Speak now, or forever hold your peace. Saturday, X went dark across Brazil, as Alexandre de Moraes, a judge in name, but something more like a dictator in terms of power, not only banned the platform from operation, but introduced exorbitant daily fines — around $9,000 a day, or the average Brazilian’s annual salary — for anyone caught accessing the platform on a virtual private network (VPN). Almost at once, the shocking decision was framed by the American press as a complicated conflict over “free speech,” in which the natural limits of liberty have been tested by people talking, and reasonable minds across the globe have understandably determined democracy is now in danger, apparently from itself. But the actual provocation of free speech is not what finally set off Brazil’s tyrant judge. In an effort to secure his political censorship, de Moraes threatened to jail Elon’s employees, allegedly including the lawyer defending X in court. In order to protect them, Elon dissolved his Brazilian team, revoking most of the company’s attack exposure in the country. Then, de Moraes lost his mind and nuked the platform. In a final “farewell, and get fucked,” Elon toggled Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet provider, to “free” across Brazil, where he refused to block X. As of now, this constitutes the single, slender lifeline to freedom for over 200 million people.

Obviously, the top beneficiaries of the Brazilian ban on X include pro-censorship Bluesky, whose CEO Jay Graber celebrated the decision — “Good job Brazil,” she said of one of the largest deplatformings in human history, “you made the right choice” — and Meta’s Threads, which is run by Mark Zuckerberg, who just last week promised he was a reformed man on the topic of bending over for deranged tyrants with a hard-on for censorship. Tbd on just how deep that “based” style evolution runs.

Now, both on principle and for purposes of pragmatism I try not to care about despotic law abroad. My focus is local, and I’m already dying on too many hills at home. If the Brazilians want a dictator judge, go off. Worship your evil king. It’s really not my problem, and it’s certainly not my business. But the Brazilian tyrant’s decision comes amidst a broader global backlash against American tech companies (UK, EU), which is largely driven by a rabid aversion to free speech, and in conversation surrounding the backlash it is now quite clear the anti-speech sentiment, and commitment, is shared by both our press and government. Here, rhetoric has also escalated.

The position that democracy must be saved from democratic norms like free expression has been table stakes in media for years. But over the last two weeks, the Overton Window of acceptable discourse has drifted even further. The position not only that speech criminals should be jailed, but American entrepreneurs should be jailed for enabling their free expression, is now acceptable.

Over the weekend, the Guardian published a piece by Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, arguing Elon Musk should be arrested for “disseminating lies and hate on X.” It was the Guardian’s third piece arguing as much in two weeks. The sentiment was supported by other prominent American academics online, including MIT’s Daron Acemoglu. But enthusiasm for Brazilian tyrants extended well beyond academia, and proponents of punishing Elon were not only interested in leveraging the power of foreign despotism. They were also interested in corrupting American law.

I know he’s just an idiot actor, but I did find this from Mark Ruffalo interesting:

It wasn’t surprising to see a popular left-wing radical admit the purpose of a state’s tax policy is decoupled from providing vital services to our country, which, let’s be real, we’re never getting, at any price, for as long as the Blob State retains its sclerotic control of the country. Obama, who appears to be running the DNC, already admitted the purpose of new tax policy was simply to punish rich people — years ago. However, it was surprising to see the sentiment stated so openly, rather than couched in the ambiguous language of “fairness.” And, unfortunately, the leftward drift to open authoritarianism has not paused at tax policy.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a feature arguing the American Constitution “might be” one of the biggest threats to American politics (don’t freak out, guys, they’re just asking questions over there). A day prior, the All-In boys released a conversation with Reid Hoffman, in which the man attempted to escape critique for funding an NGO that fought to keep RFK off the ballot in states across the country. Reid at least demonstrated a bit of shame in his — we’re being charitable here — mistaken support for the group, though it’s hard to believe he didn’t realize ClearChoice, the lawfaring organization in question, was attempting to subvert democracy given that purpose is written plainly on their website. Then, beyond the anti-liberal arguments and funding strategies now completely normalized, there are of course our politicians.

I understand it’s now in vogue among Coconut-pilled businessmen to pretend Kamala Harris doesn’t really mean any of the things she’s said — and it’s incredible, by the way, that this damning quality of spinelessness is now the cope we’re clinging to — but back when Donald Trump was erased from the internet, Kamala celebrated the decision. Yes, it was technically legal for every major company in Silicon Valley to deplatform the sitting president. But was it truly in keeping with the principles of democracy? Tim Walz, Coco’s running mate, was even more explicit: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” he said, “and especially around our democracy.” If nested in nothing else, we might consider such comments gaffes, or regretful lapses in judgment. But they have not been taken back, and they are clearly well within today’s cultural norms. We need to care about this.

Down in Brazil, the nation’s tyrannical judge argued that permitting X to carry on existing would “allow the massive spread of disinformation, hate speech and attacks on the democratic rule of law, violating the free choice of the electorate, by keeping voters away from real and accurate information.” Now, consider the language we’re using here at home to describe the conflict. In another piece from the Times, which reported on Brazilian anxiety over the incredible censorship, American journalists reported:

Brazil’s yearslong fight against the internet’s destructive effect on politics, culminating in the current blackout of X, shows the pitfalls of a nation deciding what can be said online. Do too little and allow online chatter to undermine democracy; do too much and restrict citizens’ legitimate speech.

Let’s just set aside that almost too-perfectly dystopian phrase “legitimate speech.” In terms of deeper substance, I have a question: when did we decide “unfettered conversations” invariably led to the end of democracy? When did we decide our ability to express ourselves was in some fundamental conflict with our ability to self-govern? That is the actual opposite of everything I ever learned about the founding of this country, and the preservation of this country’s free government. But the statement is presented casually, as if a truism, with the notion that at least some little bit of state control over political speech, which this country has never had, is essential to maintaining freedom. This is how the Blob State describes its own orientation. Their writers are telling us, almost explicitly, they want tyranny. Believe them.

As I write, Kamala’s administration is attempting to jail Trump, the frontrunner opposition candidate. There are strong indications she will pursue an even more aggressive targeting of Trump if she takes the White House. Here, Coconuts often throw their hands up in outrage — if Don didn’t want to go to jail, they say, he should never have committed any of the many crimes for which he is presently being tried. This is a fair point, and I won’t call into question the actual cases, which range from an eight-year-old clerical error to overvaluing assets in Trump’s capacity as a real estate developer, a case so unusual the governor of New York had to publicly announce no other real estate developers would be equally scrutinized in order to prevent them from fleeing the state in terror. Technically, the Coconuts are correct. These are, in fact, laws, and they have been broken. I’m not asking to suspend the trials against Trump.

But I am curious: when can we expect the trial of Hillary Clinton? I guess they had to throw the country a bone with Hunter, but what about Joe? Trump ally Steve Bannon was convicted for contempt of Congress after refusing a congressional subpoena. He’s now in prison. Do you know who else refused a congressional subpoena? Merrick fucking Garland, our sitting attorney general. Why isn’t he in jail?

This is the terrain.

There are calls throughout the media now to abandon at least some aspects of the Constitution. There are calls throughout the government to effectively seize the courts. Now, we’ve expanded the conversation again, and jailing entrepreneurs who permit us to freely speak is considered an acceptable thing to say out loud. The Blob State is correct about one thing, the discourse certainly does seem to matter. In 2017, when Ellen Pao first floated the idea of banning Trump from Twitter, I considered her a crazy person who no longer had a job, possibly worth mocking, but certainly not worth taking seriously. When the sentiment was echoed by Kara Swisher a couple years later in the New York Times, I considered it annoying, but, again, not a thing that could actually happen in America. Then, a year later, our president was nuked from the internet.

We often focus on the sudden tyrannies — Russia, Germany, China — where, in a single year (or night), a country is forever changed. But while there is only one face of freedom, despotism wears a million masks, and travels by a million roads. Ours smiles, and walks slowly.

We have to be honest with ourselves about our country’s shifting norms, and the choice before us this November. On one hand, in Trump, we have the greatest clown in human history. On the other, in Lil’ Coconut, we have a figurehead for the administrative state, which is presently represented by Joe Biden (who has bizarrely stopped pretending he’s actually in charge). If his record is any indication, Trump will probably fail at most of what he promises. But if the Blob State’s record is any indication, it will succeed, and they’re not just talking about giant new taxes anymore. Hell, they’ve not even confined their focus to “math is racist” or free sex change operations for every adolescent illegal immigrant in the country. Today, we’re talking about prison for political dissidents — including Elon Musk.

With the conversation surrounding such draconian horror reduced to “do the crime, do the time,” in which literally any crime, no matter how minor, can be used to rhetorically justify prison for people we hate, we can certainly expect endless new lawsuits targeting Musk at home, and countless MSNBC legal experts breathlessly explaining why they aren’t crazy. In this way, the laws don’t really matter. What matters is the discourse, which reality always follows. And so that is where we need to fight.

Speak now, while you still can.

-SOLANA