It is fascist to protect your family now?

There is big drama on Twitter… shocker! The source of this drama is Elon Musk’s latest action against certain left-leaning journalists that shared his location, in effect—according to Musk—, doxxing the man. Musk, who says he is a free speech absolutist, proceeded to temporarily suspend the accounts of these so-called journalists who participated in this doxxing. This in turn, has ignited the debate over free speech anew.

For those unfamiliar with the term “doxxing,” what it basically means is putting up private, very identifiable information about a person online. If I were to post, “Joe Smoe works at Fictitious Winnies and lives at 123 AnyStreet USA,” this would be an example of doxxing (for you leftists, Joe Smoe is a fictional character I just made up, he is not real, and no, I am not assuming his gender). Most, if not all social media platforms (including Twitter), have policies against posting this kind of information, for very good reasons. Disclosing someone’s private information, particularly without his/her consent, online can put that person in real danger.

Case in point: Justice Brett Kavanaugh was almost attacked/killed by some crazy a-hole in the run up to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision that came down earlier this year. The reason this lunatic knew where Justice Kavanaugh lived was that some other a-holes posted his and the five other conservative SCOTUS justices’ home addresses on the CCP’s spyware app, TikTok. This jackass traveled all the way from the wonderful not-filled-with-crazy-people-at-all state of California to do this deed; charges to which apparently he has plead not guilty now.

On Twitter, a 19-year old by the name of Jack Sweeney created an account called ElonJet, which tracked Musk’s private jet using publicly available information. Musk had apparently tried to get this kid to stop doing this some months ago, but the kid refused to do so. Everything was fine, until some crazy guy ran up to a car that Musk’s son was in; Musk, of course, became furious that his child’s life was put in danger. He attributed this attack to ElonJet’s tracking, and proceeded to suspend this account, along with Jack Sweeney’s personal account. Then, some journalists proceeded to criticize and share the information Sweeney was sharing, which resulted in Musk suspending their accounts as well.

So, we have to ask ourselves three questions:

1. Is posting information available publicly doxxing?
2. Is suspending accounts that doxx or promote doxxing a violation of free speech?
3. Are leftists a bunch of hypocrites?

The answer to the first question is sort of. While flight records may be available to the public, actively tracking a private person’s travel, regardless of celebrity, can lead to dangerous situations, like the one Musk’s kid found himself in. Therefore, I believe the term stalking (which is also illegal and just as, if not more, dangerous than doxxing), not doxxing, would be more fitting in this situation. Sweeney had not, from what I can tell, given away Musk’s exact location, just where his plane had traveled to. He’s a bit of a creep for doing this… no, I take that back. He is very creepy for doing this. How would you like some dingbat posting where you were headed to every day? You might think you would have no problem with it; but how would you feel if someone you cared about got hurt because of it?

The answer to the second question is no. The purpose of doxxing is to put the target in an intimated position. The reason the SCOTUS justices were doxxed by those left-wing baby-killers was that they hoped other crazy lunatic baby-killers would show up at the justice’s homes and scare them into deciding in the crazies’ favor. It worked in getting the crazies to show up and illegally gather in front of their homes, but failed in that SCOTUS still decided the Dobbs case correctly. Speech cannot be used to put other people in danger; it is not considered protected speech. Therefore, a social media platform is within their rights to protect their fellow citizens from harm by suspending accounts that engage in doxxing others.

The answer to the third question is most definitely, 100%, totally, absotively posilutely, without a shadow of a doubt, like black you can always bet on it, unquestionably Y-E-S! Take, for instance, little Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She gave 0 fornications about free speech and the First Amendment when the New York Post was suspended for publishing the Hunter Biden laptop story; a story that, from the beginning, was completely true. In fact, she has consistently called for various social media platforms to ban private citizens whose content she dislikes, like Joe Rogan’s podcast. She forgets that she is a member of Congress, and as such, cannot, as a matter of Law, be demanding that others silence people she disagrees with. Following Musk’s suspension of the so-called journalists, little Ms. Priss tweeted:

You first lol

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 16, 2022

I have, of course, included Musk’s brilliant response. These leftists always fell back to “It’s a private company. If you don’t like it, go make your own platform” when conservatives were banned. Now that there is someone in charge who has absolutely no problem treating these leftists exactly how they treat people on the right (suspending their accounts for “questionable” behavior), all of a sudden the First Amendment matters to them. Hypocrites! Was Musk right in suspending these accounts? Maybe. It is a private platform, after all. If you don’t like it, go make your own platform, right?

Let me, for a moment, address AOC’s statement. Elon Musk is not a public figure. He is a private citizen in the public eye. There is a huge difference. AOC, while in office, is a public figure. When she decides to stop serving in public office, she will cease being a public figure. Being a public figure means that We The People (WTP) get to know where she is going and how she is spending her time, because WTP are, in essence, her boss. This does not mean we get to know every tiny detail of her life, she is entitled to some privacy (like what feminine hygiene products she prefers to use, that serves no public interest); but where she is traveling to, who she is meeting with, where she is having those meetings, these things can have a public interest, and so we do have the right to know these things.

We are not Elon Musk’s boss. He is not an elected official nor an officer of the government. While his businesses may receive subsidies using public dollars, he does not have to answer to WTP anymore than I do. Musk has a 100% claim to privacy, whereas the former bartender only has a 25%, at best, claim to privacy while she remains an elected official.

Musk has since restored the journalists’ accounts, but has made it very clear that there will be ZERO tolerance for doxxing, and NO ONE, not even an arrogant “journalist” like Keith Olbermann, is immune to suspension if they engage in doxxing. He has also added a new rule to the Twitter guidelines prohibiting live tracking of individuals. I believe Musk reacted to his family being put in danger, and as such, I cannot fault him for doing what he did. Protecting your family is not fascism, and punishing those who would bring them harm is not, either.