I mean, I’m not a fan of the guy or a lot of what he does or says, but in fairness I feel this one gets used a bit and is 50/50. Requiring parody to be labeled parody doesn’t ban comedy- you can still do parody, you just have to disclose it is parody. Which makes a lot of sense and is potentially a viable measure in general against “fake news” and such. Fox News Media for example, or its employees, have used what essentially amounts to “I was just kidding, can’t you take a joke?” To defend against legal damages on numerous occasions under the defense that things said, sometimes on programs with “news” in the name and persons using “newscaster” or “reported” or such as job titles and with huge followings that believe it to be news- were just entertainment or satire or such. Of course in a practical sense, a world where people can impersonate anyone else freely doesn’t tend to work well. We do probably need a way to tell when it is actually the President or a public figure of authority
saying something. One likely doesn’t want to find out that their doctor or therapist or such was just doing a “parody” or get to trial day and find out their lawyer was just playing around etc. there’s lots of examples amy reasonable person can come up with where it just isn’t a practical thing for a functioning society or communications tool to freely not somehow restrict impersonation or enforce uniqueness of individual identity.
Of course, yes, it IS against freedom of speech where one defines freedom akin to anarchy, no constraints as opposed to defining freedom as the para rival ability of the many to exercise their rights. The distinction is an important one. We can illustrate it with a simple paradox.
If you are absolutely free to exercise your will and desires, you are free to enslave others. But.. if we have promised freedom to all, allowing you to enslave others would by default deny freedom to those who were enslaved. If we create a rule, you are not free, and what do we do? Throw you in jail if you enslave someone? So a free society punishes you for taking another’s freedom by… taking your freedom?
Of course- prison is a loss of freedom. The concept of prison in free society is to restrict the freedoms of those who have shown they cannot be trusted with certain freedoms. You can’t trust someone to walk around freely who keeps murdering people, taking their freedom to live right?
The absolute view that freedom means no restrictions is the “savage utopia.” It is a place where you only have as much freedom as your strength allows. You can take or keep whatever you are strong and strategic enough to, and anything can be taken from you at any time by anyone with the power.
This freedom can’t really be said to be truly free either. You cannot conduct your life without fear. You can’t leave your home unattended to go about your day and expect it to be there when you get back. You can’t wake up in the morning without being prepared that someone might kill you before you get out of bed- because they are free to do so unless you stop them. The moment we start gathering in strength of number to defend ourselves and what we want to protect- we have in essence created a government with rules. That’s how police work isn’t it? These people over here decided you can’t steal because they don’t like that. If you steal, you face tema of thousands of law enforcement and government employees who will seek to stop you and punish you for breaking their rules even if you don’t agree with those rules.
A digital space is no different. People will tend to have things they want to protect, and they will team up with others who share their views to protect those things. So I mean… in the absolute sense yes, Musk banned humor of a type that relies on the joke being people not being able to tell who is who or what is real. In practice that seems a sensible and logical move.
Of course, yes, it IS against freedom of speech where one defines freedom akin to anarchy, no constraints as opposed to defining freedom as the para rival ability of the many to exercise their rights. The distinction is an important one. We can illustrate it with a simple paradox.
Of course- prison is a loss of freedom. The concept of prison in free society is to restrict the freedoms of those who have shown they cannot be trusted with certain freedoms. You can’t trust someone to walk around freely who keeps murdering people, taking their freedom to live right?
The absolute view that freedom means no restrictions is the “savage utopia.” It is a place where you only have as much freedom as your strength allows. You can take or keep whatever you are strong and strategic enough to, and anything can be taken from you at any time by anyone with the power.