The most influential people and organizations on the left now publicly oppose the concept of free speech, which is one of the beneficial outcomes of Elon Musk's weeks-long campaign to take control of Twitter and the ensuing debate regarding the First Amendment's protection of free speech. It has come to light that they have a disposition that is authoritarian and that they wage war against the fundamental principle of any free society, which is the ability to express oneself without being required to agree with those who are wealthy and powerful. Both Barack and Hillary despise free speech, and they want you to believe that participating in it puts you in danger.
Now, three of the most hypocritical and unctuous pillars of the Leftist "human rights" establishment have spoken out against it. These pillars are Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International (ACLU), and Amnesty International (AMN).
On Monday, Reuters chose a grave, almost funereal tone for key Leftist failures and underlined that Musk had identified himself as an absolutist for free speech and called freedom of expression the "bedrock" of a democracy that works. Because of this, many who lean to the left are incensed by the fact that Musk has been able to gain control of one of the most significant tools of mass communication in the modern era. They were self-assured about the rightness and legitimacy of their power, and they were complacent about their control over such outlets. They were comparable to medieval kings in this regard. However, they are currently facing significant opposition to their hegemonic rule. It is time for the "defenders" of human rights who are reliably on the Left to call them out and ask them to explain why what they are doing is so wrong.
According to Deborah Brown, a "digital right researcher and advocate" at Human Rights Watch, who was quoted by Reuters as saying, Regardless of who owns Twitter, the company has human rights obligations that stand up for the rights of individuals all over the world who rely upon the platform, Twitter has a responsibility to uphold human rights regardless of who controls the company. Changes, both big and small, to the company's policies, features, and algorithms can have disastrous and sometimes exaggerated impacts, including an increase in offline violence. Twitter has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of its most defenseless users. It is not a right to have freedom of expression.
It's all about putting an end to violent behavior. The Left is adamant in their belief that discourse that is conservative is not only harmful but also incites violence. If Twitter permits users to express themselves freely, then people will be harmed. If Human Rights Watch had ever called for violence by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, or if Merrick Garland and the other Leftists that Biden and Merrick Garland seek to impose are the greatest terror threat to the nation today, or if HRW had ever voiced concern about Leftist violence against those who disagree with its agenda, then this argument would be stronger. The HRW organization is not reliable. It has never voiced any concern on the potential for violence that could result from leftist discourse. Warnings that speech can incite violent behavior are based on a lie. It overlooks the fact that even the most ardent champion for the right to free speech does not embrace the idea that incitement to violence should be allowed to be freely disseminated. Evans is merely employing a tried and true tactic of the Left, which is the argument that speech must be restricted because unrestricted expression will result in people being harmed. This is an astoundingly unarguable statement at this point.
According to Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, Musk is the source of the issue. Despite the fact that Elon Musk is a card-carrying member of the ACLU and one of our most important donors, there is still a great deal of cause for concern given the amount of power that he possesses. However, that person has made it abundantly apparent that he will permit individuals to talk even when the media and political elites are attempting to demonize and marginalize them. The American Civil Liberties Union is afraid that the cultural influence, which has been nearly entirely held by those on the left for such a long time, might not continue to be solely in their possession.
Michael Kleinman, who serves as the director of technology and human rights at Amnesty International USA, anticipates difficult times ahead. The last thing that we need is a Twitter that deliberately ignores violent and abusive comments towards users, especially those who are most disproportionately impacted, such as women and non-binary individuals, said one Twitter user. It is critical to deny those who promote unlawful activity and violent behavior access to public platforms. For far too long, those who have self-designated themselves as the gatekeepers of acceptable viewpoints have had a tendency to see any dissent as being hostile, violent, or abusive. If we wish to maintain a free society, we have to put an end to this practice. Everyone who values their independence must have faith that Elon Musk is able to make this vision a reality. Should he be successful, the effects will be seen well beyond Twitter.
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on Republican Update.