The critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is that, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion. 

However, that right is not unlimited. He is under some special limitations that would not apply to normal people because his company, specifically Starlink and SpaceX are government contractors and, as such, he has obligations to the government that would, for any normal person, and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.

You have somebody who runs really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who's actively undermining the government that's paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted.

While I'm nowhere near an expert in the field of national security, I'm also unaware of Musk divulging national security secrets or undermining the federal government simply by sharing his political views. Besides, I find it hard to believe that a man as brilliant and successful as Elon is stupid, or even careless, enough to do anything close.

Actively undermining the government? That's such a strong accusation that I think Elon should sue this guy.

Hey Roger can you refresh our minds since you're so intelligent what does the first amendment of the Constitution refer to ? pic.twitter.com/OeNsxdo7Oz

— Forever Trumper (@FanaTeresafana) September 8, 2024

McNamee's rant against Musk also caught the attention of George Washington University Law Professor and Fox News senior legal analyst Jonathan Turley, who promptly blasted the investor for "call[ing] for criminalizing speech to silence those with opposing views." (Emphasis, mine)

McNamee’s rationale for criminalizing speech is chillingly shallow and irrational. He declared that somehow Musk’s political views made him a danger as the head of companies of major importance to the United States. It does not bother him when CEOs adopt far left views, just Musk opposing some of those views.

McNamee is using the government contracts with SpaceX as a reason to censor his political and social views. So, according to McNamee, if your company makes something that the government wants (including rescuing the currently stranded astronauts in space), he must give up his right to express political views, including against censorship.

McNamee embraces the power of the government to dictate viewpoints or at least silencing certain views as a matter of national security. It is no accident that the overriding objective is to “get Musk.” Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement.

Bingo. And McNamee's far from the Lone Ranger in the "get Musk" effort. 

As Turley noted, "after Musk purchased Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA)." He continued:

Recently, Democratic leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised Brazil for its action to prevent citizens from having access to unfettered news sources.

What is most striking about these efforts is that they occur after the failure of Plan A: to get Americans to embrace censorship. Facebook even ran a creepy campaign to try to get young people to accept censorship, or “content moderation.”

Exactly, which is how the Democrat Party has historically eaten the Republican elephant, as it were: one bite at a time. 

Turley summed up his observations thusly:

For global elite like McNamee, free speech is not just dispensable but distracting. Only fools would listen to these voices in trading away our indispensable right.

Ahh, Professor Turley, don't forget the admonishment of the late comedian George Carlin: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." 

Including when they are clueless that they're being played as useful idiots.