It is not surprising that there were strong reactions to Elon Musk’s conversation with President Trump on X formally Twitter supporters were no doubt thrilled to see musk, the world’s richest man, founder of important companies, owner of x and self proclaimed defender of free speech, endorse President Trump and engage in friendly conversation. Opponents had plenty to crow about, and did so even on X criticizing Trump and Musk’s policy prescriptions and the softball nature of the format. But truly surprising was the call from journalists and governments to stop or limit the conversation from journalism. A Washington Post reporter asked White House spokeswoman Karine Jean Pierre about the upcoming Trump must conversation and what role the White House or the President has in stopping misinformation or stopping the spread of misinformation to repeat, this is a journalist taking the side of censoring political discourse during a campaign with a candidate for the highest office in the land, and the journalist did not so subtly suggest this to the very administration whose president was and now whose Vice President is running against Donald Trump for Office. The White House response was weak and non committal. On the one hand, noting that x is a private company, but also decrying the evils of misinformation. This was no ringing defense of free speech or press from government. European Commissioner Thierry Breton wrote a letter to Musk the day of the conversation. The letter scolded musk and X for past instances of non compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act, and it referenced the upcoming Trump Musk conversation, warning, maybe threatening, that while x had a duty to promote free speech, it also must be mindful that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content that might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. The letter then went on to detail the various consequences and enforcement actions that the Commission might utilize on x again, here’s a government, and in this case, a foreign government, strong arming a platform for airing the trunk must conversation as it might be seen by European users. These reactions to the Trump must conversation come not too long after two Supreme Court decisions, first in the net choice cases, the court did not strike down two states regulation of internet platforms to ensure access, but it did indicate that social media platforms ability to moderate the discussions that go on on their platforms would be strongly protected by the First Amendment. In the Murphy case, the Court considered many instances of federal government agencies urging or threatening the platforms to take down harmful content on vaccines, election, misinformation and other matters. The court did not rule out that these actions of government could be challenged by citizens, but it made it very difficult for anyone to have standing to sue. In other words, governments pushing platforms to limit their posts might not be so easy to stop through the courts. The situation for political speech on social media platforms would seem endangered, but one factor has changed significantly in favor of continued free political discourse on social media. Elon Musk bought Twitter and made a commitment to free speech. Many on the left who admired Musk for his businesses that promoted clean energy and electric cars, now see him as a right winger, and x as a platform changed for the worse, but even if you are not a fan of the new x, the fact that there is a variety of political orientations in the platforms makes it much more likely that all of The platforms will resist government’s push to regulate political speech, and that users of all political stripes will feel as if there’s a place for them on social media. So.