Critics of Elon Musk's Free Speech Promise Are Now Critical of Twitter's Censorship in Turkey
Last year Matthew Yglesias warned that, "Musk's free speech absolutism is a threat to democracy." Today he sounded the alarm that Musk isn't doing enough to protect free speech in Turkey.
The same left-wing journalists, pundits, politicians, and academics who criticized Elon Musk’s plan to protect free speech on Twitter are now sounding the alarm that the billionaire is not doing enough to protect free speech on the platform.
Elon Musk's promise to make Twitter a platform for "free speech" was met with overwhelming concern from Democrats. They argued that unfettered free speech could lead to the spread of dangerous misinformation and hate speech, which could have a negative impact on democracy.
The critics of Musk's promise point out that free speech is not absolute. There are some types of speech that are harmful and should not be protected, such as hate speech, threats, and incitement to violence. They also argue that unchecked or unmoderated free speech can lead to harmful polarization and extremism, which can be a threat to democracy.
Here are a few examples of the sort of comments that were common:
Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times: "Musk's vision of Twitter as a bastion of free speech is a fantasy. It is a fantasy that is dangerous to democracy."
Jedediah Purdy, The Atlantic: "Musk's vision of Twitter is a threat to democracy. It is a vision of a platform where there are no rules and no limits, where anyone can say anything they want, no matter how harmful or false."
Timothy Snyder, The New York Review of Books: "Musk's vision of Twitter is a vision of a world without truth. It is a vision of a world where lies are as good as truth, where anyone can say anything they want, no matter how harmful or false."
Elon Musk repeatedly stated that Twitter would strive to allow all speech that is legal in a particular country on the platform. However, he clarified that he would not guarantee the reach or amplification of hateful or objectionable speech. Only speech that violated the laws of a particular country would be censored in that particular country. In other words, Musk would allow all speech that is legal, but he would not promote or amplify speech that is hateful or objectionable. He would also facilitate censorship in countries where certain speech violated their laws.
Fast forward to 2023 and critics began changing their tune.1 For example, Substack author and Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias had previously warned:
"Musk's free speech absolutism is a threat to democracy."
"Musk's free speech absolutism is a gift to authoritarians."
"Elon Musk's free speech absolutism is a recipe for disaster."
…but earlier today Yglesias raised concerns about Musk’s commitment to free speech and the future of Twitter pointing out that Twitter had complied with lawful orders from the Turkish government and censored content prohibited in the Republic of Türkiye.
Yglesias retweeted a tweet from Twitter Global Government Affairs, which stated that the company had restricted access to some content in Turkey in response to a legal process to ensure that Twitter remains available to the people of Turkey. A follow-up tweet stated that affected account holders had been informed of the action and that the restricted content would remain available in the rest of the world.
Yglesias correctly pointed out that the Turkish government had asked Twitter to censor its opponents right before the election and that Musk had complied. It seems clear the Turkish government used Twitter to censor its opponents in the run-up to the country's election. Yglesias claims that this is proof that Musk is not upholding his promise to make Twitter a platform for open and honest discussion. The fact is that Musk promised to make Twitter a platform for open and honest discussion in compliance with local laws.
For example, Germany has a law that prohibits the display of Nazi symbols, even in historical contexts. This law is controversial, but it is seen by some as necessary to protect Germany from the resurgence of Nazism. Since 2016, Turkey has used its laws against terrorism to silence critics of the government. Since 2019, India has used its laws against sedition and defamation to silence critics of the government. In 2017 the French government passed a law that makes it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide.
The same critics that were concerned that Musk’s promise to protect free speech on Twitter would endanger democracy are now critical of Twitter’s policy of following the law in the world’s largest democracies. We may not like or agree with speech laws that violate our constitution but it isn’t our place to overrule the will of the people in other democracies. The West has a LONG history of imposing its values and culture on countries like Turkey and India—asking Elon Musk to use Twitter to ‘colonize’ their speech codes would be a huge mistake.
At the end of the day, it is up to the people of Turkey to pick their own leaders and their own laws. Twitter’s policy of providing a platform for legal speech in every nation is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world.
https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/05/32378868/elon-musk-under-fire-as-twitter-complies-with-erdogans-censorship-request-ahead-of-turkish-elections