Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's non sense, or then everyone has absolute freedom of speech, you just have to open your mouth or type a text.

What limits freedom of speech _are_ the "consequences". It either is "absolute" in which case there are no consequences, or limited, in which case there are consequences (but then by definition it isn't absolute anymore)

If you fire someone for their opinion about their employer, or jail them for their opinion about the president, you can't be for "absolute" freedom of speech.

It's like saying "you're free to murder people, but if you do you'll go to jail".



I think you can make a difference between types of consequences.

In a strictly legal sense, you can be allowed to call your neighbor ugly. There will be no legal consequences, because of a law/constitutional amendment protecting free speech.

On a personal level, however, your neighbor might not like being called ugly, and retaliate by avoiding you or insulting you back. This is a consequence, but not a legal one.

I think, Musk view is that expression on Twitter should play a "legal guardian" type role in moderating content on the site, as opposed to say blocking negative content (and you could argue that as a site that makes money selling ads, blocking negative content could be the smart play, similar to the NYT not hiring idiots to write for them), but that the SpaceX employees, when fired by their employer, are facing consequences not on a legal but a personal level.

Of course, there's a very good chance this is just backwards rationalizing the erratic, irrational behavior of a emotionally unstable person.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: