Elon Musk, critic of U. S. government

I had never heard of Roger McNamee before a couple of days ago. He’s described as a “Silicon Valley investor,” which I guess means he invests in companies in Silicon Valley. Fine. Good for him.

He made news recently by appearing on MSNBC for some reason and, during his interview, claimed that Elon Musk should be prosecuted for criticizing the U. S. government. This is what McNamee said:

“You have somebody who runs a really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who’s actively undermining the government that’s paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted.”

Oh, my! Apparently, Elon Musk has been criticizing the U. S. government. I don’t follow Musk, so I don’t know what criticism he’s waged against the government. But McNamee’s theory is that, since Musk has a contract with the government to provide technology that contributes to the nation’s security, Musk’s free speech should be limited and he shouldn’t be allowed to criticize the government.

What kind of idiotic theory is that? If that were the case, one could argue that very few people have the right to criticize the government, since many, many citizens are in direct or implied contracts with the government. How many people directly work for the federal government or serve in the military? How many people work at institutions that receive government funding? How many people are on Medicare or Medicaid? How many people receive their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act? How many people receive foods stamps or live in subsidized housing? How many people owe on student loans, or attend schools that benefit from government student loan programs? All of these people, and doubtless countless others, would have their free speech rights limited and would be prevented from criticizing the government should McNamee’s theory take hold and be drawn to its logical conclusion.

My theory is that Roger McNamee doesn’t like what Elon Musk has said in his criticism of the government, and that’s why he wants Musk prosecuted.

Why are people so afraid of free speech? Or, rather, why are people so afraid of the free speech practiced by those with whom they disagree? That’s what this is about, isn’t it? It’s not that people want their speech limited. They want the speech of those who have different opinions, different ideas, or different perspectives limited. But the way to counter speech with which you disagree is to provide speech that supports your position. Oh, but that’s hard! You have to work at that! It’s so much easier to simply stop people from speaking who think differently they you do. Of course, that’s lazy and uncivilized. But we’re talking about opinions that are different, which means they’re wrong, which means they’re dangerous. Who doesn’t want to stop dangerous ideas from getting around? The Center for Countering Digital Hate is all about preventing dangerous ideas from getting around – which is to say, ideas that are different from theirs.

When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he opened it up as a “free-speech platform,” allowing people to actually say what they wanted to say, even if that constituted hate speech or “misinformation” in the minds of people who feel a mission to monitor such things. I’ve never been on Twitter or X, so I’ve no idea what gets said on those platforms. The only social media platform I’ve ever been on is Facebook, and I’m no longer on Facebook. I have no social media presence at all, unless you want to count this blog.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a lot of nasty stuff said on X. On the other hand, who’s to judge what is “hate speech”? The Center for Countering Digital Hate seems to claim the privilege. Now, be it known that some of the causes they support, such as making it difficult for children to access pornography, or stopping social media platforms from leading children to sites that support self-harm and suicide, are great and noble goals. Other things, like trying to shut down critics of both climate change policy and transgender care for children, not so good. The CCDH also says they attempt to stop the spread of “misinformation,” but the COVID debacle taught us all a lesson about the meaning of “misinformation.” Basically, it’s in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder usually has an agenda to push.

Musk recently sued the CCDH for what he claimed was their “cherry-picking” and then publishing data about X that made it look like it had become a platform for haters – neo-Nazis, white supremacists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. The judge threw out the case, saying Musk was simply peeved that the CCDH had told on him. Good. Musk is as legitimate a target of critics as is the government he criticizes.

I’m pretty close to a free speech absolutist myself. The only speech I believe should be limited is speech that supports crimes. So, no, social media platforms should not be allowed to be used for human trafficking or child pornography or selling drugs, or prostitution, or whatever other crimes they have and may be used for. That needs to stop. When the CCDH supports those causes, I’m their ally.

But when it comes to stopping hate speech or “misinformation,” I’m on the side of those who think that the best deterrent to hate speech or “misinformation” is more speech – namely, the kind of speech that encourages love between people and better informs them of the facts. Let the bigots have their way on the platform. So long as they’re not encouraging or planning violence against others, no one is being influenced by these idiots, at least no more than they’re being influenced by what’s on Netflix or HBO or any number of stations that sponsor programs replete with violence and graphic sex. (Full disclosure: I cancelled our Netflix account because it ran programs that, in my opinion, promoted the sexualization of children). Or, I should say, no more than people are being influenced by Roger McNamee’s idiotic idea of prosecuting people for criticizing the government. And, speaking of promoting violence, what about all those messages that were shared on social media about the planned attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 that the federal authorities and the Capitol Police were fully aware of prior to the attack? Why weren’t those shut-down? And, why didn’t the authorities act to protect the Capitol in light of those plans? But, I digress …

As for “misinformation,” please don’t presume to think that you know better than the rest of us, so that you have to act to protect us. We can figure it out ourselves. Or, is that really the motivation? Perhaps the motivation is that you have your own agenda and you want to shut down critics of that agenda under the claim of “protecting” the people from “misinformation.” Does that make me a conspiracy theorists, or does it just demonstrate healthy distrust of those who claim they know better? Of course, the CCDH would call me a “climate denialists” because I’m skeptical that whole neighborhoods in NYC are going to be under water by 2100. Why am I skeptical? Because outrageous claims have been made before in the name adopting policies to offset the effects of climate change, and those claims proved false. But, in the name of free speech, I’ll give you both sides and let you decide: here and here. See, that’s how it’s done! You give both sides, and let people make an intelligent decision on which side to support based on their best sense of it. That’s all we can do.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.