By now, the whole world knows that Elon Musk, the founder and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX—and the richest man in the world—is buying Twitter for $44 billion and taking the publicly traded company private.
Musk, who has called himself a “free speech absolutist,” said in a press release:
Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.
Musk had said that he was interested in pursuing Twitter because he believes “it’s very important for that to be an inclusive arena for free speech.” And he said on Twitter: “I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey said that Musk was “the singular solution” for Twitter, but many Democrats were furious.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called the sale “dangerous for democracy.” Other Democrats were horrified that Twitter would now reinstate former president Trump’s account. Technology analyst Amber Mac commented that “Musk’s absolute view of free speech could potentially lead to more harassment and even hate speech on Twitter.”
Republicans and conservatives generally viewed the Musk’s purchase as a victory for free speech.
“This is a great day to be conservative on Twitter,” tweeted Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). “Elon Musk buying Twitter terrifies the left because they don’t want their power to censor conservatives threatened,” she added. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) tweeted: “Elon Musk now literally owns the libs.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) tweeted: “Free speech is making a comeback.”
In an opinion piece for The Epoch Times, two conservatives make the case that “Musk’s Twitter purchase will bring back free speech.” They say: “Twitter has long restricted free speech. One method widely employed was shadowbanning—the limitation on the visibility of tweets from a given account. Another method used by Twitter was the outright banning of accounts that Twitter deemed problematic or offensive.”
Now, it is certainly true that Twitter has promoted some speech while suppressing other speech and frozen or cancelled the accounts of people whom the company claims spread “misinformation.” But is that censorship? Is that suppressing freedom of speech?
Everyone keeps talking about freedom of speech, but what does freedom of speech have to do with Twitter?
The First Amendment reads as follows: “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.”
The First Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, does not grant Americans rights; it merely prohibits the government from infringing on the natural rights that Americans already have. Since no power was ever granted to the federal government to abridge freedom of speech, the First Amendment merely reinforces the idea that the government lacks the power under the Constitution to do so.
But Twitter is not Congress.
It is the government that is prohibited from abridging freedom of speech, not any individual, business, or organization. Historically, it is governments that have always sought to abridge free speech. It is governments that have tried to censor speech. The First Amendment was never intended to apply to any entity other than the federal government. And although it has since been applied to state governments, this still doesn’t mean that it applies to individuals, businesses, and organizations.
Individuals, businesses, and organizations censor speech everyday, and it is viewed as perfectly natural, reasonable, and acceptable when they do. In a free society, individuals control the speech that is allowed on their property. In a free society, employers make the rules for workplace speech. In a free society, organizations decide the limits of allowable discourse.
As economist George Reisman has well said: “Contrary to the prevailing view, freedom of speech is not the ability to say anything, anywhere, at any time. Actual freedom of speech is consistent with respect for property rights. It presupposes that the speaker has the consent of the owners of any property he uses in speaking, such as the land, sound system, or lecture hall or radio or television studio that he uses.”
Being able to control what is said on one’s property is a mark of a free and ordered society; not being allowed to control what is said on one’s property is a mark of an authoritarian and lawless society.
As much as conservatives may not like it, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Twitter censoring them or their views. No conservative individual or organization has a right to be on Twitter. If conservatives don’t like how they are being treated by Twitter, then can start their own social media company to compete with Twitter.
The truth is, conservatives don’t mind it when Twitter practices censorship as long as it censors things that they don’t like. According to the Twitter terms of service: “We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.” I am not aware of any conservatives that have a problem those terms. Twitter users have the ability “to report obscene or pornographic images being used in profile photos and/or header photos on Twitter.” Do conservatives want Twitter to allow pornography? I think the answer is obvious. The whole thing is political. If conservatives controlled Twitter and censored progressive ideas, then the Left would be the ones accusing Twitter of censorship and abridging freedom of speech.
For Musk to allow more divergent viewpoints on Twitter is certainly a welcome sight, but opening up Twitter should not be viewed as Musk restoring freedom of speech in America.