That's right, Elon Musk's buying Twitter is a dire threat, and we ought not worry about inflation, looming recession, supply chains, student loans, healthcare costs, household debt and corporate takeover of elected government.
Because you the American people have never had it so good, and you need to trust your betters, and stay away from disinformation.
Now, Musk 'threatens' to open up Twitter to dissident voices who are popular with the American people, but the wrong kind of people who voice the wrong kind of speech and think the wrong kind of thought.
It's obvious Democrats and liberal allies fear the mid-terms because they fear the American people. And when information and thought are presented that threatens Democrat rule, the medium that conveys this information must be policed, and the thought must be purged.
Notes Glenn Greenwald this morning: "The worst, most egregious and most nefarious official US disinformation campaign in years was the pre-election CIA lie that the authentic Biden emails were 'Russian disinformation.' It was led by liberal outlets: CNN, Politico/Natasha Bertrand, HuffPost, Mother Jones, Intercept."
The worst, most egregious and most nefarious official US disinformation campaign in years was the pre-election CIA lie that the authentic Biden emails were "Russian disinformation."
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022
It was led by liberal outlets: CNN, Politico/Natasha Bertrand, HuffPost, Mother Jones, Intercept. pic.twitter.com/h3Exzd8YLJ
Liberals have long besmirched social media because, they say, they fear platforms in which accredited "lies have unfettered access to the American electorate," in the words of corporatist Democrat, Aaron Sorkin, writing in the New York Times in 2019 in favor of censorship of Facebook.
Sorkin well represents the liberal mindset that reasons liberals and content managers are able to sift and winnow social media writing without being corrupted and misled, but most Americans are not equipped with liberals' powers of
discernment.
I read about about Sorkin's call for heavy censorship in 2019, but now his narcissism and silly
condescension have become Democrat orthodoxy, terrified of the American population.
Time again for a refresher on free speech.
Free speech need not be defended on grounds that consequences of liberty make for a healthy classical liberal society, ala New York Times v Sullivan (1964), an inspiring statement for liberty against those advocating for authoritative selection of published views.
However, the words of Justice William Brennan and other 20-century
jurists speak forever to those who believe only they are immune from corruption of unorthodox thought, and their politcal rule must be protected against the vehement, caustic, and
sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.
Writes Brennan in Sullivan:
The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,Aaron Sorkin and Democrats ought consider the foundations of Sullivan today, because free speech protections may not be around forever.
presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. (New York Times v. Sullivan).
Facebook and other social media well serve our national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited.
Consider the thoughts of Glenn Greenwald this morning, and don't worry, you won't be corrupted.
In fact, some of the most sanctimonious leftist writers have been on the dole of Silicon Valley billionaires while attacking others for impure funding. That Musk's purchase of Twitter is some novel development - except for its potential to restore free speech - is laughable. pic.twitter.com/4y7E9LB4kF
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022
Collecting my checks from the Sulzberger dynasty (NYT). Laurene Powell-Jobs (Atlantic), MacKenzie Scott (countless left-liberal NGOs), Jeff Bezos (WP), Comcast Corp. (NBC/MSNBC), Warner Bros. Discovery Corp. (CNN), to write about the dangers of a billionaire's control of Twitter.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022
Ok so why is it better for Musk to run Twitter than Dorsey and co? Is it better in any way? Or just better because it’s closer to your worldview of social media operation?
— Xavier Koenig (@xavkoenig) May 2, 2022
Because the current scheme is a censorship regime imposed on major social media platforms. Musk is promising to uproot that and instead allow free speech.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 2, 2022
If he's sincere and follows through, it will be important. If he isn't and doesn't, nothing will change.
