California officials reject SpaceX rocket launches, citing Musk's X posts(www.latimes.com)
20 pointsby blackeyeblitzar7 hours ago2 comments
  • belval6 hours ago
    > Among the issues raised were Musk’s decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories, the labor record of his companies and derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community.

    Perhaps this is editorial so I want to avoid making too strong a statement here, but openly saying "we are denying a permit/witholding authorization to launch, to a company because its owner is aligned with a political party we don't like" is really, really weird to me.

    I am not in the US, but is this even legal? Seems like something that should not be part of the evaluation at all.

    • peutetre4 hours ago
      Musk routinely lies and spreads conspiracy theories. He clearly doesn't want to be seen as stable, trustworthy, or credible. And, sure enough, he isn't.

      You can't behave irresponsibly and then be surprised when you are correctly assessed as irresponsible.

      • pmdulaney3 hours ago
        Maybe, but you should be surprised when a California state agency applies a political litmus test against a citizen of the United States.
    • financetechbro5 hours ago
      I guess it’s one thing to align to a political view (like most normal people do) and another to be so entrenched in a political agenda that you purchase a platform for billions of dollars and use said platform as a tool for amplifying your policial ideas which just so happen to be very sensational while mostly being built off of conspiracy theories, disinformation, and straight up lies.

      I would happily do business with the former, no matter how unaligned our policial views are; but probably would avoid any business or engagement with the latter.

      • 4 hours ago
        undefined
      • rufus_foreman4 hours ago
        It is a violation of the US and California constitutions for the government of California to discriminate against someone because he "injected himself into the presidential race" or because of "derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community". Those are obvious examples of protected free speech. Whether you loathe Elon Musk or you dislike him, nobody should be happy to see his rights violated.

        A private business is a different matter but it is not completely clear that it would be legal for a private business in California to discriminate against customers based on their political speech, see https://www.civilrightsca.com/blog/discrimination-trump-supp...:

        "The text of the Unruh Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination, including discrimination due to 'sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status'

        Though 'political belief' does not appear in the list, political discrimination might still be against the law. California courts have interpreted the Unruh Act to include some characteristics that are not listed."

    • blackeyeblitzar6 hours ago
      That part did seem weird to me. It’s one thing to claim the launches are subject to California’s decision making because they’re private. But it’s another thing to only make these assertions based on the content of someone’s speech or political affiliation. That seems blatantly unconstitutional.

      But it also seems normal, in a way, given today’s political divisiveness. For example the Biden administration (DOJ) suing SpaceX, a company with regulated military grade technology, over a lack of refugee hiring or the FCC’s denial of spectrum for Starlink.

  • fragmede3 hours ago
    guess Starfleet headquarters aren’t going to be in San Francisco then. Bell riots were recently tho.