Free speech is not speech without consequences, even for Elon Musk

If you want to be respected, then treat others with respect

Musk is…a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights. His latest articulation of this theory came after Media Matters published an article claiming that X is running ads for prominent companies next to bigoted content on X. Musk responded with an extravagant, mostly incoherent threat to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against Media Matters and its board and donors “to protect free speech,” whose criticism “seeks to undermine freedom of expression on our platform.”

• Ken White

We talk about the 1st Amendment a lot, and we demand others respect our rights as covered by it, but how many of us know what it is and what it means?

Perhaps we should begin by looking at the text of the 1st Amendment.

At least that way, we’re all singing from the same hymnal, yeah?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

All that seems relatively uncomplicated. Freedom of speech- the freedom to speak one’s mind freely, providing that person isn’t advocating violence or insurrection, which has come to be accepted in case law and tradition.

But, despite what many have come to believe, the right to free speech and expression doesn’t mean the right to speak freely without the possibility of pushback or consequences. Too many, most often on the Far-Right, believe that free speech is unfettered speech and that their right to unfettered speech is paramount. No one should be able to push back on their speech…ah, but they have every right to push back on speech and expression they don’t like.

Where I come from, we call that “hypocrisy.” ‘Course, I grew up in the frozen tundra of far northern Minnesota, where we tended to look at things in shades of black and white. We were simple folk….

Just as the tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, freedom of speech must occasionally be protected by an unemployed ghoul and a personality disordered Boer persuading a bland FedSoc apparatchik to pester journalists for questioning billionaires.

It would be easy to blame this contemptible nonsense on Elon Musk being socially inept, proudly ignorant, and grotesquely petulant. But when it comes to thinking that the right to free speech includes the right to silence others, Elon learned it by watching us, okay? He learned it by watching us.

Unfortunately for Musk and others like him, any adverse reaction to free speech is not ipso facto an attempt to silence the speaker. Just as someone has the right to express themselves freely, so does anyone have the right to speak out freely in response to the expressed ideas.

If I tell you you’re an idiot, I’m not trying to silence you. I’m merely expressing my doubts about your mental agility and capacity, which may have something to do with your red MAGA hat.

Just a helpful hint.

The 1st Amendment covers both examples of speech- your expression and my reaction. Neither is an attempt to silence the other, except in the eyes of those with thin skins who can’t handle an adverse reaction to their ideas.

Elon Musk learned it by watching us through our collective ineptitude, ignorance, and petulance.

“Your criticism violates my right to free speech” is a fatuous but common American sentiment. It has been for some time. We’ve long heard it from athletes, like John Rocker complaining of a “defective reality” in which free speech is a myth because we’ve lost the ability “to speak freely without fear of chastisement.” We’ve long heard it from entertainers, like Clint Eastwood complaining that he should be able to tell ethnic jokes without fearing he’ll be called “a racist,” or Kirk Cameron saying that he should be able to speak out condemning homosexuality without being “slandered” or “accused of hate speech.” Note all of those stories are more than a decade old; I raise them to demonstrate that this has been going on a while, and I’ve been complaining about it for a while.

John Rocker’s idea seems the most ridiculous. Just as there are no “alternative facts,” there is no “defective reality,” unless we’re talking about Rocker’s expectation that people shut up and listen to him without responding unless it’s in complete agreement. That’s not the way American democracy works. I can tell you to shut up…but you’re also free to tell me to fornicate myself in ways that are physically impossible.

I, of course, am free to take that command under advisement. Or not.

It’s all free speech, even if we sound like immature 12-year-olds.

The Right-winger’s theory of free speech

If Clint Eastwood wants to tell ethnic jokes, he should expect to be called a racist because those jokes ARE racist. His expectations aren’t realistic…and his jokes suck.

And Kirk Cameron can condemn homosexuality all he wants…as long as he understands that he WILL be “slandered” (called a homophobe) and “accused of hate speech.” That’s because what he’s spreading IS hatred aimed at a marginalized community whose existence has ZERO impact on the quality of his life…and because he’s a Christofascist. We probably shouldn’t forget that.

Kirk Cameron couldn’t model a Christ-like life if you handed him a Bible and the Prince of Peace His Own Self.

If I’ve said it a thousand times, free speech can be and very often is objectionable and sometimes vile speech. That doesn’t mean it can’t be expressed; it does mean that the person expressing it doesn’t have the right to condemn a negative response. Free speech sometimes comes with consequences; that’s just the nature of the beast.

“Criticism is censorship” has been a standard trope in politics and punditry even longer, and has persisted there even more consistently. Calling Trump a racist, we are frequently told, violates his free speech rights:

“Calling Trump a racist absolutely undermines his rights. It’s an attempt to limit speech thru intimidation.”

What a load of permissive Right-wing bullshit. All Dan Riehl is doing is giving Donald Trump a free pass for his racism and demanding that others do the same. The fact that some are unwilling to do so hardly means that it’s an attempt to limit Trump’s 1st Amendment rights through “intimidation.”

Like Trump would ever be intimidated by that in the first place….

Regrettably, the notion that criticism is censorship has been encouraged by the dialogue about “cancel culture.” The New York Times Editorial Board proclaims Americans are losing “ right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.”

“Cancel culture” is merely another name for “consequence culture.” While Americans have the right to speak and express themselves freely, that doesn’t mean a right exists disconnected from possible consequences. Rights also don’t exist divorced from responsibilities. In this case, the right to speak/express oneself freely comes with the obligation to do so respectfully and honestly. Failure to do either or both can, and in some cases should, result in consequences for the speaker.

That consideration is the price we pay for living in a civilized world where we’re charged with respecting others.

Absolute rights don’t exist in our imperfect world, and those who expect or demand them are in for a helluva shock.

An earnest but painfully vague letter from literary luminaries in Harper’s conflates “restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society.” People who are sincerely concerned about free expression, people I admire and respect, argue that we must avoid “manipulative” and “ad hominem” criticism to protect speech — without really engaging the problem that both the critic and the criticized are people with free speech rights and interests.

I’ve argued that if “cancel culture” dialogue is to actually promote free speech — as opposed to just picking sides and choosing whose speech we care about, who should feel comfortable speaking — it needs to acknowledge the speech interests of everyone involved and be more specific, even to the point of pedantry. That’s not happening. If anything, the dialogue is getting muddier. Witness the disastrous discussions about campus speech about the war in Israel, characterized by commentators claiming back and forth that their rights are infringed by other people’s speech about war and death, that criticism of their speech about the war violates their rights.

Call me a naïf if it makes you feel better, but from where I sit, this argument seems to be about respect. There’s no right to go off half-cocked and express disrespectful sentiments about a person or group of people without expecting consequences. If one is going to be impolite, one must expect disrespect in return. If one desires respect, it must first be given.

The same holds for any expression or interpersonal reaction. Too often, we demand respect without being willing to give it first. We fail to understand that respect isn’t given and can’t be demanded. Respect is earned by how you treat others, the kindness you show them, and how you take an interest in them. Do that sincerely, and it will be returned.

But if you treat people like dog shit, you can’t claim to be surprised when they begin throwing fresh canine feces in your direction.

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.

• Maya Angelou

Elon Musk has complained that advertisers are degrading free speech by fleeing X/Twitter…without bothering to take the time to understand why companies are moving their ad dollars elsewhere. And he’s incensed that journalists aren’t showering him- the world’s richest and most brilliant man- with hosannas for his self-professed brilliance.

Musk fails to understand that no one- particularly advertisers and journalists- owes him a thing. Advertisers aren’t going to spend their money on a platform that caters to racists, misogynists, homophobes, and White Nationalists, and journalists will tell the truth about the poor quality of the electric cars Tesla is producing. They’re not his de facto PR department.

If Elon Musk- or anyone else- wants to be treated with respect, they should first treat others with respect. Before long, it will be returned to them…but first, they must earn it.

Musk believes his status and wealth should come with respect as standard equipment, but he fails to recognize that respect comes primarily from how people feel they’re treated. If you treat someone well and they feel good about that, they’ll respect you. If you treat people like interchangeable parts, you can’t expect respect from anyone.

What Elon Musk wants is to be a shitty person and know that no one will call him out for it. Sadly for him, the world doesn’t work that way…because he is a shitty person.

(All of my posts are now public. Any reader financial support will be considered pledges- support that’s greatly appreciated but not required to get to all of my work. I’ll trust my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their financial support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.)