As soon as once more, Elon Musk has proven that his strategy to “free speech” is definitely based mostly on selective logic, and opportunism, versus upholding the core precept as he claims.

Over the previous few weeks, Elon has been making a giant present of his choice to take a stand in opposition to the Australian eSafety Fee, which requested the worldwide removing of a video depicting the stabbing assault of a priest in Sydney.

The assault, which was filmed as a part of the priest’s sermon, was then shared broadly on-line. The incident was later deemed a terrorist act, which implies that underneath Australia’s on-line security laws, the eSafety Commissioner can request that every one social platforms take away the video as a way to restrict hurt and angst. This was particularly urgent provided that the assault sparked violent clashes in Sydney, whereas it additionally risked escalating ethnic tensions based mostly on the actions of 1 assailant.

Each social platform agreed to take away the footage besides X, which agreed to geoblock the content material for Australian customers, however refused to take away the video outright.

X’s justification is that Australian authorities shouldn’t have the ability to censor the web for all areas, whereas it’s additionally taken particular intention at Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, who herself is a former Twitter worker, and thus, consultant of a censorship regime, as Elon and Co. see it.

And X’s logic does make some sense. Why ought to authorities from one nation dictate what must be viewable by all? However then once more, the laws on this case relate to what’s deemed a “affordable” response, and with that in thoughts, why would X need to maintain a video of a violent stabbing energetic within the app? How does that content material contribute to broader debate?

The opposite argument that Australian authorities have put ahead is that geoblocks are simply countered by a VPN, which many Australians are utilizing. As such, a full block is the one efficient step.

So, on steadiness, it does look like X ought to most likely block the video totally. However for some motive, X has chosen to take a stand on this particular occasion.

Why? As a result of Australia poses a minor danger to Elon’s different enterprise relationships, and provides him an opportunity to pander to his devoted supporters.

The identical goes for Brazil, the place Musk not too long ago opted to combat authorities removing requests as properly. Brazil is a minor marketplace for Tesla, whereas the Brazilian Authorities is contemplating canceling its contracts with Starlink, which have been established underneath former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whom Musk considers an ally. So Elon can combat again right here, with minimal danger to his broader empire. But he hasn’t opposed related censorship calls for in Germany, India, and Turkey.

In these circumstances, Musk has merely said that X will function throughout the parameters of the native legislation. They’re native bans, so there may be an expanded precedent, and once more, X might have a case in opposing a world ban on the identical. However once more, the query comes again to why X would need to take a stand to maintain footage of a violent incident energetic within the app.

Primarily. Musk appears to be choosing his battles, and making a giant noise when he does, so he can have his cake and eat it too.

Actually, there’s no motive for X to oppose the request from the Australian eSafety Fee, as the one consequence is that it will allow individuals exterior of Australia to view a video of a violent stabbing. However X is doing it anyway, as a result of it desires to make a noise the place it will probably about standing at no cost speech, whereas additionally appeasing governments the place Musk’s empire has broader publicity.

Certainly, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey not too long ago famous that:

“Elon has taken a unique tack. Our precept was round free speech on the web as a common rule, and that we’d combat governments on that. His is free speech as decided by native legislation, and meaning if India says it’s important to take these accounts down, it’s important to take these accounts down, as a result of they’re in opposition to the legislation.”

Dorsey’s view was that Twitter was way more keen to combat for absolute free speech, whereas Musk is taking a extra measured strategy.

Or a extra calculated one.

Elon’s view on free speech has at all times been selective, however now, we’re seeing increasingly more that he and X are solely keen to take a stand the place Elon personally chooses, versus defending speech outright.

I imply, it’s free speech, as long as you don’t criticize Tesla, or Elon, or do one thing that Elon simply doesn’t like.

After all, none of this can matter a lot to Elon’s military of supporters who’ll assist his each transfer regardless.

However that “free speech” you suppose he’s supporting, he’s most likely not.

The Australian Federal Court docket will rule on the case in opposition to X within the coming weeks, which might end in important fines for the corporate.