Tucker looks at the possible consequences of free speech being allowed on Twitter.

Highlights include:

“It looks possible that Elon Musk will seize control of Twitter and end censorship on that platform. Now, why should you care about that?”

“Because if that were to happen, we could see a return of free speech to the United States, and nothing should give you more hope than that possibility. A free Twitter would mean an open debate about ideas on the single most important incubator of ‘elite opinion’ in the world. It would mean a return to free and fair elections in the United States, a system which both sides are allowed to make their case to the public and then the public can decide. It’s called democracy.”

“And above all, a free Twitter would mean a direct challenge to the people in charge of our country’s institutions.”

“The point of censorship is never to shield the weak, no matter what Barak Obama may tell you. The point of censorship always and everywhere is to protect entrenched power, that’s why it’s the powerful who impose censorship for their own benefit, and that’s exactly why illegitimate regimes fight so hard to control information through censorship. Somehow the ‘right’ does not seem to understand this, the ‘left’ definitely understands it.”

“Shattering its monopoly on speech could break the democratic party. Even an MSNBC anchor understands that. Why are they so determined to keep you from talking? Because they know your talking is the threat to their power. Allowing the free exchange of ideas in America’s public square is far more important than any single election result.”

“And if you don’t believe it, consider what you’ve just seen over the past two years.”

“How exactly would Twitter, which is a public company, fight off a hostile takeover from the richest guy in the world? And already you can see the strategy to keep Elon Musk at bay.”

“First, Twitter is enlisting the help of corporate media. Now, corporate media stands to lose at least as much as the democratic party will lose if Twitter is liberated. Competition is terrible for the mediocre and the illegitimate.”

“So, MSNBC understands this intuitively, even the airheads who read the scripts on the air, and so they were the first to answer the call. What did they do? You know exactly what they did, they did what they always do. They called Elon Musk a racist.”

“This line doesn’t so much reveal a lack of self-awareness as it does commit murder against the entire concept they’re trying to support.”

“‘Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.'”

“This ran in the Washington Post, a paper that apparently unbeknownst to the editors who work there is owned by billionaire oligarch Jeff Bezos, China’s biggest retailer, and used as his personal platform to lobby the federal government and settle scores. So, Jeff Bezos can own the only news-gathering operation in your nation’s capitol and use it for business and ideological ends, but the idea of letting average people say what they want on Twitter is a threat to democracy.”

Watch the video below and feel free to exercise your freedom of speech in the comments.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.

 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.