Musk Doesn't Understand Free Speech
Musk Doesn't Understand Free Speech
DMV accuses Tesla of fraud
2023 was a bad year for Tesla and Musk. Tesla had to admit that a DoJ probe into fatal crashes involving Teslas on autopilot could severely damage the business, Cybertruck’s lukewarm reception and super late release was far from ideal, Tesla stocks plateauing in value despite predictions, and ending the year by losing the most-sold EV race to Chinese rival BYD. 2024 doesn’t look much better, as it started off with Musk’s board members accusing him of using a cocktail of illegal drugs on such a regular basis that it is damaging his businesses. But the headaches won’t stop there; his recent questionable antics on Twitter (X is a stupid name) and a looming DMV case against Tesla show that Musk fundamentally misunderstands one of his core tenets, free speech. To make matters worse, this extra visibility of his hypocrisy could massively damage Tesla.
Let’s start with the DMV case. Over the years, Musk has repeatedly falsely stated that Tesla had “full self-driving capabilities” when that simply wasn’t the case.
In 2016, Musk showcased a video of a Model 3 apparently driving itself through highways, intersections and complex junctions, with the driver not even touching the steering wheel, showcasing that the cars can drive themselves. Tesla’s website even said, “The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.” Turns out, the video was faked. The car wasn’t driving itself; it was all staged. During the DMV case, Tesla representatives told the DMV that Tesla is unlikely to achieve Level 5 full autonomy, in which its cars can drive themselves anywhere, under any conditions, without any human supervision, any time soon. Despite this, Musk said to investors in an earnings call last January that he was “highly confident the car will be able to drive itself with reliability in excess of human this year.” Musk even claimed in 2019 that by the end of 2020, Tesla would have 1 million robotaxis on the road! There are too many of these over-exaggerated statements by Tesla and Musk to go over here. However, A DMV representative summarised their position by stating that Elon’s statements “don’t match engineering reality.”
** Quick interruption, if you want more from me, or to interact with me, go follow me on Bluesky, X (I will explain why I am begrudgingly still using it in a minute), or Substack**
This wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for how Tesla runs its business. A huge number of Tesla buyers purchase their vehicle because of its apparent self-driving ability. This means Musk’s statements have more than likely led to more Teslas being sold. Moreover, investors expect a boom from Tesla’s claimed self-driving future. Ark Invest, which is heavily invested in Tesla, thinks robotaxis could add $613 billion to their revenue by 2027. Even Musk shares this view, describing their self-driving technology as “the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money and being worth basically zero.” Yet no empirical or engineering evidence supports the notion that Tesla is even close to a legal full self-driving car in such a timeframe. In fact, there is quite the opposite, as there are numerous governmental and private investigations and probes into how dangerous the current system is. As such, Musk’s false statements have more than likely inflated their stock price.
So the DMV is accusing Musk of fraud (And Tesla, as Tesla has no PR department, meaning Musk is effectively Tesla’s PR representative) and taking him to court over it.
This is a whole story in itself, but today, we are interested in Musk’s defence. You see, apparently, this wasn’t fraud; it was free speech. This is an utterly unsurprising response, as Musk has publicly come out as a free speech absolutist and a hardline supporter of the 1st Amendment (which protects free speech) on numerous occasions.
But there is a problem here. The 1st Amendment explicitly doesn’t cover speech that amounts to fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, or false statements of fact. In other words, this isn’t a legal defence, as he has to prove his statements aren’t fraudulent or false statements of fact rather than claiming free speech rights. Cornell Law School defines fraud as being “based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth.” Considering there is a well-documented trail of fatal crashes due to the misuse of Tesla’s self-driving technology, we can agree that Musk has been reckless with the truth at best, and, therefore, his statements count as fraud.
Interestingly enough, Twitter could legally ban Donald Trump because the 1st Amendment doesn’t cover social media companies. They can ban who they like. But it also doesn’t protect speech “integral to illegal conduct and speech that incites imminent lawless action”, which lawmakers concluded Trump’s tweets constituted. So when Musk decried his banning as violating the 1st Amendment, he was utterly wrong. This motivated him to buy Twitter with the explicit intent of ensuring the platform supports free speech.
Yet, now he is the sole owner of the platform, he has utterly failed to uphold his free speech absolutism.
Musk banned a few accounts last year, causing anger, but it fizzled out quickly. However, Twitter recently deactivated the accounts of journalists, bloggers and podcasters, such as Ken Klippenstein, Steven Monacelli, Alan MacLeod, Rob Rousseau and the TrueAnonPod. These accounts have been active for years and have thousands upon thousands of followers, and crucially, all of them were critical of Musk and the Israeli state. Ken Klippenstein even did a unique piece which uncovered how Musk talked to Netanyahu about their “gospel” AI, which is being used to acquire targets in Gaza, many of which are civilian (read it here).
Unsurprisingly, this caused a massive uproar! Musk appeared to be using Twitter as his own personal culling machine to take down those critical of him or his newfound buddy, Netanyahu. In reality, this isn’t a breach of the 1st Amendment, but if Musk wanted to reinstate Trump on Twitter using the 1st Amendment, by the same token, he can’t suspend these journalists. Their speech is 100% protected, and Musk has hypocritically tried to silence them.
Musk quickly reactivated the accounts in the face of the catastrophically colossal backlash that came his way. Which is a good thing. But it is damn worrying he tried to get away with this in the first place.
For me, this is a mask-off moment for Musk. He claims he is the creator of extraordinary AI, a lover of free markets and a free-speech absolutist. But his actions display the complete opposite. Musk is a hypocrite. He expects one rule for himself and another for everyone else, and he expects to have freedoms that crush the freedoms of others. However, he is caught in a trap. This hypocritical public persona he has built up is crucial to the value of his companies. A significant number of people would leave Twitter or stop buying Teslas if these traits become too visible, and not just the misunderstood actions of “genius.” As such, as we have seen with Twitter, the people have a democratic power over Musk and can hold him to account. That’s why I am reluctantly happy to continue using Twitter. But regardless of your opinion of Musk, you must admit that his reputation is getting further tarnished every day.
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 follow me on BlueSky or X and help get the word out by hitting the share button below.
Sources: Gizmodo, Washington Post, CRS, Cornell Law School, Bloomberg, Reuters, The Verge, Business Insider, The Drum, The Guardian, Novus Light, NY Times