When we read this tweet from the Washington Post, we knew immediately who @ekp was: Ellen K. Pao, former CEO of Reddit. We knew because we’d just done a post on her managing to make the label “free-speechers” somehow derogatory. It’s a bad thing to be a free-speecher, because all they really want is to be able to use racist slurs. She even posted proof in what looks like a Word document:
At the end of the day, the free-speechers really just want to be able to use racist slurs. CW: racism, immaturity, stupidity, and even more racism and extreme stupidity pic.twitter.com/tn9RgJK4jZ
— Ellen K. Pao (@ekp) April 5, 2022
They really don't care about sharing new ideas or encouraging freedom other than the freedom to harass other people off the platform
— Ellen K. Pao (@ekp) April 5, 2022
Elon Musk, the newest board member of Twitter, calls himself a free speech absolutist, so we guess he’s one of those free-speechers who just wants the freedom to harass people off of Twitter. Politico’s Sam Stein noted that just two months ago, Musk had posted a meme of Hitler asking people to stop comparing him to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (which is pretty damn funny). Who knows? Could Musk use his new power to give Donald Trump his Twitter account back?
Do you know what else free-speechers wanted besides the go-ahead to harass other people with racial slurs? They wanted to share the New York Post’s reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop, but they weren’t allowed to. Twitter shut down the Post’s account for six weeks because they wouldn’t take down the story, which has since been confirmed by the New York Times and Washington Post.
In any case, just days after Pao railed against “free-speechers,” the Washington Post gave her space on its opinion page to express how Musk’s version of “free speech” (in scare quotes) would be bad for Twitter.
Elon Musk’s vision of "free speech" will be bad for Twitter, @ekp writes in @PostEverything https://t.co/KIjpZ6gu3P
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) April 8, 2022
Not as bad as your vision of "free speech".
— David C. Ronquillo (@justakidfromlbc) April 9, 2022
Ironically she exercises her right to free speech to condemn someone else for using that same right.
— Dmitry Levitsky (@dmitry_levitsky) April 9, 2022
You’d think Pao would’ve learned after Reddit that suppression of speech doesn’t end well.
— Mac McCowan (@cmccow11) April 9, 2022
So what is the correct vision of fee speech?
— Kevin 'The Martian' Davis 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀 (@kevindavis338) April 9, 2022
Putting free speech in quotes is cringe af
Just say what you mean: you don't want people who disagree with you to be able to speak
— 100 Percent Kissable (@100pctkissable) April 9, 2022
Exactly.
This is the dumbest wokest thing I’ve ever heard 😂😂😂😂😂
— Marta Fowlie (@FowlieMarta) April 9, 2022
This article is behind a paywall but can anyone please explain how the anti free speech crowd thinks they are in the right?
— SANTA GAINZ (@GainzSanta) April 9, 2022
Free speech would be truthful speech, not censorship, something you wouldn’t know anything about. Kinda like a free press at this point would be actual journalism instead of what you provide which is propaganda. See the difference?
— patriotsprayer (@patriotsprayer) April 9, 2022
Washington 👏 Post 👏 doesn’t 👏 care 👏 about 👏 free 👏 speech 👏
— Young Putin (@RightBrained19) April 9, 2022
Keep defending censorship. pic.twitter.com/v5Num96r8X
— Michael (@KitDarkfeather) April 9, 2022
Bizarre. Even for the left this is one hell of strange thought.
— GODZILLA SUSHI 🦖🍣 (@Godzilla_Sushi) April 9, 2022
They’re going to use women and sexism, not racism, to argue against free speech. They’ve already started, with the Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz telling how she has “severe PTSD” from mean tweets.
Related:
Former Reddit CEO manages to make ‘free-speechers’ a derogatory term https://t.co/RAgdiYGxai
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 7, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member