When Elon Bought Twitter

So Elon Musk bought Twitter after all. Is anyone surprised this is announced on a Friday, one of the slowest news days that need a Big Story?

Moreover, does this mean Twitter will become a "free speech zone" where anything goes?

That's the wrong question to ask, because free speech in the US applies to the government only. The First Amendment was intended to prevent the Federal government from overstepping its bounds on speech against private citizens. This protection now extends to corporations.

All Musk has to do is make sure Twitter follows US laws and that it applies enforcement of them evenly across all Twitter users. The same has to apply to any rules Musk's Twitter (Mitter?) may decide to have in spite of Musk's no-rules reputation.

There is No Such Thing as Absolute Free Speech Anywhere in the US

Free speech is bandied around as something that the Left is trying to outlaw. Or that the Right willfully abuses as naturally as it breathes.

Free speech is not an absolute right in the US, and it only applies to government behavior against private citizens and it appears, against corporations.

I'm not going to comment on this because for one thing, I'm tired of simplistic claims. What I hope to do is spread the word that free speech is not an absolute right. Governments can and do protect people against dangerous speech to an extent, at least in the US. (And as Mitt Romney pointed out, companies are people, too, so they have rights, too.) One of these rights is to be protected from speech that:

• The speaker or writer knows is untrue
• Presents a “clear and present danger ” to public safety
• Breaks laws meant to prevent specific criminal acts like child abuse or child pornography
• Abuses the personal rights of individuals or groups through?unlawful discrimination

Private Businesses Have to Follow Laws But Can Censor Speech

Twitter is a private business and it can go further than this list. However, it still has to follow laws that control dangerous speech since it operates in the US.

Musk might decide to ban any speech against electric vehicles, for example, as long as he defines what this is and bans it evenly and across the board. Otherwise, Twitter risks charges of unequal treatment.

Musk may declare Twitter is a "free speech zone" but it still has to follow US laws against dangerous speech and slander.

If he wants, Musk can clean house and fire everyone. (No one has the right to a job.) He can throw all users off Twitter and make it an invitation-only platform for posting. It's his company to decide what to do with it. But he should take care to make sure Twitter doesn't revert back to a platform that spreads dangerous lies that pose a real threat to real people.

"Free Speech" Gets a Lot of Leeway Anyway

People who claim their free speech rights are being infringed are usually being ridiculous because their rights cannot interfere with those of others, including the right to be left alone.

For example, it's difficult to prove that something said was done so with malice and disregard for the actual truth. Repeat something often enough, and people will believe it's true. It's long been the Number One rule in certain political playbooks.

Well-known public officials are subjected to outright lies all the time, of course, accused of everything from lying about their votes to molesting children in pizza restaurant basements.

I should post something in the future that explains how a bill goes through negotiation and dozens of rewrites before it's voted on in a legislature. And new versions of Pizzagate-style accusations are alive and well. They exist because some people knowingly spread lies to people who want to believe dangerous rubbish.

Watch Case Law to See How Far Speech is Protected

The role of courts is to interpret what a legislature's intention was behind a law or governing document like a constitution.

Free speech has been a tough one and court opinions often comment that a legislature needs to clarify old laws. When courts rule on what their majority believe a law was intended to do, that's called case law. It's usually followed as precedent for future court rulings but as we've recently seen in the Supreme Court, this isn't always the practice.

Most slander lawsuits are settled out of court or dismissed by judges - one reason why there isn't a lot of case law to turn to regarding "free speech." Here are active cases that can provide more information if they do go to trial:

• Dominion Voting Systems against several conservative news outlets
• American chess Grandmaster defamation suit against a chess world champion

Have You Been Slandered or Libeled? I Have!

Libel is a little different than slander. It happens when a publication or broadcast is untrue and damages a person's reputation.

I've actually been libeled and there isn't a darn thing I can do about it because it was done anonymously, although many people who received the "publication" suspect who's behind it.

I am the president of my homeowner's association, possibly the most thankless and at the same time insightful volunteer position one can have. My fellow board members and I were voted in to replace a board that was removed by a judge - for the second time no less. (This is why people really should vote at the most local levels, all the time.)

Someone distributed anonymous flyers that accused me of lying about holding a public board vote. The vote actually did happen during a public meeting with homeowners and we have proof. The writer apparently missed the communication about the meeting. And they wrote it to defame my character to my neighbors.

Lucky for me, several people let the presumed writer know they didn't like anonymous "newsletters" thrown on their patios. Second, leaving flyers on private property is not allowed in our city and is considered littering. This put an end to The Observer as far as I know.

Has something similar happened to you? I'm curious to hear if it has.