As soon as once more, Elon Musk has proven that his method to free speech is definitely primarily based 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 extensively on-line. The incident was later deemed a terrorist act, which implies that below Australia’s on-line security laws, the eSafety Commissioner can request that every one social platforms take away the video with a view 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 primarily based 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 facility to censor the web for all areas, whereas it’s additionally taken particular purpose 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 needs to be viewable by all? However then once more, the laws on this case relate to what’s deemed a “cheap” response, and with that in thoughts, why would X need to hold a video of a violent stabbing lively 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 stability, it does seem to be X ought to most likely block the video solely. However for some purpose, X has chosen to take a stand on this particular occasion.

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

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

In these instances, Musk has merely acknowledged that X will function throughout the parameters of the native regulation. They’re native bans, so there’s 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 lively 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 purpose for X to oppose the request from the Australian eSafety Fee, as the one end result is that it might allow folks 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 possibly about standing without spending a dime speech, whereas additionally appeasing governments the place Musk’s empire has broader publicity.

Certainly, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey just lately famous that:

“Elon has taken a distinct tack. Our precept was round free speech on the web as a normal rule, and that we might struggle governments on that. His is free speech as decided by native regulation, and which means if India says you need to take these accounts down, you need to take these accounts down, as a result of they’re in opposition to the regulation.”

Dorsey’s view was that Twitter was much more keen to struggle for absolute free speech, whereas Musk is taking a extra measured method.

Or a extra calculated one.

Elon’s view on free speech has at all times been selective, however now, we’re seeing an increasing number of 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.

In fact, none of this may matter a lot to Elon’s military of supporters who’ll help his each transfer regardless.

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

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