The Cost of 'Free' Speech

There's a part of me that thinks that Elon Musk buying Twitter might not be such a bad thing - at least it would finally wean me off of the bloody service.  Because, increasingly, I find myself questioning why I seem to spend so much time on that cess pool of hate and bile.  Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of good people on Twitter, particularly the ones I follow, obviously.  But it is everything else on there - I just can't help myself from clicking on the trending topics and invariably regret it, so chock full of right-wing reactionary shit and disinformation are they.  And when it isn't right-wing shit, it is Corbynite-style shit, equally hateful and ill-informed most of the time.  All of which leaves me perplexed as to why Musk wants to own Twitter - his complaint is that, in its present form, it stifles 'free speech' by banning those promoting hate and disinformation.  Well, judging by what I see, they aren't doing a very good job of suppressing this so called 'free speech', because the service is still brimming over with shit.

Of course, Musk is one of those people (usually super-rich and right wing people) who hold this peculiar notion of what 'free speech' actually means, ie the right to say anything you like without censorship.  But that isn't what it means.  It never has meant that.  'Free Speech' means that one has a right to express opinions contrary to and critical of the authorities without fear of persecution or prosecution.  But that doesn't mean that you can, publicly, say whatever you like.  Just try coming out with some of hate speech, be it inciting violence, racial prejudice, misogyny, homophobia or threats and see what happens - in just about every civilised country of the world you will find yourself in serious trouble, facing prosecution under the relevant laws.  You also can't say whatever you like about individuals, either - libel laws see to that.  So, if Musk was to gain control of Twitter and try to implement his version of 'free speech' via the service, allowing absolutely anything to be published, without regulation, Twitter would soon find itself in serious trouble with national authorities around the world.  

But when the likes of Musk talk about 'free speech', it isn't the result of any kind of altruistic vision or commitment to freedom and democracy.  Rather, it is a function of their wealth, which they believe lifts them above the petty rules of mere democratically elected governments and should allow them to do and say whatever they want.  The existence of laws and rules, designed to protect wider society, are the source of enormous frustration to the rich, who see them as unreasonable curbs on their power.  Ultimately, Musk's interest in Twitter comes down to wanting to use it as a platform for his propaganda (and probably that of like-minded super rich individuals).  Believe me, his version of 'free speech' almost certainly wouldn't extend to anyone trying to put out unfiltered left wing opinions via Twitter.