The tech billionaire deleted the X post and then lamented over why no one seemed to find it funny.

The Secret Service has launched a probe into an X post by Elon Musk in which he tweeted that “no one is even trying” to kill Kamala Harris or Joe Biden.

The tech billionaire deleted the post on his X platform and passed it off as a “joke.” However, the White House did not find it funny and instead called it “irresponsible.”

“Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about,” the White House said in a statement. Now the Secret Service is involved.

    • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz
      7·
      2 months ago

      Full text of the 1st amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Disapproving of what Musk says, or desiring for Musk to face consequences for what he says, is not in conflict with the 1st amendment.

        • wildcardology@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 months ago

          Swift can violate Musk’s “free speech” because she is not the government.

          Clearly you don’t know what the 1st amendment means.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          1·
          2 months ago

          Do you not understand the difference between criminal and civil?

          This is like 4th grade social studies my man. Maybe you should go back.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              1·
              2 months ago

              My client isn’t very good at showing context. What is this about? Biden or Swift?

              Anyway…violent threats aren’t protected speech…

              • The First Amendment does not protect violent or unlawful conduct, even if the person engaging in it intends to express an idea. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968).

              • The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites imminent violence or lawlessness. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

              And also a federal felony…

              It is is felony under federal law to communicate a threat to injure or kidnap another person online, by phone or mail, or using other interstate channels. 18 U.S.C. § 875©

              It is a felony under federal law to intentionally “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373.

              (PDF link hosted by Georgetown University Law Center) https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/12/Fact-Sheet-on-Threats-Related-to-the-Election.pdf

        • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          Guess you missed the part where two private citizens involved in a lawsuit is not the government.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          2·
          2 months ago

          Aside from the fact that we’re talking about a civil matter between private citizens, you can legitimately get serious government intervention and punishment for certain types of speech. Let’s say you yell fire in a theater, or threaten the president, or publish classified national security secrets.

          People who claim to be free speech absolutists (like one of the private parties in this discussion!) usually just mean for them or for stuff they disagree with.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              11·
              2 months ago

              You’re technically correct, but you’re still an asshole.

              Punishment for yelling fire in a crowded theater isn’t a first amendment violation. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there isn’t a fire, you know there isn’t a fire, and a stampede occurs resulting in a death, is involuntarily manslaughter.

              Punishment for death threats isn’t a first amendment violation, but it is usually coercion.

              And publishing classified data without authorization is illegal, but it’s highly nuanced. It can be considered a first amendment right of the press to publish classified documents in some circumstances, but how they obtained those documents is definitely scrutinized. Then there’s always the question of “what is press” nowadays when literally everybody carries their own personal printing press in their pocket.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      4·
      2 months ago

      What part of Leon Musk and Taylor Swift are the government in this violation of First Amendment rights?