259 Comments
User's avatar
Brent Nyitray's avatar

It clearly is a reference to burning Teslas and attacking dealerships.

Seems pretty clear-cut.

Ataraxis's avatar

There’s also a not-so-subtle despicable secondary meaning to “Kill Tesla”, and it’s a dog whistle to the violent lefty Red Guards. Rick Wilson is a terrorist.

Jerry's avatar

We have certainly seen a trend. Assassinating the CEO of a healthcare company (and the left cheered it on). Attempted assassination of Trump (2). Someone was stalking a SCOTUS justice while armed awhile back if I remember right. A congressman suggested bringing weapons into congress. Posting bail for rioters. Antifa. The should probably increase security at SpaceX launches and more protection for astronauts.

Neil Kellen's avatar

the murder of a conservative journalist in Austin, TX, the 15 or so swattings of conservative journalists/bloggers...

Ataraxis's avatar

Let’s not forget all the terrorists the Dems let in under their open border policy. Perilous times.

Jerry's avatar

And trying to block them from being deported.

Benj Clarke's avatar

That congressman was Long Beach's own attack chihuahua, beta male Robert Garcia. He also called Elon a dick, both in congressional chambers and on CNN.

Mad Dog's avatar

Yeah, but he talked about Elon's dick in a yearning, pleading sense.

Mathew David Peckinpah's avatar

I believe he should be arrested and charged with domestic terrorism. Try to pin to the violent acts that have already happened. Maybe it will not stick but the process will inflict some pain on him. The Trump administration has a clear mandate to prudently (within the law) to fight back and inflict has much pain as legally possible to these bastards. I wonder if MR. Wilson will still be invited on MSNBC. Perhaps Brian Roberts (CEO of Comcast) should be questioned by the FBI.

Marilyn's avatar

Rick Wilson is a COWARD, because he sits there urging others to commit these crimes. Yes, he should be charged with domestic terrorism, and have to pay his lawyers thousands of dollars. That's what the Dems did to conservatives~~their goal was to bankrupt conservatives even if they couldn't send them to prison!!!

Sheila Nawrot's avatar

That word, terrorism is being thrown around far too easily of late, IMHO. The, “Be careful what you wish for,” adage isn’t in our lexicon for no good reason. However, if the fear is that one is allowed to get away with speech that is clearly not constitutionally protected, ascribing it to domestic terrorism isn’t the answer. The language, as well as the clear image supplies along with the post, meets the exact description of #1, incitement to violence. He should be held to account.

On the flip side of that is the fact that the Constitutional First Amendment only protects the individual from governmental and/or judicial free speech persecution. It is well within the right of X, or Elon Musk per se, to remove anyone he so chooses because he finds the content offensive. It happens here on Substack all the time. Someone says something that someone else doesn’t like/finds offensive, the Substack owner is asked to remove the offender and does. I don’t agree with this practice as being offended has become far too great a weapon against speech than anything else I’ve experienced in my lifetime.

So, back to the post from X. As I said before, this is clearly a form of incitement to violence, which can be considered a crime. This is where, I believe, the protection from judicial persecution of free speech would come into play. The courts would have to decide, constitutionally, if the speech should or should not be protected. Instead of banning this person, wouldn’t the more prudent response be to file a police report, or get the FBI involved? I mean some on the left are swatting conservatives, which of course is purely malicious, but the post in question is verifiable is it not?

Anyway, that’s my dime’s worth of opinion 🤗

Deborah Gallaway's avatar

Very clear and helpful breakdown. Thank you, Sheila.

Neil Kellen's avatar

start with a swatting...

Owain Glyndŵr's avatar

No. wrong way to go. That's what the left does.

Reelin’ In The Fears's avatar

Wilson is not a terrorist. He is, however, a sackless brain dead, pussy and a coward.

Ataraxis's avatar

Take the next step. He said “Kill Tesla, save the country. Elon has a weak spot. Attack.” Rick Wilson knew *EXACTLY* what he was doing with those incendiary words. The left are now cornered animals, they know it, and they are lashing out violently for their survival. We have over 100 years of their documented violent strategy and tactics in the history books, so we all know what they’re up to.

Remember the famous quote attributed to Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel: “When someone says they want to kill you, believe them”

Ernie Boxall's avatar

Under any 2020-24 judgement Wilson is due a 6 am visit from the FBI and Fox cameras on site

madaboutmd's avatar

Isn't that the truth!!!

Owain Glyndŵr's avatar

He could be considered though, an abettor of violence, up to and including domestic terrorism.

I have no problem with his permanent ban, #1 of USC applies. Or any problem that the FBI pay him a visit.

Also...FAFO.

Eric Sowers's avatar

Or unpack RICO and jail some of these co-conspirators who sit back and incite. I suspect a large chunk of the citizenry would be vulnerable to incarceration, e.g. the entire Acela Corridor and the State of California.

Brent Nyitray's avatar

Rick Wilson isn't a terrorist. He is just a dingleberry.

But this whole kerfuffle can be filed under "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"

It will also be used as fodder for the left to argue that Republicans don't believe in free speech (but we do!)

Jerry's avatar

The concern I have is if it becomes a trend. I would focus on punishing the perpetrators quickly and harshly. The speech indicates an intent so banning the speech won't change the intent.

Beeswax's avatar

This. If people are not prosecuted for arson and destruction of private property, which can lead to fires that could injure or kill people, they will keep doing it.

But also, inciting people to commit violent acts is not a First Amendment right, and Wilson should be held accountable.

Brent Nyitray's avatar

Unfortunately, the damage to Teslas etc will only happen in deep-blue jurisdictions where the cops will be told to look the other way.

So ultimately, nothing is going to happen.

Yvonne Leslie's avatar

Unfortunately, they are now doxing individuals who work for & own Teslas. This “call” can certainly lead to not just property damage & destruction but potentially spill over into physical damage & or death to people! Ban him from X & press charges

Eric Sowers's avatar

The last DOJ considered concerned parents to be terrorists. The Administration should start designating the two most dangerous spinoffs - Tesla burning and Swatting - as domestic terrorism, and focus the entire force of the government on arrest and conviction. Forget attempted murder - terrorism carries more time.

The prospect of spending one’s life in an 8 x 8 room with a new husband is a great attitude adjuster.

Kelly Alvin Madden's avatar

Terrorism is defined by terrorist acts. That's terrorism.

Hollis Brown's avatar

back in the pre-Musk days of Twitter, the common reply from the left concerning censorship, shadowbanning and strikes was “it’s a private company, they can do what they want. your first amendment rights don’t extend to a private entity), to which I agreed. little did we know how much control the government had, but the rationale for Elon remains the same. it’s his platform, he can do what he wants. since his purchase of Twitter was partially based on his Tesla valuation, I don’t even blame him.

if the Left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all. they are being hoisted up on their own petard and they can’t handle it. Wilson was practically begging to be banned.

William Isom's avatar

I agree. I have a large tolerance for free speech, but this seems clear-cut incitement to violence.

Bill's avatar

Plus, a rather sly threat to Musk, himself.

Overall, it does seem pretty clear-cut.

Over the line of the “free speech” argument, me thinks.

Epaminondas's avatar

I would still let this slide since he didn't actively call for violence against an individual vs. a company, and you can argue that people use hyperbole against companies all the time.

But more importantly, banning Rick Wilson is actually doing him in a favor One of the benefits of social media is that you have people like Rick Wilson who have zero self-control and can't help reveal their true colors to the public. Posts like this only help destroy his own credibility, so I say step back and give him plenty of rope.

R H's avatar

Yep. Inciting violence in a specific case. Clear cut. DOJ should prosecute also.

Kenn Goodwin's avatar

1. “Speech that is intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action (“incitement”).”

Dena's avatar

Also #2 “Statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals (“true threats”).” Seems to apply.

Brandy's avatar

Taibbi is wrong on this one. Wilson crossed a line.

steven t koenig's avatar

I agree but it seems like just a good old fashioned ass-kicking would be most effective at shutting him up.

Sheila Nawrot's avatar

More “good ol ass kicking” needs to come back into style! Bravo you!!

Benj Clarke's avatar

That does seem like a good way to settle things. Just have a declared fight.

Brandy's avatar

Well, there's no need to stop at banning him. Somebody should give him a good, swift kick in the tail.

Brian Katz's avatar

Yes, with a baseball bat.

Kelly Alvin Madden's avatar

Literal ass-kicking is why Wilson should be prosecuted for terrorism.

Craig Verdi's avatar

Of course it can be banned. Firing people up to destroy property and life. No brainer.

Terry Kayser's avatar

And Rachel Madcow says that shooting up and torching Teslas and dealerships is “small and spunky protests”?! So I can spray her house with gunfire and chunk a Molotov through her front window and claim it’s just a small and spunky protest,right?

Tom Potts's avatar

Send Madcow the repair bills. Butch news babes are not attractive.

Terry Kayser's avatar

She/it brings to mind the old expression “uglier than a mud fence”.

Kathleen's avatar

Which of her houses?

She seriously makes $25 million per year for one show per week!!!

Terry Kayser's avatar

Let’s visit all of them, after all, we’re only going to stage “small and spunky protests” as she calls them, I’m sure she wouldn’t mind!

Heyjude's avatar

The burning Tesla in the background combined with the clear instruction to attack makes this an incitement to violence in my opinion.

It’s time to re-learn that free speech means the freedom to persuade, not the freedom to incite violence when your speech is not persuasive enough to get the result you want.

Kristin R Glover's avatar

It’s CLEARLY a threat of violence as well as a call for violence. I think banning the MF is completely justified.

Deb Nance's avatar

Reads like a dog whistle to kill Elon. It tells me a lot about this guy.

Paul Scofield's avatar

He is lucky that it was simply a ban. This idiot needs to spend 30 days in the can, to get fire-hosed each day to wash the years of accumulated body odor off of him and, though I have little hope, to learn how to live in a civil society once again. Some may call these remedies a bit harsh but it is past time for behavioral deterrence. If not now, when?

Jim M's avatar

As a former cop, there's ABSOLUTELY enough evidence to make a collar. It might get thrown out, but Wilson would definitely do a perp-walk. (Ummm....maybe a FOR REAL swatting? A la' what they did to Roger Stone?)

Paul Scofield's avatar

I defer to your expertise. Time to pick ths clown up for a free ride in a cop car.

Beeswax's avatar

Or in a Tesla driven by a cop.

Steve G's avatar

Old cop saying….”You might beat the rap but you ain’t beating the ride.”……

John's avatar

It’s not the first time Wilson has wished violence on someone. I got put in Twitter timeout for a week for using the word “smacked.” If I got a week for that, then Wilson’s perma ban is justified. Just my .02.

lily weber's avatar

Above n beyond a boycott. I'm so sick of the left's savages. I really am.

Carol Jones's avatar

Seems Wilson’s posts meet several of the USC definition of exceptions to the Article One free speech provisions.

Advocating violence and inciting physical action is different then stating you think Elon is a Nazi and people should boycott his products and call their representatives to complain about Doge.

Kamas716's avatar

I get a kick out of people who give up their Tesla's for Volkswagens because they think Elon is a Nazi. They clearly failed history.

Orest's avatar

I'm no lawyer and don't even pretend to be one. But to me, an average joe, it's clear that he's inciting violence, or other illegal activity, ie: burning private property. I think any court, even one run by Judge Boasberg, would agree.

MoodyP's avatar

It’s not even a close call.

er's avatar

I'll take Incitement for $400, Alex.

DANIEL OBRIEN's avatar

If this isn’t “incitement to violence,” what is?