The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.
Even though Twitter CEO Elon Musk has restored the accounts of alleged journalists whom he had suspended earlier, the activist media is still whining about the notion that he would have the unmitigated gall to take such an action against members of the once-vaunted Fourth Estate. The fact that he made this move in response to their insistence on publishing a link to a site showing the precise location of his private jet appears to have made no difference to the activists working at mainstream media outlets.
Earlier this week, Musk suspended the accounts of Keith Olbermann, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, the New York Times’ Ryan Mac, The Intercept’s Micah Lee, and several other media activists. Each of these individuals had shared information about the @elonjet account, which is run by a teenager who has taken a fancy to tracking Musk’s location by monitoring his private jet.
But after a crazed stalker followed a car transporting his 2-year-old son, he made the decision. Musk said the man menaced his son and jumped onto the hood of the vehicle.
He originally said he would suspend the alleged journalists for seven days. But after conducting at least one poll asking users if he should immediately reinstate their accounts, he relented.
“The people have spoken. Accounts who doxxed my location will have their suspension lifted now,” Musk tweeted.
The suspensions raised the ire of many critics on both sides of the political divide – including from among some of Musk’s allies. They claimed he was not adhering to his stated goal of promoting free speech on the platform. One of these individuals was actual journalist Bari Weiss, who is part of the team handling the release of the Twitter Files.
“The old regime at Twitter governed by its own whims and biases and it sure looks like the new regime has the same problem. I oppose it in both cases. And I think those journalists who were reporting on a story of public importance should be reinstated,” Weiss tweeted.
The old regime at Twitter governed by its own whims and biases and it sure looks like the new regime has the same problem. I oppose it in both cases. And I think those journalists who were reporting on a story of public importance should be reinstated.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) December 16, 2022
But, is this really a free speech issue?
Some have suggested that the location of Musk’s jet is public information. Therefore, it is fair game. But this is not the case. Musk had his jet registered under two programs designed to conceal its location. From Business Insider:
Before Musk took control of the jet-tracking accounts, the Federal Aviation Administration had already implemented two free programs that could help the planes fly incognito — but they aren’t foolproof.
The first is Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed, also known as LADD, which allows private aircraft owners to dodge plane-tracking software that uses FAA data, like FlightAware or Flightradar24. This means when searched, those tail numbers will be blocked from public view.
The second program is called the “privacy ICAO aircraft address”, or PIA, which allows aircraft owners to substitute their tail number for a temporary one not used by any other plane, allowing them to fly incognito.
Given the incident that occurred with his son, it seems to me that this is an issue of safety, not free speech. Indeed, Musk is not the only high-profile individual that might be concerned about members of the activist media publishing their real-time locations. If Musk is creating a rule disallowing this behavior – and applying it fairly without political bias – I see no issue with it.
But let’s face it: We know exactly why these journalists were trying to give more visibility on Musk’s location.
For starters, it is not in the public interest to know precisely where Elon Musk is at any given moment. There is no real benefit to be gained by making it easier to obtain this information.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical, but from where I sit, the only reason they would publish this information would be part of their effort to undermine Musk’s leadership of Twitter. At best, they hoped it might scare him into doing their bidding. At worst, they were hoping this information would enable another crazed individual to harass him in public – or perhaps even assault him.
Yes, that does sound pretty cynical, doesn’t it?
But as stated previously, there is no other valid reason to put Musk’s information out into the ether, is there? None of these folks did the same with former Twitter CEOs Jack Dorsey or Parag Agrawal, did they? Of course, they didn’t. They were running the company in a way that the progressive left approved of. They upheld politically-biased censorship practices that favored the left.
Musk is not budging on his commitment to creating a freer platform, which has rankled more than a few feathers on the left. This story is the latest demonstrating how far these people will go to cow the CEO into acquiescing to their demands. So far, it has not worked.
