IANAL but neither is Elon. His "free speech is not free reach" comment is nonsensical, for example, because limiting reach doesn't align with free speech principles. This could be another uninformed or poorly worded claim.
> acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is
One way of interpreting that might be that Elon thinks former Twitter execs were guilty of collusion. Yet, unless there is some really nefarious smoking gun where both parties were grinning about screwing over the public, I believe the most likely guilty party, if such events are found to have occurred, would be the government, not former Twitter employees.
I'm not sure if that's what Elon meant to imply though.
> acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is
One way of interpreting that might be that Elon thinks former Twitter execs were guilty of collusion. Yet, unless there is some really nefarious smoking gun where both parties were grinning about screwing over the public, I believe the most likely guilty party, if such events are found to have occurred, would be the government, not former Twitter employees.
I'm not sure if that's what Elon meant to imply though.