Globalists Demand for the Persecution of Elon Musk Following Arrest of Telegram Founder in Paris
They are at war against free speech.
Following the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in France and the banning of the X platform in Brazil, the globalists are clamoring for Elon Musk to be persecuted as their Orwellian war against digital free speech escalates.
One man calling for Musk to be arrested is Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Reich wrote an op/ed in The Guardian calling for Musk to be stopped.
"Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X," he continued.
"In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission should demand that Musk take down lies that are likely to endanger individuals – and if he does not, sue him under Section Five of the FTC Act," Reich added. "Musk’s free-speech rights under the first amendment don’t take precedence over the public interest."
The Guardian also published an op/ed written by disgraced smear merchant Carole Cadwalladr in which she celebrated the arrest of Durov and said that more draconian measures are needed to enact extreme internet censorship.
In her deranged catlady screed, Cadwalladr blamed Durov and Musk for "social media algorithms" that "have created a tech-masculine ideal and tech-masculine lifestyle fuelled by the kind of basic strongmen they both seem to admire, chief among them Vladimir Putin."
Despite her loathing of the man, Cadwalladr even had to admit Musk's immense amount of success fighting back on behalf of free speech against the globalist system she worships.
"It’s actually a civilizational battle for the truth. What we need to face up to is that this is a battle that Musk is winning. His truth is simply louder, faster, disseminating further. His algorithms are spreading his metaphorical seed, spawning an entire generation of mini-Musks and would-be Musks who dream of electric Cybertrucks," she wrote.
"Increasingly, 2024 is starting to feel like a tear in reality. This is Musk’s world and we’re living in it now," Cadwalladr concluded.
Musk believes that this sort of draconian censorship will be realized under a Kamala Harris presidency.
"Censorship is a certainty if Dems win," Musk said in a post on his X platform
Musk also stated that "freedom of speech is under massive attack around the world" when posting a clip of Harris demanding that President Trump be censored on all major social media platforms.
If the system can steamroll the world's richest man in Elon Musk and someone as powerful and influential as Donald Trump, it will eventually come for you and your family as well.
Everyone who believes that free speech is fundamental to the function of western civilization should be celebrating the sanction of the criminals that take advantage of defamation laws. It may seem counterintuitive that the standards of incrimination by assertion , or reference to an ‘apparent’ deduction related to ‘facts’ as interpreted by the reporter or person of assumed authority should be so strict. But the stakes involved in ‘perception’ are so high that the costs to the ‘accused’ must not be exceeded by the costs to the ‘accuser.’ Political fortunes are gained and lost by the veracity of claims made through ‘investigative reporting’. Depending on the stature of the individual journalist, or assumptions of filtering and review done by an organization,such as the Guardian, Times or Post/s, tremendous momentum is created to establish what then becomes ‘narrative’ as a report enters the vortex of the news cycle.
— Yeah, yeah. So what’s the point? O thou Master of the obvious?! —
These people and institutions have the psychological value of every syllable, every sound bite, catalogued, valued and algorithmed for their purposes in pressing meaning through acceptance or rejection UPON US ! They think of themselves as the master potters and, we are the clay! The amount of influence generated by a few words in the limited time randomly devoted to paying attention is multiplied by orders of magnitude in the ‘sub’conscious according to aggregates of listeners, voters, followers.
Up to this point, disputes over the effects of ‘reports’ turned narrative have been loosely regarded as ‘emotions’ related to resentment or insult or the dimming of one’s sterling reputation. And the aggrieved seek the equivalent of the hired gun in the old West, that most esteemed of all scum, the attorney who has learned the value of fanning the flames of an affront, charging hundreds or thousands to drag out a litigation as long as subhumanly possible. So you get your day in court in front of a judge who has heard it all, with prejudice, to the point of “Did it really make a difference to anything but your ego?”
But defamation and libel are on another level of reality. Enter ‘lawfare’. That big bully tool made strategy by ‘those who can.’ For the sake of sensation, and leads onto stories that promise at least some ongoing interest, or purpose, media will put something out there that serves the accuser’s interest. Just knowing that a challenge will cost a fortune. Multiply that by orders of magnitude when offices of the government become involved. Then enter the time that the accused is under the cloud of public scrutiny, perception, and reserve in the ‘benefit of doubt.’ Costs under these conditions, whether tempered by color of political persuasion or not, (and most are) if for no other reason than the potential implications of political outcome. So what seems like an emotional spate over hoe reports are made , or “facts’ presented, especially in light of how a continuation of ‘investigation’ may go; regimes, hackers, strategists want in, to all the communication possible, for their own purposes, NOT the purpose of ‘freedom of speech’. Not protection of privacy, or individual rights, or the common good. No.
Unless there is one standard of right and wrong — the truth — there is no justice, no rights, no resolution of civil or criminal responsibility. Along with the pace of resolution. There is no greater urgency for justice and rights in the arena of “free speech” and the other side of the coin, restitution for defamation by false speech.
There are metrics by which these things are determined, and they do not require re-inventing the wheel. But lawmakers need to re-assess the costs of ‘Lawfare’ and defamation to the public, including the taxpayer in the aggregate, and the accused in particular. The world of litigation needs a realignment with reality. Unrestrained censorship as a control on free speech is totalitarian — not our answer.