Don't Back a Florida Man (or Woman) Into a Corner—And Don't Commit Crime...
TIME Mag Review of Springsteen's HISTORIC 'Resistance' Concert Couldn't Possibly Be More O...
HuffPost's Attempt to Create a Good Friday Outrage Cycle About Pete Hegseth Is...
Ozempic (Allegedly) Gov. Celebrates National Walking Day While Chicago Mourns Teen Shot De...
Deportation? We Don't Do That: Illegals Squat for Decades, Their 'American' Kids Try...
DNC Stomps on Multiple Rakes in Rush to Slam Trump Over 'Affordable' Health...
Let's Check on How Many Network Evening Newscasts Mentioned the Fraud Arrests in...
Endorsed! Corrupt Clintonista Marc Elias Accidentally Makes the Best Case Ever for Harmeet...
Here's How CBS News Reported $4 Gas Under Biden vs. Trump
Vindman Outrage is the Ultimate Endorsement: Hegseth Rightly Boots Army Chief Gen. George
Newsom Press Office Follows Up 'President With a Brain' Post With Even More...
Make Military Bases Great Again: Pete Hegseth Restores God-Given 2A Rights to Servicemembe...
Thanksgiving, Rockets, and Saving the World: Libs Meltdown Over American Greatness — Cry...
Houston Calls Good Friday the 'Spring Holiday Weekend' – Because Saying 'Easter' Is...
Rep. Ro Khanna's NOT Lying for a Change (About What'll Happen If the...

New Scientist addresses the dangers of free speech, says 'it is a fallacy that we should be able to say whatever we want to whomever we want'

The way so many people on the Left talk about him, you’d think Elon Musk posed some kind of existential threat to everything Americans hold dear.

When he announced his intentions to buy Twitter, the lefty meltdowns were swift and many. As an apparent free speech absolutist, Musk would potentially turn Twitter into a platform where people could say whatever they want to whomever they want. And that would not only be scary, but downright anti-science!

Advertisement

We guess. New Scientist, the self-appointed “best place to find out what’s new in science,” has a new piece by scifi and nonfiction writer Annalee Newitz all about the dangers of believing that freedom of speech is about free speech:

https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/1529856187595898880

Alas, the article is behind a paywall. So much for free speech, huh? Oh well. Between the tweet and the first couple of paragraphs, New Scientist has given us enough to work with:

LAST month, Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, was about to buy Twitter. He lined up financing for the bonkers $44 billion price tag. Then, he backed off. At the time of writing, he has whiplashed to saying the deal is “not out of the question” if the price comes down.

The whole sequence of events was corporate melodrama at its finest, but it was also an object lesson in how a myth unique to the US about free speech has shaped Silicon Valley media companies.

Fair question.

Sounds like New Scientist isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Old Scientist would be pretty appalled right now.

Advertisement

Science owes a great deal to freedom of speech.

And New Scientist owes us an apology for subjecting us to such a stupid take.

The idea that we should ever take New Scientist seriously going forward is a fallacy.

We’ll close with the first tweet in a thread you’ll want to read. This thread is a lot more insightful than anything you’re going to find in New Scientist:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement