“Objection, Your Honor. The question assumes facts not in evidence.”
Neither my comment nor the comment to which I was replying made any claim about the reliability of Elon’s statements, my beliefs on that subject, or the effects of Elon’s actions on my beliefs.
Your Honor, the witness clearly stated in response to a question regarding Elon Musk's policies an opinion which clearly implied that Musk's statements in regards to free speech meant that he would have a free speech policy. Can we have the court reporter read it back?
"Question: Can you elaborate on his policies? I personally do not have first-hand knowledge of them. As far as I know, it’s currently a big question mark.
Witness: Elon has expressed support for free speech and treating both left and right equally."
Does the witness wish to clarify their statement or will they state the factors which lead to their belief that Elon Musk would do things in line with he says?
He says a lot of things, however, and the fact that he’s describing that as something other than the status quo it is means we shouldn’t take this at face value.
I think this reveals more about what you think the current split is... A large proportion of the right believe things like misgendering and wanting to kick Muslims out of the country is fine. These kinds of things aren't allowed on twitter.
Understanding why the last part isn’t correct is key to understanding the issue: Republicans aren’t getting kicked off of Twitter for saying they want to reform immigration law. Twitter’s rules very specifically have a “targeted harassment” clause, as you can see from the many accounts which never have problems despite expressing both sentiments on a regular basis. Even the guys posting about how Jews run the world and should be killed are rarely banned unless they mention a specific person.
Can you elaborate on his policies? I personally do not have first-hand knowledge of them. As far as I know, it’s currently a big question mark.