I'm not asking about people who make threats; I'm talking about people who just say "here's the route Elon Musk is taking from ABC to XYZ; he'll land in 45 minutes."

@Someone it depends. Threats do not have to be explicit - WIll no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

Would his ongoing use of the jet, knowing it is publicly tracked, and that the tracking has a following, be a good defense against there being an actual percieved threat? Surely a reasonable person wouldnt keep using that jet if they felt that the knowledge of its position was a threat to their life.

@JMac The address of a person's real property holdings is also publicly known. Surely a reasonable person wouldn't live in their house if they felt the knowledge of it's position was a threat to their lives?

@hszmv Yes, that is a very reasonable reaction to me. If you genuinely believe someone is trying to kill you and can do so in your home, I would think you would stop going there, or take actions to make your home safer.

@JMac, It's a short term solution. The better solution is to take steps to not have this information discussed in open ways. Yes, he has to report where his plane is when it's flying... but why does the media have to report that information about him specifically to the public? It's like saying "Elon Musk, who is under death threats, lives at his home at 742 Evergreen Terrace."

@hszmv it's already publicly available. Anyone with nefarious intentions could still get the data.

@hszmv Taking steps to not have something discussed in open ways sounds like passing laws to prohibit speech. Hopefully that's not what you mean.

@JMac: What would be the point of going to the expense of getting a new plane, if it could still be tracked the same way? It wouldn't take long for plane spotters to visually ID it and associate the ADS-B number, I'd assume. So legal remedy first, then maybe switch planes. If it's legally possible to get people to stop tracking him, it makes sense to me that he'd do that first. Also, he probably doesn't think there actually is a current physical threat (not of the move-out-of-house variety). Just that tracking makes it more likely for future threats to crop up.

@PeterCordes Who said to get a new plane? Practically no one owns a private jet, and they get along just fine. If you want to use a personal private jet, there are setbacks to your privacy due to flight laws. It's not like there are no alternatives. He is choosing a mode of transportation he knows can be associated directly with him. The fact that it makes it more likely for threats to pop up seems like a personal decision he can weigh against the benefits of the private jet, instead of preventing the sharing of publically available information.

@EllieKesselman You're assuming that the phrase "taking steps" means "taking steps which cannot involve legislation or government action." The original quote doesn't say that, so it's not a reasonable assumption.

Suppose as the owner of a social media platform, I begin lobbying congress to get a law passed which prohibits something previously protected as free speech? With the current rabid extremist supreme court, there's little chance that of overturning such legislation, so once it's in place it will be there for many years. But of course since Twitter is a "private entity" then Twitter's lobbying is an example of "free speech" so ironically, Twitter can use the first amendment to crush the first amendment. Hilarious if it were not terrifying.

@barbecue What is the original quote to which you refer? I don't see a quote in the body of the question by OP.

@barbecue Also, the 1st Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and is in the judicial branch of government. I don't think Congress as the legislative branch would have any real say in this, as any such law that Musk could effect could and would be overturned by the Supreme Court on protected speech grounds. Historically, the Supreme Court tend to be the true free speech absolutists, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.

@EllieKesselman My comment was in direct response to a previous comment by hszmv. That comment contained this quote: " The better solution is to take steps to not have this information discussed in open ways."

@EllieKesselman I literally just pointed out in my comment that the supreme court would be unlikely to overturn such a law.

@barbecue hszmv said The better solution is to take steps to not have this information discussed in open ways. Yes, he has to report where his plane is when it's flying but why does the media have to report that information about him specifically to the public? It's like saying "Elon Musk, who is under death threats, lives at his home at 742 Evergreen Terrace." The quote is "Elon Musk, who is under death threats, lives at his home at X" That is a matter of journalist integrity and convention online to not do such a thing. I do not believe that Google or Facebook allow such statements either.

@barbecue No, you said, [what if] I begin lobbying congress to get a law passed which prohibits something previously protected as free speech? With the current rabid extremist supreme court, there's little chance that of overturning such legislation, so once it's in place it will be there for many years. You said that the Supreme Court would NOT overturn a law regarding a violation of protected speech under the 1st Amendment. I said in my prior comment that they would. A "rabid, extremist" (conservative?) court is just as likely to stand up for free speech, not less.

@hszmv “The address of a person's real property holdings is also publicly known. Surely a reasonable person wouldn't live in their house if they felt the knowledge of it's position was a threat to their lives?” I mean, since when does the corporate autocrat live in a fix address anyways? You just made his argument a tad bit stronger. Since his company skyrocketed from $50 to $500 billions (and beyond) he sold all his property. You don’t really know where he lives. Other than on the company’s properties he owns or has a stake in.