Media
Stan Ravendalh and Aretha Franklin: DATS not the way to do it
Opinion
Elon Musk defends free speech, anti-DEI position in combative Don Lemon interview
From LifeSiteNews
Elon Musk and Don Lemon sparred over DEI, illegal immigration, and free speech in a new interview.
In an interview that aired on X, Elon Musk calmly explained to a seemingly befuddled Don Lemon the principle of free speech. Musk also spoke about the dangers of lowering standards in medical schools in the name of DEI, recently eating breakfast with former President Donald Trump, and the “woke mind virus.”
Musk was a guest on episode 1 of The Don Lemon Show, which aired on X (formerly Twitter). Around 30 minutes into the interview, Lemon pressed Musk on whether he has a responsibility to moderate “hate speech” on the platform. After a back-and-forth, Musk ultimately got to the heart of the matter when he articulated: “Freedom of speech only is relevant when people you don’t like say things you don’t like. Otherwise it has no meaning.”
The Don Lemon Show episode 1: Elon Musk
TIMESTAMPS:
(02:23) News on X
(10:07) Donald Trump and Endorsing a Candidate
(13:04) The New Tesla Roadster
(16:46) Relaxation and Video Games
(17:54) Tweeting and Drug Use
(23:19) The Great Replacement Theory
(30:03) Content Moderation… pic.twitter.com/bLRae4DhyO— Don Lemon (@donlemon) March 18, 2024
Later in the interview, Musk emphasized that he “acquired X in order to preserve freedom of speech in America, the First Amendment. I’m gonna stick to that. And if that means making less money [from advertisers], so be it.”
‘Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship’
During their free speech exchange, Lemon showed Musk screenshots of several anti-semitic and racist tweets, saying, “These have been up there for a while.”
“Are they illegal?” Musk asked.
“They’re not illegal, but they’re hateful and they can lead to violence. As I just read to you, the shooters in all of these mass shootings attributed social media to radicalizing them,” Lemon retorted.
“So Don, you love censorship, is what you’re saying,” smirked Musk.
The reason @DonLemon has no idea what "free speech" and "censorship" are is simple:
He spent years living inside a Democratic/liberal bubble. In that bubble, it is Gospel that a union of state and corporate power should be weaponized to silence dissent:pic.twitter.com/3wMwGLXuQ8 https://t.co/pw4Nwybb7o
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 19, 2024
He went on to say, “Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship… Look, if something’s illegal, we’re going to take it down. If it’s not illegal, then we’re putting our thumb on the scale and we’re being censors” if X removes it.
Lemon responded that some would say removing child pornography is censorship, to which Musk replied, “I literally said, ‘if something is illegal, okay, we will obviously remove it.’ But if it is not illegal – the laws of this country are put forward by the citizens, if those laws put in place by the people – we adhere to those laws… – If you go beyond the law, you’re actually going beyond the will of the people.”
Musk also emphasized that if something is on the platform, that doesn’t necessarily mean that X is promoting it or that anyone is seeing it, and said that since he’s taken over the company, the reach of content deemed “hateful” is actually down.
DEI and the ‘woke mind virus’
An antagonistic Lemon also brought up diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Musk had recently replied to a thread on X from the Daily Wire‘s Ben Shapiro about top medical schools abandoning “all sort[s] of metrics” for surgeons in the name of DEI.
Following our investigation, Duke Medical School has taken down videos in which one of its doctors, Vignesh Raman, admitted to "abandoning … all sort[s] of metrics" in hiring surgeons for the sake of DEI. Unfortunately for Duke, we saved copies.
As @elonmusk aptly put it, DEI… https://t.co/Y2688meJxX
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 27, 2024
“If the standards for passing medical exams and becoming a doctor, or especially something like a surgeon – if the standards are lowered, then the probability that the surgeon will make a mistake is higher. [If] they’re making mistakes in their exam, they may make mistakes with people and that may result in people dying,” Musk articulated.
“Okay, I understand that. But that’s a hypothetical. That doesn’t mean it’s happening,” said Lemon, to which Musk replied, “I didn’t say it was happening.”
Elon Musk tries to explain how lowering the standards for doctors could result in more deaths.
Don Lemon is unable to grasp the concept.
This entire exchange is incredible. pic.twitter.com/QJ3efuvVAb
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 18, 2024
Lemon brought up medicine’s historical mistreatment of minorities, and asked, “Most doctors now are white, and there are lots of mistakes in medicine, so you’re saying that – white doctors have – bad medical care? I’m trying to understand your logic here when it comes to DEI because there’s no actual evidence of what you’re saying.”
Concerning DEI in the airline industry, Lemon went on to ask Musk if he believes women and minority pilots are inherently less intelligent and skilled, to which the billionaire replied, “No, I’m just saying that we should not lower the standards for them.”
The exchange continued:
Lemon: “Why would they be lowering the standards?”
Musk: “I don’t know, why are they lowering the standards?”
Lemon: “Just so you know, five percent of pilots are female. Four percent are black. So you’re talking about this widespread takeover of minorities and women when that’s not actually true.”
Musk: “I’m not saying there’s a widespread takeover.”
Lemon: “Well you’re saying that the standards are being lowered because of certain people.”
Lemon, sounding incredulous, also asked Musk, “Do you not believe in diversity, equity, and inclusion?”
“I think we should be – treat people according to their skills and their integrity, and that’s it,” he responded.
He later elaborated, “Woke mind virus is when you stop caring about people’s skills and their integrity and you start focusing instead on gender and race and other things that are different from that… the woke mind virus is fundamentally racist, fundamentally sexist, and fundamentally evil.”
“Don Lemon versus Elon Musk is like watching a lightweight in the ring against Mike Tyson—and I mean Tyson in his prime. The lightweight is flat on his back, and what’s more, he’s so comatose he doesn’t even know he’s been knocked out,” conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza wrote on X.
Musk may endorse a candidate for president ‘in the final stretch,’ and if he does, ‘will explain exactly why’
Earlier during the interview, Musk shared that he’d recently been at a friend’s house for breakfast and Donald Trump came by.
“Let’s just say he did most of the talking,” said Musk, but Trump didn’t say anything “groundbreaking or new.”
“I may in the final stretch endorse a candidate… if I do decide to endorse a candidate, I will explain exactly why,” Musk told Lemon, noting he’s “leaning away from Biden” but “I’ve made no secret of that.”
Lemon’s new show was originally slated to be an X production, but Musk ultimately canceled the deal, although the show is still posted on the platform. Lemon had asked for “a free Tesla Cybertruck, a $5 million upfront payment on top of an $8 million salary, an equity stake in the multibillion-dollar company, and the right to approve any changes in X policy as it relates to news content,” the New York Post reported.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Trudeau government ‘gaslighting’ critics of Online Harms Act, legal expert warns
From LifeSiteNews
Dr. Michael Geist pointed out that Bill C-63 gives a digital safety commission an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight.
One of Canada’s top legal pundits warned that the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is “ready” to “gaslight” opponents of a new bill that could lead to jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.
In recent an opinion piece critical of Bill C-63, which is the Online Harms Act that was introduced in the House of Commons on February 26, law professor Dr. Michael Geist said that the text of the bill is “unmistakable” in how it will affect Canadians’ online freedoms.
Geist noted that the new bill will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law.
“The poorly conceived Digital Safety Commission lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings, and has been granted an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight. This isn’t a fabrication,” Geist wrote.
He observed specifically how Section 87 of the bill “literally” says “the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.”
The Liberals under Trudeau claim Bill C-63 will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.
The reality is that the federal government under Trudeau has gone all in on radical transgender ideology, including the so-called “transitioning” of minors, while at the same time introducing laws that on the surface appear to be about helping children.
As for Geist, he noted that when it comes to Bill C-63, the “most obvious solution” to amend the bill “is to cut out the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions, which have nothing to do with establishing Internet platform liability for online harms.”
“Instead, the government seems ready yet again to gaslight its critics and claim that they have it all wrong,” Geist said. “But the text of the law is unmistakable and the initial refusal to address the concerns is a mistake that, if it persists, risks sinking the entire bill.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani and then immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Bill C-63 will modify existing laws, amending the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.
One of Canada’s foremost constitutional rights groups, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), warned that the proposed “Online Harms Act” is a serious threat to freedom of “expression” and could lead to “preemptive punishment for crimes not committed.”
Geist observed that the Trudeau government with Bill C-63 “is ready to run back the same playbook of gaslighting and denials that plagued” as it did with its other internet censorship Bills C-11 and C-18.
“Those bills, which addressed Internet streaming and news, faced widespread criticism over potential regulation of user content and the prospect of blocked news links on major Internet platforms. Rather than engage in a policy process that took the criticism seriously, the government ignored digital creators (including disrespecting indigenous creators) and dismissed the risks of Bill C-18 as a bluff,” Geist wrote.
“The results of that strategy are well-known: Bill C-11 required a policy direction fix and is mired in a years-long regulatory process at the CRTC and news links have been blocked for months on Meta as the list of Canadian media bankruptcies and closures mount.”
Geist observed that Bill C-63 had “offered the chance for a fresh start,” but instead there “were red flags,” particularly with respect to the “Digital Safety Commission charged with enforcing the law and with the inclusion of Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions with overbroad penalties and the potential to weaponize speech complaints.”
“The hope – based on the more collaborative approach used to develop the law – was that there would be a ‘genuine welcoming of constructive criticism rather than the discouraging, hostile processes of recent years,’” Geist wrote.
“Two weeks in that hope is rapidly disappearing,” he added.
Geist observed that Bill C-63’s changes to the Human Rights Act “absolutely open the door to the weaponization of complaints for communication of hate speech online that ‘is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.’”
Indeed, the bill, as per Section 13.1, would allow for those found in violation to face penalties up to $20,000 for the complainant as well as up to $50,000 to the government (Section 53.1).
LifeSiteNews has previously reported that many, including prominent Canadians who are not known to be conservative such as author Margaret Atwood, oppose Bill C-63. Additionally, billionaire Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson have been critical of Bill C-63.
Marty Moore, litigation director for the JCCF-funded Charter Advocates Canada, previously told LifeSiteNews that Bill C-63 will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.
The JCCF launched a petition, which can be signed here, calling on Trudeau to “stop” the Online Harms Act.
-
Business2 days ago
Balanced budget within reach—if Ottawa restrains spending
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
Online Betting Trends of 2024
-
Canadian Energy Centre2 days ago
B.C. First Nation buying ‘ready-to-go’ natural gas pipeline to supply LNG project
-
COVID-192 days ago
WHO urges countries to sign globalist pandemic treaty by May: ‘A new threat will emerge’
-
City of Red Deer2 days ago
Nominations are in for the by-election to replace beloved citizen and City Councillor Michael Dawe
-
MAiD2 days ago
Canada’s euthanasia regime considers death less harmful than offering help to live
-
Alberta2 days ago
Calgary judge rules against father opposing euthanasia of autistic non-terminally ill daughter
-
DEI1 day ago
WEF report suggests digital ‘metaverse identity’ will become central to daily life