I follow her so it appeared in my feed. I wasn’t fooled though as Elon bots have been trying to phish money for Cryto spoofing him for years. I always check the actual address when I see something out of character.
CNBC article on Musk talking about permanent bans for parody accounts ... https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/07/elo...arody-accounts-risk-permanent-suspension.html
Assuming arguendo that disseminating knowledge of private flight data is a security risk for the person being transported, do you think the increase in danger quotient was greater due to some unknown Twitter feed putting his information out there, or Elon mentioning it to his 114 million followers, many of whom will retweet it, as proof of the extent of his virtuous commitment to free speech?
I wonder if I should be offended like the Trump snowflakes were when they went ballistic after Kathy Griffin posted this meme.
Dishonest. Freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment never meant you can “say whatever you want.” You can actually be arrested for attempting to impersonate someone. Ditto for yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There’s a well-established line between impersonating someone and talking about your political beliefs. That you Musk haters have to resort to such ignorant statements like the quoted tells me Musk is winning.
Elon endorses Charlie Crist, Dems in all down ballot races in Florida, Wisconsin, NC, etc, and Biden in 2024. He's not partisan; he's all about divided power
Well, if you are going to accuse others of being ignorant, you should probably know what you are talking about here. The "fire in a crowded theater" thing is a long running myth. It was an example given in a case whose ruling has been overruled. It is in no way an enforced law. Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech - Above the Law As to impersonation being illegal, it is only illegal if you do it in certain ways. Specifically, much like lying in general is not illegal, if I impersonate somebody and I am not signing legal documents or engaged in activities where I am trying to utilize that impersonation to gain something of economic value, it is not illegal. For example, if I tell somebody in a bar that my name is the same as a friend of mine and don't try to sell them anything or get them to give me money or something else if value based upon that, I can't be arrested, even though I just impersonated somebody. The reason why Musk didn't violate the First Amendment here is the same reason that Twitter didn't violate Trump's First Amendment rights when they kicked him off the platform: the First Amendment doesn't mean you can say anything you want on a private forum and not be punished by the private entity. Private entities are allowed to enforce any rules that they want on their platforms.
The “I don’t care about Elon” 1st essay of the day. Because, you know, he/she/him/her doesn’t care about Elon.
Musk says vote for republicans tomorrow. I like gridlock. Stop govt growth. Elon Musk Tells Twitter Followers to Vote for a Republican Congress
I am discussing your complete misunderstanding of First Amendment law. I never even mentioned Elon Musk. BTW, the exact quote is about not caring whether Elon Musk makes money. And the First Amendment protected your right to misquote me.
Good points. If someone lies about their income to get a loan, that might rise to the level of criminality. If they lie on a date to get laid, that's probably allowed. Notably, some have proposed new laws addressing deception in this context. Deceiving Your Sex Partner Would Be a Crime Under Bill Backed by New York Democrats Obtaining sex through "deception," "concealment," or "artifice" could violate consent. A group of New York lawmakers is trying to redefine consent in a way that would make it a crime to be less than fully truthful with sex partners. Under the new proposal, antics now considered merely caddish or immoral—like lying to a prospective sex partner about one's relationship status, social standing, or future intentions—would count as criminal sexual misconduct. Now in committee, Assembly Bill A6540—sponsored by Assembly Member Rebecca Seawright (D–New York City) and co-sponsored by three other Democratic lawmakers—would amend New York state's penal code to define consent as "freely given knowledgeable and informed agreement" that is "obtained without the use of malice such as forcible compulsion, duress, coercion, deception, fraud, concealment or artifice." **** Trying to win over a date by saying you have a better job than you actually do, live in a nicer place, or went to a better school could become a crime if that date sleeps with you. Any half-truths—or even omissions—about your social or financial status could possibly count as artifice or "concealment." So could lying or concealing information about one's race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Someone might try to sue or press charges based on the idea that makeup, Botox, boob jobs, and similar measures to enhance one's appearance should count as illegal artifice that negates consent. It also seems likely that people could attempt to use the law against transgender or gender non-conforming people.
Oh, fair enough. I mentioned why Musk did not violate Kathy Griffin's First Amendment rights. My bad. I defended him but using real law, not whatever you made up to defend him. Mainly because you don't want to admit that Twitter was never violating anybody's First Amendment rights.
I am a Musk fan overall, but think he made a big mistake in this purchase. He definitely overpaid, he’s already alienating the folks that are the bulk of his traffic, the idea of making his most important people pay isn’t going to go well, he is alienating his corporate talent that he will desperately need if he is reworking he platform, and I think he is being naive on free speech and what it means on a service like that. But he has proven people wrong before, many times.
