I don't think anyone actually believes that a "free speech absolutist" would tolerate, say, an employee shouting racial slurs in the office through a megaphone. I guess this is supposed to be a "gotcha" about free speech absolutism, but if you're attacking a definition of the term that no one would actually endorse, then maybe it's not a good "gotcha"...
I had to look up what a free speech absolutist was[0]. As far as the definition goes, which is about opposing any speech restrictions from the state, I don't see how the internal communications of a private company falls under that.
The point I assume GP was trying to make is that Musk only applies that difference when it suits him. That attitude shows hypocrisy and is evidence that he’s using it to further personal power instead of actually caring about the moral philosophy of the matter.
He seems to treat his own speech as if it is completely unfettered by any restraint, regardless of consequences for self or company (see the sheer number of times he’s upset the SEC via tweet compared to any other C-level in the world), while restraining the shit out of his subordinates’.
The SEC is a federal organization (government), so Musk thumbing his nose at them in the public sphere is not the same as Musk's employees thumbing their nose at him in a private setting using company resources. The former is clearly in the realm of free speech (gov vs citizen in public space), while the latter isn't (citizen vs citizen in private space)
Edit: To put it more succinctly, Musk isn’t interested in free speech, he’s interested in his speech.
————
For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but I think that’s one of the least interesting parts of the issue.
From the context of the worker, there’s isn’t too much of a functional difference. Musk is acting as the arbiter of others’ speech. So he’s allowing anybody to say anything, unless it goes against the company line.
It’s not governmental control of the little people, but it’s still hella control of the little people, by a body that can’t be held responsible to the workers (the chances of Elon being voted out are nil).
Ultimately, I think we’re both agreeing that there can and should be social consequences for speech, it’s just that Elon has an army of well paid lawyers to help him avoid those consequences. In this case, the giant power imbalance seems like pretty fundamental framing to this issue. It’s not like both parties would suffer the same consequences for making the same statements.
(In short, if you don’t trust the government to regulate your speech, why on Earth would you trust a single unelected individual to do so?)
Remember the whole thing about Musk buying Twitter? One if his reasons for doing so was because he believes Twitter is "censoring" conservative speech. But Twitter is a private company, running a private service, so your strict government-focused interpretation of free speech clearly wouldn't apply.
Musk has stated in his own words that he is a "free speech absolutist", and given his complaints about Twitter it seems that his interpretation of that is not limited to government censorship, but all censorship.
But Musk has loudly stated that Twitter, a private company, should uphold equally strong standards towards freedom of speech as the state. Which in itself is a fair argument insofar as Twitter is so central to democratic discourse that its censorship will have destructive effects on democratic discourse comparable to what would happen if state censorship did.
But this leads to a pretty blatant double standard if he fires his employees for participating in public discussion and criticism of himself.
