Recently I had a debate with a friend about whether Elon Musk’s decision to deregulate Twitter postings has tarnished his image, especially to his followers.
Musk’s decision immediately released the hate speech and disinformation Kraken, previously company-regulated. Musk’s contributions to game-changing innovations to save the planet from global warming are admirable and undeniable. But does the Twitter fiasco and ensuing dumpster fire present a forced choice between a short term embarrassment, and possible seditionist, or a long-term hero? Which holds sway as a nation holds its democratic breath?
The Twitter controversy challenges free speech limitations akin to a person’s “right to bear arms.” Both represent the founding fathers’ 250-year-old constitutional intentions in an age of muskets and arguments over a pint of beer at the local pub often stimulated by a newspaper article.
Nowadays there’s easy access to military grade automatic weapons and an internet vomiting messages from anonymous authors reaching millions with speech filled with vitriolic hate and sedition. It’s undeniable that hate speech leads to violence.
It seems government regulation is the answer to Musk’s Twitter and all social media platforms. Free speech and democracy are based on respect and public order. There are ways to dissent and challenge institutions without advocating terrorism. Regulation has proven successful in Europe and is the answer to safeguarding free speech at home. Then maybe people who drive Teslas will no longer feel they may be supporting Insurrection 2.0.
Doug Vilnius, Park City
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible