Free speech is about opposing restrictions in the public sphere though. If the employees had made a public letter to the internet (not an internal mailing list), using their own resources (not company's resources), it would be a different situation.

If a guest in your house started screaming at you, it wouldn't be a paradox of free speech to tell them to get out.

Okay cool, now explain why Twitter shouldn't ban people.

The (controversial) argument is that Twitter has produced a public sphere. It's not legally a public sphere, but a de facto one, which is why people like Musk want to treat it as such.

How can a public square be privately owned?

And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined in another comment: the right to not have to tolerate a private citizen, the right to prevent someone from saying whatever they want on your private property.

Basically, why doesn't Twitter have the same association and private property rights as Musk?

>And why doesn't Twitter have the same rights that you outlined

They do have those rights, which is why they can ban people. The argument is that they've produced a de facto public square, not a legal one, because it's where a massive amount of "public" discourse takes place. Musk is trying to buy them to make their product more consistent with a legal public square.

Personally I think it can't be done without the government getting involved at some point.

Due to the way the internet evolved, it is now the case that the majority of discourse flows through a handful of private companies.

If you are a private company absolutist, I guess you could argue that these companies have the same rights to prevent people from saying whatever they want on private property.

Others believe that these platforms are large and powerful enough to warrant a different set of views and regulatory scrutiny.

It was a public letter aka “Open Letter”.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter

Free speech is about opposing government restrictions in the public sphere though.

No. That's the first amendment.

Free speech and the first amendment are not the same thing.

Not as Musk often describes it.

Musk has publicly claimed that he is a free speech absolutist.

This[0] appears to be a good explanation of what a "free speech absolutist" is, and it isn't "you have to allow free speech in all settings by everyone"

0. https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...

In fairness, that explanation also agrees that Musk's extension of "free speech absolutist" extends to apolitical speech and an rights to be heard on social media no matter what corporations might think is inconsistent with his longstanding policy of punishing and trying to silence internal and sometimes external critics of his company...

What's it called when "free speech in all settings [is enjoyed] by everyone"?

I don't think there is a phrase for it, but I can see why it would be a common misunderstanding to think that that is "free speech absolutism." As far as I know, there is no concept that requires a private citizen (A) tolerate another private citizen (B) saying whatever they want on A's property. Maybe some form of anarchy.

Thanks for bouncing the idea around. Sounds like naming such an idea would be a powerful shortcut to reach the root of many free speech discussions. Since I'm not above coining neologisms, "speech anarchy" will be the term I will use going forward.

Employees have a natural imperative to use and abuse their companies' resources.

Where the fuck did you grow up?

Let's change the attribution of your (not actual) quotes to be more correct:

Elon: "Something something I’m doing it for more free speech…"

Employees: "You can’t say that!"

Employees in letter: "Make Elon stop tweeting"

Elon: "You're all fired"

He's not a hypocrite under my interpretation.

Why isn't telling someone to shut up protected free speech? There is no requirement to comply. He could have just as easily responded: "No" and continued to tweet as he wanted.

The employee/employer relationship is what’s different, along with the context (workplace activity) of where the communication is taking place. Unclear on why this is being disregarded. When did we start presuming that freedom of speech included the ability to, without consequence to your performance evaluation, talk shit about your employer or boss? The employer/employee relationship is all about your performance in relation to your compensation. Talking shit in a consequential way (in view of employer) reflects poorly on your performance for many and various reasons. When threshold of nuisance is exceeded, gtfo. Your contribution is eclipsed by your distraction.

>> Why isn't telling someone to shut up protected free speech?

You know the first amendment doesn't apply to people right? It's a restriction on what the government can or can not do. The government can't restrict your free speech. Your employer can. Twitter can too, and that's what Elon is against.

I agree that he could have just ignored them, but he chose to ignore them completely by getting them out of his company. That's his choice.