ESPN's Sage Steele, Elon Musk and the ever-growing Grievance Industry | Opinion

It's unclear just how legitimate the lawsuit filed by ESPN anchor Sage Steele against ESPN actually is. It's possible there's validity to it. It's also possible it's a form of performance art. The most likely outcome is that the lawsuit goes away in a few months and she lands on "Fox and Friends" as their new Correspondent Covering Barack Obama's Dad and Officer in Charge of Vaccine Efficacy.

Performance artistry and grievance politics are required things for much of the Republican bloodstream now. You must attack Mickey Mouse or say he and Pluto are having sex. You must attack voting rights. Or say despicably racist things. Or treat critical race theory as an extinction level event. Or destroy the lives and rights of the LGTBQ community. Or say President Joe Biden stole the election. Or something something about Hunter's laptop something something. Definitely that.

But nothing is more performative than the right wing's claim that freedom of speech is under attack. This is their huge thing now. And this is where Steele comes in.

Steele is smart. She knows that in right wing fantasy world, ESPN is seen as woke, and by suing them for saying they violated her free speech rights, she will be welcome to the Fox News world with open talons.

If you say a woke corporation is trying to steal your freedom of speech rights, well, that's like some type of bonus situation.

WINNING STRATEGY? Could Sage Steele win lawsuit against ESPN? It's complicated. We asked a media law expert.

'DID WE JUST LOSE?' Twitter users react to Elon Musk buying the social media platform

Such a claim is, of course, ridiculous. But ridiculousness is part of the ever-growing, multinational right-wing Grievance Industry. The irony of billionaires like Elon Musk or powerful journalists like Steele saying they are the true victims is completely lost on them.

What freedom of speech means to them (and this is important) is they want to be able to say ugly, counter-factual, dangerous, racist or in Steele's case, simply stupid, things without ramifications.

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," Musk said in a statement announcing his deal with Twitter.

Musk is the ultimate example of the free speech sham. He talks about the need for it on Twitter while not practicing it in his own professional life.

If Musk gets control of Twitter, you'll see an escalation of abuse. It will be Elon and the Muskasmears all over the site.

Why do people push the freedom of speech lie? There's great profit in the Grievance Industry, both political power and big bucks. Donald Trump rode the Grievance Train to the White House.

Actually, I almost admire Steele's gall and slickness in making this move. The lawsuit practically drips with performance artistry, Olympics level, actually. It was probably filed with a wink and a nod while saluting a Blue Lives Matter flag.

Steele doesn't want to establish a right-wing beachhead at ESPN; she wants to use this lawsuit, in my opinion, to launch a right-wing career elsewhere. A Black woman who bashes the first Black President or trashes vaccines is like gold bullion to conservatives. She's smart. She knows this.

Only she knows if she believes much of what she says, but I am sure she understands the ramifications of it, and why saying she's denied freedom of speech is the next great performative frontier.

I'm guessing her Fox show will be called "Steele Cage" and her anchor desk will be in the middle of the Octagon.

She's not alone in using freedom of speech as a springboard. Musk, the possible future destroyer of Twitter, is doing the exact same thing.

Can Steele win her lawsuit? As NBC.com notes, The National Law Review says that "under Connecticut law, both public and private employees have free speech protections and employers are prohibited from disciplining or discharging employees for exercising their free speech rights with certain limitations."

The National Law Review added that free speech "is permissible assuming that it does not interfere with the employee’s job performance or relationship with the employer and addresses a matter of public concern such as terms and conditions of employment, social justice, among other reasons."

But again, I'll command the Mars mission if this lawsuit is really about freedom of speech.

Meanwhile, see you on Fox, Ms. Steele.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: ESPN's Sage Steele, Elon Musk and the ever-growing Grievance Industry