Conservative Filmmaker James O’Keefe Suspended By Twitter

James O'Keefe
James O’Keefe
Twitter LogoAs we previously discussed, Twitter has become a lightening rod for the free speech community — repeatedly accused of content-based censorship and a liberal bias. Twitter was recently accused of a departure from the policy of unfettered free speech in the filtering of negative comments against President Barack Obama. Then Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos in a very disturbing move against a conservative speaker. Now, Twitter is back in the news targeting another conservative. After releasing two viral videos, Project Veritas Founder and President James O’Keefe was barred from access to his Twitter account for 12 hours (with review for a permanent ban). Twitter again appears to have little explanation for suspending another conservative other than the content of his speech.

Shortly before his suspension, O’Keefe released a video showing Democratic Election Commissioner Alan Schulkin discussing voter fraud and making damaging comments concerning the election. The next day he released a video showing a Hillary Clinton staffer making embarrassing comments including how he could rip up Republican voter registration forms and not be reprimanded.

O’Keefe was only given notice reading “Hi James O’Keefe,Your account @JamesOKeefeIII has been locked. Please go to Twitter now to fix the issue with your account.” However, there was not explanation and only a reference to the rules page. Twitter has been previously accused to showing little concern for the due process of those banned from its site, including full explanations for cutting off users.

Once again, I find the pattern of suspensions of Twitter to be highly problematic. Twitter is an important site for social media and free speech. I hold no brief for O’Keefe and I have not watched his work. I realize that he is controversial and we have discussed past controversies. However, Twitter has developed a reputation among its critics for speech regulation with a particular penchant for cutting off conservatives.

Twitter later revealed that it was the second video of the Clinton staffer that was deemed to be “harassment” because he is shown saying “I think the bar of acceptable conduct in this campaign is pretty low. To be fired I would have to grab Emma’s ass twice and she would have to complain about it, I would have to sexually harass someone.” However, there is no allegation that the tape contains false information. I remain concerned over the lack of a clear rule. Would any undercover videotape be barred under this rule? Was there something about this videotape that distinguishes it from other embarrassing undercover stories?

What do you think?

173 thoughts on “Conservative Filmmaker James O’Keefe Suspended By Twitter”

  1. Autumn, Liberals are not only hypocrites, they’re cowards. Before you got here, this place was a liberal echo chamber. JT finally stopped the Weekend Bloggers fascism, and they left whining and crying. A few pop back once in awhile and whine. They can’t handle a level playing field. They are fascists and want total control. Not all of them. This Swathmoremom is a Clintonista, but she is OK in my book. She is an actual Dem operative and admits it.

    1. @NickS

      I am not sure if it was fascism or not, because that word gets way over-used, but it was certainly an echo chamber for the latest DNC talking points. What disturbed me was that when anybody called them on their obvious bias and slant, they would deny that it was bias and slant. No, to them what they believed was just the right and proper way for people to believe. Which is not in and of itself an erroneous attitude, it is just that there should be an opening in the attitude to absorb new facts, and new information.

      One example, was the article on the “new Jim Crow voting rights suppression because North Carolina had reduced its number of early voting days.” maybe it was two years ago, although there was a newer one several months ago. OK, maybe that is one’s initial thought, and nobody is expected to be perfect. But then when I pointed out that many northern Blue States don’t have early voting at all, there was not a rational reconsideration of that initial premise. No, it was “dig in your heels and call names” time.

      Which is not what one would expect if the article was based on a non-biased, non-slanted observer who maybe just over-looked a fact- but exactly what one would expect if the author was a partisan Democrat pumping the race-baiting Democratic Party narrative.

      That’s just one example.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. Did work in the field at one time but no longer. Like to get fired up at election time but this year has been an ugly one. Think that is how most people feel.

      1. I don’t believe you! You never worked in a field in your life! Quick now, what is the secret to picking green beans? Huh! How about tomatoes?

        Oh, if you had ever actually worked in a field, you would not be so lah-dee-dah!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        PS. Thinking about it, I might be wrong. Maybe you have worked in a field because you are pretty good at spreading manure??? Sooo, never mind. Just ignore what I said. I was premature.

    3. Nick, I agree. SWM is delusional, but not controlling. There is still hope that she will come to her senses before the GE. And she’s a fan of Laurie Anderson – good taste in art goes a long with me =)

  2. TYT (The Young Turks) bills itself as the largest online Progressive media site. That is a lie. TYT has gone over to the Liberal side supporting HRC.

    There are two folks however who have remained Progressive: Jimmy Dore and Jordan Chariton. Jordan’s Twitter wars with the HRC minions:

  3. O’Keefe is not a “conservative activist”. He’s a criminal and a low life. That right wingers hold him up as anything but a dirty tricks artists and criminal is pathetic. He is obviously a sociopath. I don’t think not giving him access to twitter makes much difference in the world one way or another. But the media should stop covering his criminal and utterly unethical activities and the next time he commits a felony (only a matter of time) he needs to take a long, long vacation in federal housing.

    1. Horuss – I was unaware that you were either a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I am amazed that from so little information you can decide he is a sociopath. However, as you know sociopaths can be very productive members of society.

      1. O’Keefe is embarrassing to his causes, ergo O’Keefe is criminal. Not much psychology in that (unless you’re talking about the speaker’s own pathologies).

    2. That right wingers hold him up as anything but a dirty tricks artists and criminal is pathetic. He is obviously a sociopath.

      He’s an investigative reporter, a type prog-trash like when it serves their interests. O’Keefe does not, so they impugn his character.

      The problem with progressives is, as always, that they are people of unjust disposition who lie all the time. That did not used to be the case, but George McGovern is dead and Nat Hentoff is real old.

  4. Here’s your police state at work: “Protesters were attempting to take matters into their own hands and planned to physically stop the flow of crude oil through valve stations at five locations on Tuesday. Schlosberg attended the event in order to document the protest – something a journalist often does.

    The filmmaker continues to be held in jail and all three arrested appeared in court on Thursday for a bond hearing. None were bailed and they all remain in police custody.

    According to fellow filmmaker Josh Fox, Scholsberg has been charged with three felony charges, carrying some serious penalties.

    “Now here is the really bad news and this is why we need you to act right now. This afternoon she was escorted to the courthouse where she was charged with 3 Class A and C felony charges that carry 45 years maximum sentences combines. She has been charged with 2 Class A Felony Charges and 1 Class C Felony Charge; Conspiracy to theft of property, Conspiracy to theft of services, Conspiracy to tampering with or damaging a public service.”

    Fox has also set up a petition for Schlosberg’s release on his film website

    While the activists who attempted to commit crimes are facing justice (regardless of the morality of their cause), charging the journalist with the same crime is insanity.

    For simply covering reality, Schlosberg faces a maximum 45 years in prison. While we hope that the judge is reasonable enough to clear the woman of all charges, the fact that a journalist could face conspiracy charges and 45 years in prison is a daunting invasion on the freedom of speech.

    It is disturbing to know that journalists are being arrested for merely being present and covering important issues like these protests. Schosberg should be freed immediately and cleared of all charges.”

  5. I say let them all speak. That’s called transparency and if I find them disgusting, I’ll shun them. Don’t make the decision for me.

  6. Typical liberal crap. When are people going to stop being surprised by the rampant thought control and speech control exercised by the Democratic Left? Why do you still think that Liberals, by and large, operate from any fixed set of principles to guide them, other than the principle of “get power-stay in power.”

    Democrats were not against black-listing in the 1950s as a matter of principle. They were only against it because it was them who was being targeted by it. That’s why they do it so easily today.They aren’t against shutting down political speech because they believe in free speech, but because they don’t want their speech shut down, That is why they are perfectly content if someone shuts down a Trump rally, or a conservative speaker on campus. What have I said here, a hundred times? This:

    Expecting from, or trying to explain to, Democrats- “principles”, or “right vs. wrong”, or “rules”, or “logical consistency”, is like trying to explain to a bad, cheating, folding metal chair-using, wrestler why he didn’t win the WWF Belt fairly. He is just not able to comprehend what you are complaining about.

    All he knows, is that he won the match and belt! The fact that his girl friend jumped into the ring while the referee wasn’t looking, and whomped the good wrestler over the head with a metal chair, knocking him unconscious- – –
    well, really what difference at this point does that make??? After all, he won! He has the championship belt! Isn’t that all that matters???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. “Democrats” were not being targeted by the Hollywood Blacklist. Communist Party members were (and some people who belonged to ‘front organizations’). It indubitably collared some people who just cut a check to a tainted letterhead organization or had the wrong friends, but not generally. Victor Navasky had admitted that the people called to give oral testimony before the HUAC were those who had been identified beforehand as party members by at least two witnesses in executive session, affidavits, or interviews with investigators.

    Twitter, according to a recent report, is a favorite for “Escorts” to list their travels, interesting pictures, but also links to their websires.

    Ah yes, right wing politics…bad.
    Pay for sex…good.

    Now we return you to your regularly sheduled program…Sex And The City and Mr Big.


    The messages go all the way back to 2008, when Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. And a month before the election, the key staffing for that future administration was almost entirely in place, revealing that some of the most crucial decisions an administration can make occur well before a vote has been cast.

    Michael Froman, who is now U.S. trade representative but at the time was an executive at Citigroup, wrote an email to Podesta on October 6, 2008, with the subject “Lists.” Froman used a Citigroup email address. He attached three documents: a list of women for top administration jobs, a list of non-white candidates, and a sample outline of 31 cabinet-level positions and who would fill them. “The lists will continue to grow,” Froman wrote to Podesta, “but these are the names to date that seem to be coming up as recommended by various sources for senior level jobs.”

    The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

    This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

    Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy hiring while part of the transition team. We didn’t know he had so much influence that he could lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected. The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms.

    We certainly want an incoming administration to be well-prepared and ready to go when power is transferred. For Obama, coming into office while the economy was melting down, this was particularly true. But the revelations also reinforce the need for critical scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, and for advocacy to ensure the next transition doesn’t go like the last, at least with respect to the same old Democrats scooping up all the positions of power well in advance.

    Many liberal pundits have talked about the need to focus exclusively on Donald Trump, and the existential threat he presents, in the critical period before Election Day. And there is a logic to that idea: Trump would legitimately be a terrifying leader of the free world. But there are consequences to the kind of home-team political atmosphere that rejects any critical thought about your own side. If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors. And if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late.

    Who gets these cabinet-level and West Wing advisory jobs matters as much as policy papers or legislative initiatives. It will inform executive branch priorities and responses to crises. It will dictate the level of enforcement of existing laws. It will establish the point of view of an administration and the advice Hillary Clinton will receive. Its importance cannot be stressed enough, and the process has already begun.

    The wing of the Democratic Party concerned about personnel decisions made its opinion known almost two years ago. Dan Geldon, now chief of staff to Senator Elizabeth Warren, met with Dan Schwerin, a top adviser to Clinton’s campaign, in January 2015. According to an email follow-up with Podesta and others, Geldon “was intently focused on personnel issues, laid out a detailed case against the Bob Rubin school of Democratic policy makers.” He was also “very critical of the Obama administration’s choices.”

    The “Bob Rubin school” is named for the former top executive at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and first Clinton administration Treasury secretary. It is composed precisely of the kinds of Democrats that the Warren wing opposes on domestic policy, particularly on financial matters. In the Obama administration, that school won out. Froman, chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, gave options for Treasury secretary that ranged from Rubin himself to Summers and Geithner, two of his key protégés. In another 2008 email Rubin imagined for himself a “Harry Hopkins” position in the Obama administration, referring to Franklin Roosevelt’s top adviser.

    The Rubin school dictated the Obama administration’s light-touch policy on bank misconduct (which resulted in no serious legal or fiduciary consequences for the major players) and its first-term approach to the financial crisis (which was defined by a stimulus package that even at the time was criticized for being woefully inadequate, as well as a premature turn to budget-cutting). These are exactly the flaws that Geldon, Warren’s emissary, stressed. According to Schwerin, he “spoke repeatedly about the need to have in place people with ambition and urgency who recognize how much the middle class is hurting and are willing to challenge the financial industry.”

    Around the same time as that meeting with Geldon, the Clinton campaign was setting up a dinner meeting with its economic policy team, Geithner, Summers, and members of the investment firm Blackstone (along with Teresa Ghilarducci, a retirement security researcher).

    This is a fight over who dominates the Democratic Party’s policy thinking in the short and long term. In 2008 the fight was invisible and one-sided, and the fix was in. In 2016 both sides are angling to get Clinton to adopt their framework. Those predisposed to consider Clinton some neoliberal sap might not agree, but this is actually a live ball. Presidents lead coalitions, and they have to understand where their coalition is and how things change over time. Peter Orszag this week suggested a trade-off: Give the Warren wing its choices on personnel, in exchange for more leeway to negotiate an infrastructure package with Republicans that gives big tax breaks to corporations with money stashed overseas. While that deal needs more detail, it reveals the power the Warren wing has, relative to the Obama era, to make significant strides on appointments.

    Which side will win? The rank and file can actually have a voice in this, to make it known what personnel decisions would be acceptable or unacceptable. They can’t do it by ignoring evidence or sitting on their hands. The demand to only hold one thing in your head at a time—that Trump must be stopped—would squander this opportunity.

    1. Excellent post. However I disagree re: “The rank and file can actually have a voice in this, to make it known what personnel decisions would be acceptable or unacceptable.” The corporations that own HRC & Co are the same ones that own Obama, owned W and owned Bill Clinton. They have it all mapped out. Any pretense of choice is just an illusion. Remember, according to the Wikileaks HRC had already chosen Kaine (pro TPP, pro fracking/offshore drilling) as VP back in Summer 2015.

      Elizabeth Warren blusters a lot but nothing changes. Going after AirBnB instead of the corrupt banksters because she is up for election in 2018 and needs corporate money from the hotel lobbyists.

      Progressives are done with Warren.

      It’s a charade.

  9. Twitter has basically proclaimed that it is a Liberal communications media; no conservatives allowed.

    That’s fine. Just be honest about it, so Twitter users understand they are supporting a Liberals-only media. Some may like that censorship.

    What is most disturbing to me is that Twitter blocked a whistleblower from posting about voter fraud. That makes them culpable in a cover up.

    But, as we all know, voter fraud is all perfectly fine as long as it’s done to perpetuate Liberal fascism. Any effort to remove the dead or illegal aliens from the voter rolls is clearly racist. And though of course you need a photo ID to prove your identity to attend the DNC convention, drive, open a bank account, or cash a check, it’s clearly racist to require a photo ID to prove your identity and eligibility to vote.

    1. KarenS

      I agree Twitter is Liberal (establishment corporate power). They also blocked a Bernie supporter this summer as she threatened support for HRC. Major outcry got her reinstated and it just reinforced Bernieorbusters to Demexit and vow to never vote for Shillary.

  10. A friend just sent this to me and I found it interesting – I thought Glenn Beck was anti Trump – yet this was posted on his site The Blaze. Seems like Beck is trying to salvage his waning business….

        1. Zervos was humiliated on national television by Trump and Carolyn Kepcher. You think she might not be the most disinterested person?

        2. Sigh, yet another bleached blonde who wanted to be a star. Such a Cali cliche. Someone call the whambulance, oh wait,she’s with her attorney – an outraged feminist no doubt.

      1. Summer Zervos??? ROTFLMAO:


        Age: 31

        Residence: Huntington Beach

        Experience: Started as a restaurant salad girl at 13, now owns Sunny’s Restaurant in Huntington Beach.

        Summer Zervos paid little attention to “The Apprentice” before she auditioned for it last year, but she still felt she knew what to expect.

        “When you work at a restaurant, the people who sit at the counter every day, they know everything about everything,” Zervos says.

        “They watched the show and so we’d talk about what we’d do in those kinds of situations.”

        She auditioned in Huntington Beach last spring and after many rounds of interviews was chosen for the show.

        “Getting on the show is a full-time job, and so when you’re picked, you think, ‘Gosh, it was hard to get there, what’s next?'” Zervos says.

        “It’s extremely intense,” Zervos says of the experience. “Hard work. I learned a lot about myself and how you respond when the pressure’s on. I left admiring Donald Trump a lot more than when I arrived.”

        Hard work and hard times are things she feels she shares with Trump.

        Her family had always worked in the restaurant industry, and most still do today, even after business woes caused them to lose their restaurants and to have to start over from scratch.

        “They went bankrupt at the same time that Donald Trump did,” Zervos says. “He came out a little better than we did.”

        She loves her restaurant, but the opportunity of “The Apprentice” seemed a once-in-a-lifetime shot.

        “Here’s a show that provides an opportunity to work for several companies and see how you’d do,” Zervos says. “A pretty exciting opportunity, wouldn’t you say?”

        Hmmm. Maybe Gloria Allred could be talked into representing Juanita Broaddrick???

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Don’t you think the statute of limitations has run out? The alleged assault happened in 1978. You will have a full time job discrediting the Trump accusers. The count is up to 15 and growing.

          1. Nope. They will all peter out once the election is over. I would not be surprised if they end up with well over a thousand accusers. Maybe you could be one, too! All you have to do is find some concert Trump went to, or restaurant 20 or 30 years ago, and say that you were there and he felt you up! Just think, you could a hero, too! Maybe even get to meet Gloria Allred!

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

              1. You’re judging them truthful without devoting much thought to details, circumstances, &c. Because that’s what you feel like doing.

            1. i am more of a where there is smoke there is fire mind set with regards to these abuse cases. Certainly was the case for Cosby and Ailes.

              1. Well, you’re easily gulled. Once there is a critical mass of accusations, people’s skepticism collapses and a lot of lice can crawl on the back of legitimate accusers, particularly if you have a class action settlement and there might be some cash in it. That can include adding elements of a media template to your complaint. I doubt you’ll ever sort it out in Cosby’s case.

                Cosby’s problem is one might guess that he took advantage of his position and accommodated women who were s***f****** and woman willing to give horizontal auditions. Having got what he wanted from them, he then forgets about them, leaving them feeling used (as they were). Do I believe Bill Cosby drugged nearly 40 women over a 27 year period? No, because in the world in which we live, a man in Cosby’s position doesn’t need to slip women mickeys. (Think of Bob Crane’s history, to take one example). That’s regrettable, but that’s our rancid culture.

          2. Accused him of what? There was a dubious lawsuit filed 20 years ago and otherwise it’s air – e.g. he was in the dressing room at Miss Teen USA in 1997. As for Broaddrick, she was an established businesswoman who had nothing to gain in 1997 when she reported what Clinton had done. And what he did wasn’t a vulgar non-crime, it was a class B felony (under New York law, for example).

                1. Squeeky,
                  I hadn’t read your earlier posts about Simmer Zavos and Gloria AllGreen when I asked “can Gloria All$Green$ be far behind?”
                  I had been wondering for the past few days when she’d surface, and why it was taking her so long, with so much “at $taks.

  11. Jill, speaking of labels – how about SJWs? At one time this was a good thing and then it got co opted by PC liberals whining about cultural appropriation, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc.

    True SJWs used to put their lives on the line — or at the very least get behind real issues like Shailene Woodley who got arrested in ND at the Standing Rock protests

    Maybe we just need to drop the monikers? =)

    1. I think that every good must be turned around by the powerful so that they can stay in power. A social justice warrior or peace maker as in the case of Standing Rock, is a person who cares for others and the earth. They are people of courage and integrity. Having ethical and intellectual integrity, caring about life, is the exact opposite of what the oligarchy wants in this society. The Podesta e-mails spell this out when they say they are creating compliant, dumbed down citizens.

      Part of this work is denigrating people who have a true heart. It is necessary for them to turn having a desire for justice into something stupid and inane. But wanting social justice, having integrity and having courage are the very things the oligarchy fears most. That is one reason why a peaceful camp protesting the destruction of our drinking water is faced down by a militarized police force.

      Attacks on speech on the internet and in physical protest will be met with all force the oligarchy has to bring to the table. While those who work for CTR cannot do physical harm, they can do propaganda, making people unable to know the truth. Protesters get the guns. The police state works in many ways.

  12. Oh My! Suspended for 12 hours? Will the republic end this week? or next?

    While not a fan of hindering any speech, O’Keefe is a career criminal with a history of cutting and pasting videotapes to create a false impression. And with a seeming lunatic screaming that he will sue any media outlet for anything truthful, but negative, maybe a private company is just being prudent.

    btw – Aren’t there dozens of other media outlets that lean or tilt 100% conservative. Am pretty sure his message got out and had it amplified by “alt right” sites such as………………….

    1. Bill W,

      You are missing an important point. Twitter is suppressing free speech.

      You should not accept this because the length of time is acceptable to you or that you do not like the person who is making the speech. Suppression of free speech is wrong. Free speech is one of the few things that allows a society to function as something other than a totalitarian state. Every person of conscience should condemn this action. It is for the good of all that we do not accept suppression of free speech.

      1. I am not missing anything. I expressed my reservations (“not a fan of hindering any speech”). But understand this is a private company subject to lawsuits – and the person in question is a career criminal with a lengthy list of fraudulent actions.

        btw – Shouldn’t we be more concerned by the constant attacks on a free press through threatened lawsuits by a sexual predator?

        1. Then Bill, they should have been able to tell him exactly why they were suspending him, that her is a career criminal with a lengthy list of fraudulent actions and in this case while he wasn’t engaged in criminal activity or fraud they wanted to check to see if there was any chance he was engaging in those activities. Instead, they couldn’t give him the reason. (If engaging in fraud is a reason to suspend a twitter feed, they do need to suspend Hillary Clinton’s twitter feed immediately!)

          Which sexual predator, Trump or Bill Clinton?

          A frivolous lawsuit can shut down a news enterprise and that is bad news. However, I will point out that the organizations revealing Trump’s crimes have very deep pockets and are unlikely to be shut down. It will also take time for these suits to go through, something that censorship by twitter or FB or the MSM doesn’t have to deal with. They can just shut down free speech and the free flow of information on a dime.

          Further people do have a right to sue for libel. I wouldn’t think Trump or Bill Clinton has a leg to stand on in this matter, but bot do have the right to try and prove in a court of law that they was lied about by a media organization.

          1. Further people do have a right to sue for libel. I wouldn’t think Trump or Bill Clinton has a leg to stand on in this matter, but bot do have the right to try and prove in a court of law that they was lied about by a media organization.

            No, they don’t. A credit reporting service who bollixes something might be liable. An employer who offers a blunt assessment in print of an employee might be vulnerable. The courts have seen to it that their media pets never are. You’re defined as a ‘public figure’ if you’ve been written about, and the burden of proof for public figures is impossibly high. An NBC affiliate in Florida deliberately doctored a tape of a call to the police made by George Zimmerman to injure his reputation (and poison the well for an upcoming jury trial). Zimmerman was not a celebrity or public official. He was joe average working in an insurance agency. Zimmerman’s defamation suit was thrown out. That would not have happened under pre-1967 defamation law.

            1. You’re correct in that it’s a high bar. They can still sue.

              This all misses the point of the suppression of free speech by twitter. This isn’t something any person should support, even if it helps to cause to which one subscribes.

          2. Once again, its a private company. Faux news (on public airwaves) doesn’t allow competing viewpoints on their networks. Maybe you should be railing about that? I do not know Twitters terms of service. But that is the only thing Twitter needs to follow. And if o’fraudster doesn’t like the way he is treated then he can go elsewhere. That is the business risk Twitter takes blocking any speech.

            As for threatening the press, there is only one candidate doing that on a regular basis. Only one that provides press credentials based only on a favored status. And deeper pockets should not be the metric for suits against a free speech. Because only those with deep pockets (including maybe the clintons against their accusers) generally have the means to pursue such actions. One current candidate has for years used financial leverage and the courts to break contracts with smaller contractors. Criminal in theory? yes! In practice, forcing settlements for less makes it legal…….and the business basis for conservatives to back possibly the most unqualified US major party presidential candidate ever. Yippee! For the red, white and blue!

    2. While not a fan of hindering any speech, O’Keefe is a career criminal with a history of cutting and pasting videotapes to create a false impression.

      He’s nothing of the kind. His investigative work is inconvenient to leftists so they lie about him.

    1. Autumn,

      That is interesting. It’s not wikileaks who is a prop for Trump, it’s Clinton and her staff who said and did these things. People should know what is being said and I would hope, be offended by it.

      Shooting the messenger is necessary to protect the powerful oligarchy. So many lap dogs!!!

  13. BTW, wikileaks just released the next set of Podesta e-mails. Earlier today they have information on TiSA.

  14. I love this from the Committee to Protect Journalism: “Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.” (Too bad the US doesn’t have this any longer!)

    So far, very good. Then, Trump is against a free press, a unique danger! Well o.k. then. We won’t bother looking at any of that Clinton suppression of free speech, things like complete collusion with the MSM. No, to this Committee, it’s only right wing censorship that matters. Guess what, a real liberal cares about suppression of free speech whenever it occurs–period!

    1. Jill,

      re: “Guess what, a real liberal cares about suppression of free speech whenever it occurs–period!”

      The meaning of Liberal has been co opted by SJWs and Hilbots. To me it is an ugly term – I consider myself to be a Progressive. Progressives seek truth and facts. Liberals ignore them when inconvenient to their delusional support of the Demoncrats. Progressives are non partisan – we entertain opposing POVs.

      I sent a Liberal friend an article from Breitbart about Wikileak revelations re HRC. His response? “Tell me you don’t read Breitbart” – nary a word about the content! And this is a highly educated person.

      Also Liberals are lacking in humor. A lifelong friend who lives in NV called and told me she and her husband had just completed a 2 hour training course to serve as poll watchers. My response: “great! hopefully you two can ensure that HRC doesn’t steal the election” SILENCE

      1. Hi Autumn,

        I really don’t know what words to use any longer because neither liberal, conservative or IMO, even progressive have the meaning they used to. I know self identified progressives who adore Obama and Clinton. There is nothing even remotely progressive about either person. Since when did murder, torture, starvation of the poor, war and mass surveillance become part of the “progressive” agenda?

        So, I understand what you’re saying. I’m an old fashioned liberal but we need new words. They have been corrupted, just as the media has been corrupted!

        1. No true Progressive supports HRC period. Everything she & Obama stands for is against Progressive values. Real Progressives are Bernieorbusters who have moved over to Jill – and swing states to Trump to defeat the establishment globalist corporatist machine.

  15. (music- to the tune of Where Have All The Flowers Gone)

    Where have all the bloggers gone?
    Long time passing!
    What happened to BarkinDog?
    Long long time ago.

    JT is a hypo Crite.
    He’s a hippo crite.
    All this yak about twitter.
    Is phony as a shitter.

      1. Most of the ones who went away (liberal Democrats) just could not stand real “free speech” where people were also free to criticize them for their dumb beliefs. When it ceased being a Democratic Party Echo-Chamber, they high tailed it out of here. It had become obvious that all most of them could do was call names, and when they were met with facts (and some name-calling right back in their faces) they could not get out of the door fast enough. I even wrote them a poem, way back then, to reflect the nostalgia for their lost safe space:

        The Echo Chambers of Yesteryear
        A Poem by Squeeky Fromm

        The Echo Chambers of Yesteryear
        Are calling to me now.
        The comforting sounds of my own voice
        To soothe my weary brow.

        Voices echoing my own thoughts
        Reverberate around.
        I lay my head upon my hands
        And listen to the sound.

        And nary one dischordant note
        Is plucked within this womb.
        No flats, no sharps, unless in key
        Are heard within this room.

        And here, my mind in safe repose
        In silken threads is twirled
        As the Echo Chambers of Yesteryear
        Cocoon me from the World.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Dictionary definition of hypocrite:
          a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

  16. What about the censorship and banning on this blog? Wonder where all the fellows went? Brush your teeth with Pepsident.

  17. Being a dyke has nothing to do with any of this. This is about powerful people helping to protect the lies and secrets of other powerful people. The oligarchy has been able to hide it’s actions for quite some time now. Left and right, they have literally been getting away with murder.

    Now, information about the deep state is starting to come out more rapidly than they are used to. They are trying hard to stem the disturbing nature of their own secrets and lies. The oligarchy is controlling as many avenues of speech as possible. This isn’t time to worry about dykes, it’s time to worry about the suppression of information for the benefit of the few, against the many, dykes included!

    1. Being a dyke has nothing to do with any of this. T

      Being a dyke is strongly corellated with SJW dispositions, so, yes it does.

      1. So for you two, only dykes are repressive of free speech? WOW, all those heterosexual white men who would never, ever even think about suppressing free speech!!! Who knew? Now that I know this I can return to my worship of Bush and Cheney as protectors of free speech! Thank you for the enlightenment!

        1. Jill, I cannot help you with your reading comprehension issues, your issues with basic honesty, your inclination to be highly opinionated about things very remote from your daily life, your lack of a single demonstrable decent impulse, or your horrible manners. I cannot help you with any of it.

          1. That was rude and uncalled for. It is unfair to attack Jill in this way. What I read in this exchange was a misreading and misunderstanding. She should have not responded sarcastically, but you were out of line, too.

            Being lesbian has nothing to do with it. Milo and Camille Paglia do not hold positions because of their sexuality.

            1. Prairie Rose – both Milo and Camilie are famous because of their sexuality. If they were straight no one would listen to them.

              1. True, but they do not base their views on their sexuality.
                I think its ridiculous to bring up a person’s sexuality as an opprobrium to discuss that person’s viewpoints. It makes the argument less convincing and adds unnecessary rancor to the discussion.

Comments are closed.