Don Lemon of prior CNN fame, did a deal with Elon Musk in January to stream “The Don Lemon Show” on Twitter X doing basically what he did on cable Teevee before getting canned last year.  Well, it’s the shortest run ever, as Lemon reports that he’s already been fired for asking questions of Musk during an interview on his first episode.  No explanation was given and Musk hasn’t said anything so far about what happened.

Musk describes himself as a “free speech absolutist”, but anyone paying attention knows that’s complete bullshit.  After taking over Twitter and working 24/7 to wreck it, he started allowing back thousands of new-Nazis, white supremacists, propagandists, and insurrectionists back on the platform turning it into one gigantic open sewer of lies, hate, threats, and all-around insanity.  He even allowed the Insurrectionist in Chief back on, but he’s too busy vomiting his own bile on Truth Social.

I’ve always found Don Lemon to be mildly annoying myself and never found him interesting so it’s not surprising to me that he’s having trouble finding a new broadcast home.  Having said that, though, a total series run of only a few hours has to be a new world record for rapid failure.  He announced on X that Musk, apparently pissed about the interview, abruptly fired Lemon today with no explanation.  Lemon announced it on X:

https://x.com/donlemon/status/1767948372999299549?s=20

Despite what he says, Musk is not actually a “free speech absolutist”.  Far from it.  Musk is all about free speech as long as he agrees with it.  He’s well known for banning reporters, social media posters who are negative about him, and others.  He even falsely labeled NPR as “state affiliated media” like it’s Pravda or something.

One can only hope that Twitter X continues to drain Musk’s wallet and relegated to the dustbin of digital history with past stars like Betamax and 8 track tapes.

We have a group of dedicated readers here in the salon. So, before we begin this exercise I’m going to reiterate that what is said in this piece is really not for them. If you are a regular you already know this. This piece is for anyone else that might stumble along and see this.

The point is pretty simple. Cancel culture really isn’t a thing. It is what we call freedom of speech or freedom of expression. I suppose shows get canceled and there are always backlashes against certain people and certain things. It has always been that way. The point can be illustrated through one very straighforward tweet.

Other artists who are deleting Anheuser-Busch products from their hospitality rider might not say so in public for fear of being ridiculed and cancelled. I have no such fear. https://t.co/YgjO9P03tR

— Travis Tritt (@Travistritt) April 6, 2023

Here is the ultimate irony. Travis Tritt is attempting to cancel Anheuser-Busch. Basically, this is a direct plea to his fans that Budweiser isn’t cool with him anymore and shouldn’t be cool with them either. So, in one sentence he manages to attempt canceling Budweiser and then accuses them of doing the same. Some people are just blessed without self-awareness.

So, let me repeat this for those blessed without self-awareness, Freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you want as long as your speech doesn’t incite a riot or is demonstrably false and damaging to a particular individual or business. Yet, that means that people can also react to your speech. They can speak against it or even shun you or your products. That’s always been a thing. It will always be a thing. This new-fangled notion of cancel culture is really a buzzword that means nothing.

I don’t buy Anheuser-Busch products. I don’t buy Coors products. It has nothing to do with wokeness (whatever that is). I don’t buy those beers because they aren’t good. Occasionally, we go to the Spec’s in downtown Houston and it always flabbergasts me when people buy crappy and cheap beer at a store that sells virtually every beer marketed in town. You can buy beer flavored water anywhere.

I don’t own any Travis Tritt albums. I don’t like country music. I know a lot of people do and if they enjoy his music they should avail themselves of it. I know a lot of people like Bud Light and Coors. Great. You buy what you want to buy and listen to the music you want to listen to. This is how freedom works.

The fact is that too many people misunderstand freedom of speech. It protects you from being arrested or silenced by Congress. It doesn’t protect you from the negative impacts of a bad take. It doesn’t protect anyone from their employer reacting badly to their speech.  It doesn’t guarantee you a microphone or platform. You have a right to speak. With that right to speak comes consequences. Some of them may be good or bad. It has always been this way and it will always be that way.

“And when you stop and think about it
You won’t believe it’s true
That all the love you’ve been giving
Has all been meant for you” — Justin Hayward

For some reason, I have been thinking about scumbags lately and when I think of scumbags my mind somehow wanders to Kirk Cameron. For those unfamiliar with Cameron and his work, he gained some fame and notoriety as the child star of “Growing Pains” back in the 1980s. Like most child stars, he didn’t successfully make the transition to adult actor. Once he stopped being cute he left the public eye for the most part.

What also happened is that Cameron went through a pretty dramatic conversion to Christianity. This conversion to Christianity may or may not have resulted in an actress getting fired from the show. For those that don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, Julie McCullough played his girlfriend on the show, but it was discovered that she had posed for Playboy. The rumor was that Cameron had her fired, because that kind of image didn’t jive with his new found Christian beliefs. Of course, he denies this version of the story. Needless to say, her career went the way of the doodoo bird and he went on to make more sanctimonious films and creative works.

Well, all that is old is new once again. Cameron is embarking on a library tour to read his children’s books. A Hendersonville Library director made the call to cancel an event involving Cameron as a way to keep the library from becoming a venue that would take part in a culture war. The director in question stated that he wanted to keep all potentially controversial events away from the library. This would include drag queens reading to children as well. Fair is fair after all. Well, the Sumner County Library board voted 4-3 to terminate the director of the library after Cameron and his group complained.

In a growing trend, some threatened violence if they didn’t get their way. To be perfectly fair, his supporters were not the only ones to threaten violence. Some on the left responded with threats as well. We aim to be fair here as much as possible and being fair means calling out bad behavior all the way around. All that being said, this is a pattern with Cameron. I’m legitimately thrilled when anyone finds a religion that works for them. If his Christian beliefs keep him on the straight and narrow then that is fantastic. Those Christian beliefs are also supposed to be tolerant and forgiving of those that may not subscribe to the same mode of thinking.

That goes for a young actress that may have made a decision she regrets and it goes for a librarian that decides that he doesn’t want his library to be used in a game of political ping pong. Free speech is a right that protects people from government oppression or government censorship. I suppose a library is in some way an extension of that, but the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…” It certainly doesn’t guarantee you the right to a platform and it certainly doesn’t make you look more Christian if you use coercion and threats to get your way. I’m sure Cameron’s books have a nice message, but that message is at least somewhat sullied by his tactics to get the story heard in the first place.

TFG spent billions of OPM (Other People’s Money) to start Wannabe Twitter; he calls the new platform Truth Social, a name just dripping with irony.  The platform was built for TFG and his supporters when he was permanently banned for habitually violating Twitter’s moderating policies for everything from personal attacks to incitement to sedition.  When announcing the launch of Truth Social, he touted it’s “free speech” environment and alternative to “Big Tech”.  Except it’s not really a free speech platform…it’s a pro TFG platform.  Its terms of service specifically said that users may not, “disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site.”  So, you have free speech unless you criticize the boss or his cronies.

That little provision is coming into play now, as apparently the platform is suspending the accounts of those posting about the January 6th Committee hearings.  Multiple users are reporting that they’ve been permanently banned from Truth Social for simply discussing the hearings.

Apparently, in TFGland, free speech is what they say it is.

“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.” — First Amendment

Lately it seems that we get to complain about obvious things. I enjoy discussing things that aren’t that obvious. It stretches the brain to have to consider multiple points of the view. The recent breach of the conservative social network Epik brings this kind of debate to life.

This kind of discussion always begins with the first amendment. I included the verbiage above because it is one of the most misunderstood amendments in the constitution. Too many people seem to think it means you get to say whatever you want without consequences. That has never been the case and the folks discovered in the Epik breach are learning this the hard way.

In particular, this story came to a head when a Florida realtor was fired because of his social media presence. In essence he had set up numerous domains with controversial content. The end result is a classic case pitting someone’s misunderstood free speech rights against a business’s rights to have people they want to represent their product.

All that being said, the bolded portion of the first amendment is the key part in this case. The whole idea behind sites like Parlor and Epik was that people wanted a “safe space” to air their grievances. They knew they couldn’t regurgitate their bile in public, so they were seeking a private place where they wouldn’t get in trouble.

The operative word there is the right to PEACEABLY assemble. The trouble with these right wing sites is that they don’t seem to peaceably do anything. Sites like these are where a lot of the January 6th actors coordinated their efforts. Again, they are mistaking the nature of the freedom. Congress cannot outlaw people from meeting in groups as long as the meeting itself is not against the law or that those groups break the law during their meeting.

A classic example of this scenario might involve NAMBLA. As most people know, this is an organization of pedophiles. If they describe their love for pedophilia they technically aren’t breaking any laws at the meeting itself. If they exchange pictures or any other materials then they would be. The question is whether the government has the right to identify who is at this gathering in the first place.

These are all interesting questions given that all of these groups know full well that the majority of the population does not accept the validity of their point of view. So, individuals avoid voicing unpopular opinions because they understand the fallout. They join private groups in the hopes that they can voice their true feelings without facing direct consequences.

The difficulty here is that these are not groups just idly sitting around and talking about how much they hate black people (or any other group). Such a group would be reprehensible, but basically harmless. What creates this issue is that some people in the group (or even most in some cases) are using the assumed anonymity to plan actions that are obviously dangerous and against the law.

Moreover, while we have the right to free speech, we do not have the right to social media. We do not have the right to amplification. Anyone is free to set up social media with their own terms of service, but we can also be judged for what happens on those forums. It’s not cut and dried and it’s never easy. I can sympathize with someone hoping to keep their views private, but if a group is planning the next insurrection then that right to privacy should go out the window.

You’ve seen the stories, right?  Cheeto Jesus blocks everyone on Twitter who disagrees with him.  That happen to you?  How about Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, Sid Miller, and many other social conservatives?  If they don’t like you calling their BS on social media BS on social media, they just block you.  You can’t respond beyond screaming at your screen.

Welp, kids, those days are now coming to an end.  The federal court in the District of Eastern Virginia ruled this week that elected officials who use their social media accounts for governmental purposes (announcements, constituent services, ranting against opponents, etc.) then that social media page becomes an official government form of communication.  If that elected official, or his staff, blocks you for criticizing that elected official, your free speech rights have been violated.  The case, Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, involves the chair of the board who uses Facebook to communicate to people in the county and is also administered by her chief of staff.  One of the chair’s critics, who had accused her of corruption, was banned from her Facebook page for saying so.  The banned person, Brian Davison, sued, claiming infringement of his First Amendment right to free speech, and has now won at the federal level.  More importantly, the court also found that, by condoning the use of Facebook for official county government communications, that the county government entity is also liable.  This ruling establishes a precedent and is HHHUUUUGGGGEE.

So, has Deep Fryer Sid banned you from his Facebook page for mocking his silly (or hateful) posts?  You can now go after him and demand reinstatement.  Cheeto Jesus has banned thousands of critics.  Under this new ruling, he must reinstate those people back to his Twitter account.  If he doesn’t, the US Government is responsible for protecting your First Amendment rights that he, as an elected official, has infringed.

The old axiom, “Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword”, comes to mind here.  If elected officials choose to use social media to communicate directly to constituents, then they can no longer dictate who’s allowed to respond, at least according to this ruling, which has established a precedent for free speech.  Will this go to the Supreme Court?  Maybe, and we’ll see what happens; but in the meantime, start demanding reinstatement by politicians who don’t want to hear from you.

You know what to do next.