What Elon Musk's critics are getting wrong about freedom of speech

Elon Musk grabbed a lot of attention when he expressed concerns over Twitter's failures regarding free speech. His critics didn't hesitate to criticize his misinterpretation of the First Amendment. In this case, his critics are wrong.

Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.

What should be done? https://t.co/aPS9ycji37

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 26, 2022

Constitutionally protected freedom of speech does not compel businesses to host content that they find problematic. Twitter is not a government entity, and they legally have the right to determine the content they are willing to host. I certainly don't want the government to take control over what content websites do and do not host. I am against regulation over content. I certainly don't want to take websites such as Twitter to court over removal of content that they deem is in violation of their term of service.

If you follow my blog, which is unlikely due to my anti-social lifestyle, you should already know something about me. I view constitutionally protected freedom of speech as different from freedom of speech. I have even written a series of posts on freedom of speech from an ethical rather than constitutional perspective. My primary issue here is so obvious that I was reluctant to write about it. I ultimately decided that redundancies are no reason to avoid venting.

Twitter has embraced uneven enforcement of their own policies. They are trying to fight conservative misinformation while failing to tackle liberal misinformation. They are removing hate speech, but they refuse to address hate that doesn't fit their skewed definition. They ban some who use their site to promote violence, but some violent organizations such as Rose City Antifa remain active. From an ethical perspective, there are serious problems when it comes to free speech on the internet.

At no point did I see Elon Musk mention the Constitution, the First Amendment, or legal action. Yes, he mentioned democracy, but I have seen absolutely no evidence that he was speaking from a constitutional perspective. There are a lot of people out there pointing to Musk's words as proof that he is clueless about freedom of speech. The fact that the Constitution protects freedom of speech in no way eliminates the concept of freedom of speech outside of a legal framework. People not realizing this piece of common sense is in no way due to the cluelessness of Musk.

Twitter restricts post length, and I'm not a mind reader. I can't deny that it's possible that he was thinking of the constitution when he posted. Personally, I suspect he was speaking more broadly than that. His proposed solution had nothing to do with legal action. Instead, he suggested a new platform. To me, that sounds a lot closer to the ethical perspective on free speech than the constitutional perspective.