
I would love to see a technical conversation between Musk and Mate Rimac the latter of which actually is deeply into the engineering rather than the guy keeping everything at a conceptual jargon level to obfuscate his own lack of...oh my god...Elon Musk is the Peter Eisenman of the automotive world.
(For reference, Peter Eisenman is an "Architectural Theorist" who's texts are completely and deliberately impenetrable and his constructed buildings, without fail, suck - they were either so poorly constructed that they lasted barely more than 10 years or so wildly unrealistic from a constructability standpoint that they bear essentially no resemblance to the original concept)
- 11,723
- Marin County
I'm not saying it will happen, but if Elon happened to fall in a vat of industrial solvent while, probably, touring a perfume factory, what would his 90s Batman villain moniker be after he emerged?
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,796
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
The Medioker.
- 17,011
- United Kingdom
The Shyster.
- 29,495
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
The Paedo.
- 9,651
- Portland, OR
- Jump_Ace
- JUMPxACE
I think I can safely say this without too much detail, but I've officially not signed Twitter's Elon's arbitration agreement. I've officially signed up with an east coast law firm to get A) a week of pay that they owe me for cutting my Twitter access the night before I subbed my hours (on Fridays) and B) the failure to give us 60 days notice. "He" offered me just under 6k, I'm hoping to get 11k minus taxes. I told the wife I'm rolling the dice, but going forward because I also want that week of pay and it may help my case since we are talking 'mere thousands' 
Jerome
Jerome
- 86,325
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The fun part about this is that it's clearly tortious conduct due to the rewording of the blue tick description.
James, King, and Shatner were all very clear they were not going to pay (Ice T too) to keep their tick. However all three are now described by Twitter as "subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone number" - giving the impression that they support the platform. Twitter is thus advertising its paid product with their likenesses, and they have clearly stated they would not authorise this.
Already the Muskbots have taken aim at them for their hypocrisy. I won't link them, as they're all stuffed full of right-wing conspiracy amplification (and this particular one I've chosen is worth a quick Google):
This is, of course, entirely unwarranted, so that's also defamation and it clearly passes the Man in the Street test...
Good job that they're not particularly wealthy celebrities. Not sure why Musk doesn't want to include Ice T though.
