Media Research Center intern Christian Baldwin was mad on Elon Musk’s behalf in a May 8 post that a proposed bill in Canada will crack down on online hate speech:
Clinical psychologist and podcast host Jordan B. Peterson and X owner Elon Musk were flabbergasted by Canada’s latest infringement on civil liberties, anti-hate speech bill C-63.
On May 7, Musk and Peterson responded to Canada’s proposed “hate” speech bill. The bill, called. “Online Harms Bill C-63,” would implement fines of up to $50,000 on individuals who post “content that foments hatred” or “that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.”
Musk initially responded to an X post by user Camus, who pointed out that C-63 would enable ex post facto fines for “hate speech” on social media. “This sounds insane if accurate!” wrote Musk.
Note that Baldwin put “hate speech” in scare quotes, as if there is no objective definition of it. Baldwin also doesn’t note that people and social media site can simply avoid the bill’s restrictions by, you know, not spewing hate speech.
Baldwin again framed his enthusiasm for seeing snuff videos of people getting stabbed as “free speech” and a defense of Elon Musk in a May 13 post:
An Australian federal judge has swooped in to defend free speech by siding with Elon Musk in the tech billionaire’s latest spat with Australia’s Ministry of Truth.
On May 13, Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Kennett blocked the application for the extension of an injunction issued by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The injunction ordered X to censor a video depicting an Australian Bishop being stabbed while delivering Mass in Sydney.
It is expected that the Justice will issue an explanatory statement later in the day, reported SkyNews Australia.
Musk responded to news of the ruling by re-expressing his continued commitment to the cause of free speech globally.
“Not trying to win anything,” Musk posted on X. “I just don’t think we should be suppressing Australia’s rights to free speech.”
Grant issued the injunction on April 16 ordering X to suppress the video even for users outside of the United States. She also threatened the company with a daily fine of $785,000 AUD if it didn’t comply with the order.
X’s Global Government Affairs Team challenged Grant’s authority, citing her lack of jurisdiction over non-Australian users.
X’s lawyers also argued before the Justice that the video in question was not overly graphic and, contrary to the Australian Government’s characterization, did not glorify violence or terrorism.
So Musk thinks it’s OK to post snuff videos on X as long as they “not overly graphic”? And how, exactly, did Musk’s lawyers determine that the video “did not glorify violence or terrorism”? It would seem that any snuff video is a de facto glorification of violence or terrorism for certain people. Rather than get into that, Baldwin gushed that “Musk has faced a lot of pushback and even legal threats for his bold stance in favor of free speech.” You know, maybe Musk does deserve some pushback for permitting snuff videos on X/Twitter.
Baldwin didn’t explain why the Australian government wanting to remove snuff videos made it a “Ministry of Truth.” Seems like Baldwin gets off a bit too much over videos of people getting stabbed.