Elon Musk Has Declared His Love Of Hate Speech
Elon Musk Has Declared His Love Of Hate Speech
The hypocrisy of X is getting putrid.
Musk is a self-declared free-speech absolutist, right? Well, someone should tell Elon that actions speak louder than words because if you look at his track record, it paints a very different picture. His past and present actions depict a man who silences critics, hates accountability, and loves deeply damaging racist hate speech. There are also scores of people who have suffered physically, emotionally and financially due to these actions. One of the most clear-cut examples of this is Lucy Connolly, a Brit who recently pleaded guilty to spreading racial hate speech and faces serious jail time. But Musk and X/Twitter’s support of Connolly and others who posted similar vile content is set to cost them dearly and expose the hypocritical reality of Musk’s so-called free-speech absolutism.
Lucy Connolly is one of the many people to be arrested during the recent race riots in the UK. However, she didn’t attend any riots. Instead, she posted hate speech that incited violence on X/Twitter. Her tweet (Xeet?) read, “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care … If that makes me racist, so be it.” Let’s just be clear here: these hotels housed child asylum seekers fleeing horrific wars and persecution and looking to the UK for safety and humility. Yet, Connolly was calling for them to be burned alive. This is a textbook example of inciting violence and hate speech. In fact, posts like this spurred extremely violent riots around said hotels and posed a genuine risk of life to these asylum seekers.
Such speech is illegal and not protected by the UK free speech laws. These laws make hate speech against groups based on their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity illegal. In fact, there is even precedent for a publisher distributing someone else’s hate speech to be charged, too. The UK is not alone in having laws like this. The vast majority of free-speech-supporting Democracies also have restrictions on free speech and illegal forms of speech, which include hate speech, inciting violence, fraud, misinformation and child pornography. When you stop and think about it for even a second, such laws make complete sense, as these forms of speech can be hugely detrimental to individuals, businesses, the economy and our democracy, and as such, individuals doing so should be held accountable. As such, Connolly was arrested, pleaded guilty, and could face substantial prison time.
Not only that, but such speech goes against X/Twitter rules, which explicitly prohibit “threats to inflict physical harm on others, which includes threatening to kill, torture, sexually assault or otherwise hurt someone.” Yet despite that, when an anonymous user flagged Connolly’s horrific post as being in breach of these rules, X/Twitter rejected the complaint. According to Musk, Connolly’s post somehow didn’t break X/Twitter rules!
But it goes deeper than that. Tyler James Kay posted a tweet (Xeet?) practically identical to Connolly’s post, and was also subsequently sent to prison for 38 months for hate speech. A very lenient term considering the implications and impact of his actions. Yet, Musk described Mr Kay’s conviction as “messed up” in an X/Twitter post.
In other words, Musk wants this form of vile hate speech, calling for the murder of innocent asylum-seeking ethnic minority children, to go completely unchecked and even promote it.
Okay, so why should you care? Musk has declared himself a free-speech absolutist; this is just him exercising his beliefs, right?
Well, allowing and promoting such speech could land X/Twitter in huge trouble. Moreover, Musk doesn’t actually believe in absolute free speech. He has a long history of censorship. Instead, it appears he only pushes this hypocritical narrative to cover up his love of hate speech.
So, how can allowing this speech hurt X/Twitter? Well, the current banning of X in Brazil started when Musk refused to suspend accounts spreading pro-Bolsonaro hate speech when requested by the Brazilian Supreme Court, despite their free speech laws being nearly identical to that of the UK and most other Democracies, which make such deleterious speech a crime. In truth, the ban only happened because Musk refused to engage in the Brazilian legal process, meaning the Supreme Court had very few options to hold X/Twitter to account. But other countries are also looking to tackle the pandemic of misinformation and hate speech on X/Twitter, which is seriously damaging their democracy. Both Australia and the UK have come forward and said that, legally, Musk could be held liable for his part in publishing such speech, leading to massive fines and other penalties. As X/Twitter is financially holding on by a thread, such fines could end the platform.
Again, just like with the limitations of free speech, when you stop and think about it for a second, holding Musk accountable like this makes complete sense. His relaxed attitude to moderation with X/Twitter has caused enormous damage to citizens of these nations and goes against these nation’s laws. As these governments have a duty of care over both their democracy and their citizens, and Musk is enabling people to break their laws, why shouldn’t they hold him liable?
But, like many, I don’t really care for X/Twitter in the first place. What I do care about is the truth. And truth be told, Musk has never acted as a free-speech absolutist.
For one, he supports a Presidential candidate who tried to overt election results to try and seize power, a clear breach of free speech and democracy. Musk also had X/Twitter accounts of prominent journalists who were critical of him suspended, namely Ken Klippenstein, Steven Monacelli, Alan MacLeod, Rob Rousseau and the TrueAnonPod. He has also brought a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate for defamation because the non-profit published reports chronicling the rise of racist, antisemitic and extremist content on X/Twitter. Now, just to spell it out, a free speech absolutist should believe that defamation is okay, as defamation is only illegal because of restrictions to free speech. Thankfully, the lawsuit was thrown out because of California’s anti-slapp laws, which forbid nuisance lawsuits intended to punish the exercise of free speech. He has also brought a frivolous lawsuit against advertisers who stopped advertising on X/Twitter because their ads were placed next to racist and neo-Nazi content on the platform. This is another exercise of free speech, as these companies have a right to use the free market and buy ads elsewhere and not be associated with such content, but Musk’s lawsuit wants to lock them in and, as such, seeks to suppress their free speech rights. This would have been thrown out, but the state Musk has raised the suit in doesn’t have anti-slapp laws, so the case is moving forward.
You see, when you look at Musk’s actions, he doesn’t believe in free speech at all. Instead, his actions heavily suggest that he believes in taking away accountability so that he can legitimise and promote hate speech associated with the alt-right and neo-Nazis while using his power and wealth to suppress those who don’t support his stance. In short, it sure seems he is a bit of a fascist who loves the divide and concur nature of hate speech. This is why I, personally, think Musk has completed his right-wring extremist arch and is using hypocritical claims of free-speech absolutism to cover his genuinely detestable and fascist-adjacent use of power.
Thanks for reading! Content like this doesn’t happen without your support. So, if you want to see more like this, don’t forget to Subscribe and help get the word out by hitting the share button below.
Sources: BBC, The Guardian, ABC, Ofcom, CPS, Forbes, Will Lockett, The Guardian