It is not surprising that there were strong reactions to Elon Musk’s conversation with President Trump on X formally Twitter supporters were no doubt thrilled to see musk, the world’s richest man, founder of important companies, owner of x and self proclaimed defender of free speech, endorse President Trump and engage in friendly conversation. Opponents had plenty to crow about, and did so even on X criticizing Trump and Musk’s policy prescriptions and the softball nature of the format. But truly surprising was the call from journalists and governments to stop or limit the conversation from journalism. A Washington Post reporter asked White House spokeswoman Karine Jean Pierre about the upcoming Trump must conversation and what role the White House or the President has in stopping misinformation or stopping the spread of misinformation to repeat, this is a journalist taking the side of censoring political discourse during a campaign with a candidate for the highest office in the land, and the journalist did not so subtly suggest this to the very administration whose president was and now whose Vice President is running against Donald Trump for Office. The White House response was weak and non committal. On the one hand, noting that x is a private company, but also decrying the evils of misinformation. This was no ringing defense of free speech or press from government. European Commissioner Thierry Breton wrote a letter to Musk the day of the conversation. The letter scolded musk and X for past instances of non compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act, and it referenced the upcoming Trump Musk conversation, warning, maybe threatening, that while x had a duty to promote free speech, it also must be mindful that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content that might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. The letter then went on to detail the various consequences and enforcement actions that the Commission might utilize on x again, here’s a government, and in this case, a foreign government, strong arming a platform for airing the trunk must conversation as it might be seen by European users. These reactions to the Trump must conversation come not too long after two Supreme Court decisions, first in the net choice cases, the court did not strike down two states regulation of internet platforms to ensure access, but it did indicate that social media platforms ability to moderate the discussions that go on on their platforms would be strongly protected by the First Amendment. In the Murphy case, the Court considered many instances of federal government agencies urging or threatening the platforms to take down harmful content on vaccines, election, misinformation and other matters. The court did not rule out that these actions of government could be challenged by citizens, but it made it very difficult for anyone to have standing to sue. In other words, governments pushing platforms to limit their posts might not be so easy to stop through the courts. The situation for political speech on social media platforms would seem endangered, but one factor has changed significantly in favor of continued free political discourse on social media. Elon Musk bought Twitter and made a commitment to free speech. Many on the left who admired Musk for his businesses that promoted clean energy and electric cars, now see him as a right winger, and x as a platform changed for the worse, but even if you are not a fan of the new x, the fact that there is a variety of political orientations in the platforms makes it much more likely that all of The platforms will resist government’s push to regulate political speech, and that users of all political stripes will feel as if there’s a place for them on social media. So.
Uncensored political content like Trump-Musk on X is a win for free speech
By Straight Arrow News
Former President Donald Trump returned to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Monday, Aug. 12, during a conversation with billionaire Elon Musk. Despite a rocky technical start, the two engaged in a conversation that lasted over two hours, covering topics from a recent assassination attempt to familiar attacks on President Biden and Vice President Harris. Musk also mentioned that he would be voting for Trump.
Watch the video above as Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier argues that the Trump-Musk conversation on X was a win for free speech, underscoring the importance of uncensored political discourse on social media platforms.
Be the first to know when the American Enterprise Institute publishes a new opinion! Download the Straight Arrow News app and enable push notifications today!
The following is an excerpt from the above video:
It is not surprising that there were strong reactions to Elon Musk’s conversation with President Trump on X, formally Twitter. Supporters were no doubt thrilled to see Musk, the world’s richest man, founder of important companies, owner of X and self-proclaimed defender of free speech, endorse President Trump and engage in friendly conversation.
Opponents had plenty to crow about, and did so even on X, criticizing Trump and Musk’s policy prescriptions and the softball nature of the format. But truly surprising was the call from journalists and governments to stop or limit the conversation from journalism.
A Washington Post reporter asked White House spokeswoman Karine Jean Pierre about the upcoming Trump-Musk conversation and what role the White House or the president has in stopping misinformation or stopping the spread of misinformation.
To repeat, this is a journalist taking the side of censoring political discourse during a campaign with a candidate for the highest office in the land, and the journalist did not so subtly suggest this to the very administration whose president was, and now whose vice president is, running against Donald Trump for office. The White House response was weak and non-committal, on the one hand, noting that X is a private company, but also decrying the evils of misinformation.
It is not surprising that there were strong reactions to Elon Musk’s conversation with President Trump on X formally Twitter supporters were no doubt thrilled to see musk, the world’s richest man, founder of important companies, owner of x and self proclaimed defender of free speech, endorse President Trump and engage in friendly conversation. Opponents had plenty to crow about, and did so even on X criticizing Trump and Musk’s policy prescriptions and the softball nature of the format. But truly surprising was the call from journalists and governments to stop or limit the conversation from journalism. A Washington Post reporter asked White House spokeswoman Karine Jean Pierre about the upcoming Trump must conversation and what role the White House or the President has in stopping misinformation or stopping the spread of misinformation to repeat, this is a journalist taking the side of censoring political discourse during a campaign with a candidate for the highest office in the land, and the journalist did not so subtly suggest this to the very administration whose president was and now whose Vice President is running against Donald Trump for Office. The White House response was weak and non committal. On the one hand, noting that x is a private company, but also decrying the evils of misinformation. This was no ringing defense of free speech or press from government. European Commissioner Thierry Breton wrote a letter to Musk the day of the conversation. The letter scolded musk and X for past instances of non compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act, and it referenced the upcoming Trump Musk conversation, warning, maybe threatening, that while x had a duty to promote free speech, it also must be mindful that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content that might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. The letter then went on to detail the various consequences and enforcement actions that the Commission might utilize on x again, here’s a government, and in this case, a foreign government, strong arming a platform for airing the trunk must conversation as it might be seen by European users. These reactions to the Trump must conversation come not too long after two Supreme Court decisions, first in the net choice cases, the court did not strike down two states regulation of internet platforms to ensure access, but it did indicate that social media platforms ability to moderate the discussions that go on on their platforms would be strongly protected by the First Amendment. In the Murphy case, the Court considered many instances of federal government agencies urging or threatening the platforms to take down harmful content on vaccines, election, misinformation and other matters. The court did not rule out that these actions of government could be challenged by citizens, but it made it very difficult for anyone to have standing to sue. In other words, governments pushing platforms to limit their posts might not be so easy to stop through the courts. The situation for political speech on social media platforms would seem endangered, but one factor has changed significantly in favor of continued free political discourse on social media. Elon Musk bought Twitter and made a commitment to free speech. Many on the left who admired Musk for his businesses that promoted clean energy and electric cars, now see him as a right winger, and x as a platform changed for the worse, but even if you are not a fan of the new x, the fact that there is a variety of political orientations in the platforms makes it much more likely that all of The platforms will resist government’s push to regulate political speech, and that users of all political stripes will feel as if there’s a place for them on social media. So.
This is the dawn of a new national Republican coalition
Why are transitions of power so complicated in the United States?
The 25th Amendment should remain above politics
How do presidential debates work?
Underreported stories from each side
FEMA officials ‘view Trump supporters as domestic terrorists,’ whistleblower tells House Oversight Committee
19 sources | 0% from the left AP ImagesGaetz sent more than $10k to two women who testified in House investigation: Reports
21 sources | 0% from the right Getty ImagesLatest Stories
‘Bomb cyclone’ whips US Northwest, California with intense winds and rain
NYC Mayor Adams Names Jessica Tisch as NYPD Head
NFL unlikely to penalize players for performing ‘Trump Dance’ celebration
How Trump 2.0 could change the landscape of Big Tech antitrust
Johnson says restroom use in Capitol must align with biological sex
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Trump poised to unleash transformative mandate
13 hrs ago Newt GingrichHow Gov. Gavin Newsom is ‘Trump-proofing’ his state
17 hrs ago Adrienne LawrenceTrump’s loyal cabinet picks to drive his policy agenda
Yesterday Ben WeingartenWhite identity politics scores another win
Yesterday Ruben Navarrette