There is a new controversy swirling around Twitter’s new rules allowing the removal or labeling of tweets that the company deems false or misleading. I have a column out this morning criticizing Twitter’s warning attached to recent tweets by President Donald Trump. However this controversy concerns the person who has said that he is in charge of “developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules,” Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth. Critics have highlighted fairly extreme postings from Roth calling Trump and his supporters Nazis. I do not agree that the problem is Roth’s personal views or postings. The problem is his role and the rules at Twitter. The problem is anyone exercising this power of speech regulation. Indeed, as this controversy grew around Roth, Kathy Griffin is the latest poster to face calls for removal for effectively calling for Trump to kill himself. Again, Griffin should be allowed to post such hateful thoughts and the rest of the world should be allowed to denounce her, again, for her unhinged humor.
The attacks are numerous, raw, and offensive. However, conservatives calling for him to be fired or his tweets censored are reaching the wrong conclusion. The problem is not Roth but his role. He has a right to express himself. I have no problem with Twitter hiring people with such political views and I believe it is a good thing for people to express themselves on social media. Indeed, we have discussed the free speech concerns as private and public employers punish workers for their statements or actions in their private lives. We have addressed an array of such incidents, including social media controversies involving academics. In some cases, racially charged comments have been treated as free speech while in others they have resulted in discipline or termination. It is that lack of a consistent standard that has magnified free speech concerns. We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here and here and here and here and here).
Roth’s comments highlight how bias is always a concern for those who take it upon themselves to decide who can speak or who must be “corrected” in communications with others. Twitter is notorious for a lack of consistency and coherence in the enforcement of its rules. However, regardless of such enforcement, there remains a core free speech issue in the regulation of speech. I recently criticized the calls of Democratic leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for greater censorship of the Internet and social media. Such calls have been growing for years but leaders like Schiff are citing the pandemic as a basis for speech monitoring and censorship. Roth is merely the personification of the problem of such speech regulation. Again, the real problem is his role and Twitter’s rules.
JT says “There is a new controversy swirling around Twitter’s new rules allowing the removal or labeling of tweets that the company deems false or misleading. I have a column out this morning criticizing Twitter’s warning attached to recent tweets by President Donald Trump.”
But Turley doesn’t link to that column, and I don’t see one about the “warning attached to recent tweets by President Donald Trump.”
To be clear, that warning was attached to tweets like these:
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255835124539392
The warning said: “! Get the facts about mail-in ballots,” and if you click on it, it leads to a Twitter release with statements like:
“- Trump falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “a Rigged Election.” However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.
– Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to “anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there.” In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.
– Five states already vote entirely by mail and all states offer some form of mail-in absentee voting, according to NBC News.”
Trump’s false and/or misleading claims harm the country, especially when they’re about things like voting or health. Twitter has no obligation to stand by silently while he misleads people. Shame on Turley that he’s criticizing Twitter’s attempt to deal with harmful misinformation.
Justice Brandeis, in Whitney v The People of the State of California:
“no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Twitter isn’t bound by Whitney, as Twitter isn’t a government entity. But Twitter is nonetheless doing what Justice Brandeis advocates: remedying some of Trump’s false and misleading claims by applying more speech.
It’s an easy problem to solve, just rescind the 1st Amendment. (sarc.)
Hellvis — Yup.
Mr. Turley is a hypocrite.
Text from his own Civility Rule page: “We do not tolerate personal attacks or bullying. It is strictly forbidden to use the site to publish research regarding private information on any poster or guest blogger. … Frankly, while I have limited time to monitor the site, I will delete abusive comments when I see them or when they are raised to me. If the conduct continues, I will consider banning the person responsible.”
If he’s willing to do this himself, he shouldn’t raise such a stink about Twitter’s rules.
to CommitToHonestDiscussion:
everyone knows that social media is a 1 sided jackass with painted stripes that can’t criticize an opposing viewpoint fast enough. Perhaps banning yourself IS the answer. Unless that is just another empty threat to make is say OH, OH PLEASE STAY! In the name of justice for me and none for thee, do what’s right, eh?
Wow, the irony couldn’t be more clear. It seems that even twitter if it dared could actually just shut down the president’s account. Even with the current threats to shut down social media platforms and the lying, twitter is well within it’s right to simply ban the president.
There’s a reason why the president has a press secretary.
If they ban Trump then they will have a hard time explaining why murderous brutes of the Chinese Communist Party still have the platform.
If the current information trade and political warfare with China goes kinetic, I favor shuttering twitter altogether. And the other quisling social media giants including Youtube-Google-Alphabet. Trust me, the government can certainly shut it down. And it will. The US still has the will to fight. At least with Trump at the helm.
It will be more important in the long run to win this war. or else we will eventually come under the domination of foreign masters in the CCP. They will shred our constitution just they are shredding the “one nations two systems” deal with Hong Kong now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/27/hong-kong-trump-china-security-crackdown-protests
Mr Kurtz. Double Like. Should be required reading!
Have you read any of his articles?
Thank you Mr. Turley for defending free speech, even though the (obvious) trolls here seem to miss that.
Anonymous, Turley may be “defending” free speech, but his own policies still reserve the right to censor it if he deems it abusive or cites false information. Turley is being hypocritical here.
Free speech is not a fixed quantum, it is a continuum. That it is a fixed standard, is a cherished illusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Information warfare is and perhaps always was, reality
Social media is a pig pen loaded to the max with disgruntled people who, by the luck of the birth (or hatch) hate anything about America and anyone who promotes America. I have now closed ALL my social media accounts.
These people who don’t really understand what the American capital system has done for them, need to go to a farm and plow mega acres behind a plow horse so they can experience what real work is like – instead of hate work.
I’ve had two 24 hour bans from Twitter for encouraging Trump to repeatedly punch himself in the face upon wakening. Apparently, I’m encouraging suicidal behavior.
I’ve also been kicked off this blog about 5 times for I don’t know what exactly. Let’s just say the moderation is quick on the censorship trigger, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Absurd points the moderator to discussions he wants quieted and it’s a done deal. Allan gets bogged down in his own nonsense and rabidly stalks and harasses people that point out the truth to him. So this place is protected for a certain sort of free speech, but not all. It’s not a public venue though. It’s private and there’s a definite philosophy here that reigns. And it’s the group that JT pumps out the articles for. My guess is he’s contractually obligated as a social media influencer to keep a certain voting demographic motivated (and it’s got to be torturous work these days as Trump is just f’ing up everywhere).
Oh, and Mitch McConnell *is* a “personality free bag of farts.”
That’s interesting only because I saw on the net a program titled something like “Biden let’s one rip during live interview.”
I never caught the sound bite, and it must be suppressed or I’d have seen it in more than one place, but as usual, as soon as some idiot demtard does something wrong, the other demtards start furiously projecting “to even the score”.
Hellevis:
I think you get kicked off for being droll and uninteresting but that’s just a consensus opinion.
Ha. You say “droll”.
“Allan gets bogged down in his own nonsense and rabidly stalks and harasses people that point out the truth to him.”
Your problem is not with me but with your facts and your interpretation of facts. When I respond you recognize that you sound like an idiot and fly off the handle. Then you reply with your characteristic behavior that should keep you from posting anywhere. However, the question is were you bounced or not smart enough to recognize that sometimes wordpress has failures that inadvertantly bounce people. In your case both are likely.
I’ve also been kicked off this blog about 5 times for I don’t know what exactly.
Narcissism would be a good candidate.
It’s private and there’s a definite philosophy here that reigns.
Our host is biased towards the law and justice. Embedded in that bias is a firm reliance on reason, facts, evidence and logic. Civility naturally flows from this philosophy. If you’re expecting the host to conform to your worldview and it’s incivility companion, then you can add insane to your narcissism.
My guess is #6 is in your near future.
Absurd points the moderator to discussions he wants quieted and it’s a done deal.
News to me.
Only Twits will tweet. A Twit is a dumb dork who can’t fart so he talks on line to spread his gasses. Trump can’t fart. Ask his dog. Bad air comes out backwards and out his mouth.
“Well, well, well. How the turntables…
Joe Rogan had Jack Dorsey and his flak on to explain his censorship, while Joe brought Tim Pool, who ripped them to shreds. There is no rhyme or reason to their censorship.
The problem is that “social media” has become nothing but political disinformation. I have been on Twitter for years but pay little attention to it. I recently decided to only use Facebook as a place to share news articles, share my blog and promote my books. Twitter hasn’t done it yet but Facebook recently blocked and canceled accounts from a number of legitimate editorialist web sites because they don’t like the expressed views. In short, they’re both worthless and their executives seek to restrict freedom of thought.
I have always fought hard for “free speech,” as provided in our Constitution. The real problem today, is that there is free speech for the left, but not for the right. Those vehicles that pretend to be for people to freely express themselves, have become too biased to be called free speech carriers. Article one of our Constitution is being perverted and destroyed by the left. They use our Constitution as a weakness in our system, to be used for their own purpose of gaining control over the people.
In every country that was taken over by dictators, that country’s own laws and rules, were used to grab power over the people. We are now faced with this same dilemma.
Jonathan Turley’s article looks like a convoluted attempt at defending trump. Twitter is not the government. It can regulate speech in its platform any way it sees fit.
Turley doesn’t dispute the fact that the president’s tweets ARE lies. Pointing it out is entirely twitter’s prerogative as non-government entity. Regulating speech such as limiting or deciding what can or cannot be said is a limit on government, not private sector businesses. There are instances of business owners demanding employees remove bumper stickers that are political because said employer doesn’t like it. That kind of censorship has been upheld in court.
This is nothing more than a poor attempt at defending a president exposed for lying.
Actually, he shows extremely poor judgment and shouldn’t be in charge of a Chia pet.
1. Eliminate New York Times v. Sullivan. It is a repulsive, unjust, and unjustifiable piece of judicial legislation. Subject our media to the rigors of British-style defamation law.
2. Initiate anti-Trust suits against major tech companies.
3. Insist they choose a role: common carrier or publisher. If it’s the former, they cannot censor. If it’s the latter, they are subject to the rigors of defamation law. No more special privileges for Facebook, Twitter, or Google.
Remember, leftists are liars and abusers by default.
Trump is posting on a private platform. He must follow that platform’s rules. He should have pitched off like others but he’s again is being privileged. “What about“ isn’t a defense or an excuse for lying.
Sooo, now you like Citizen’s United that says corporations should have free speech rights. Kewl!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Trump is posting on a private platform.
Again, is the platform a common carrier or a publisher?
Wanker.
“ Again, is the platform a common carrier or a publisher?”
Twitter and Facebook are not classified as publishers. They don’t actually publish anything. It’s their “customers” who do.
Trump just threatened twitter and other social media platforms with regulation and shutting them down, all because he was called out for….lying. Maybe JT should re-evaluate his position after those threats.
To: This is absurd x XXii, Justice Holmes, & Svelaz
Exactly when IS a company “private” when it is publicly traded and held by stock purchases made my anyone?
Perhaps your meaning of ‘private’ verses public needs a refresher course in DEFINITIONS.
Delmaracer, the point is twitter is not a government body. Free speech guarantees cannot be guaranteed when it isn’t a government body.
You forced private biz to bake a cake.
You forced private biz to serve who you say, not only whom they want.
You always make a private business a “constitutional rights” entity you crush for your lib agendas.
But now, when we all know the upper hand is a shrieking trans minority oppressed gun free arugula coffee cleansing tree hugging basket case dictating social media shadow banning, banning, removal, harrassment, and all the rest… ‘it’s a private company and can do what it wants, the constitution doesn’t apply !
If they’re not a publisher, they don’t need editors. This isn’t that difficult.
You’re being too literal the term “editor”.
Twitter obviously isn’t a publication. It’s a platform for anyone to post a comment, though, opinion, or grievance. A twitter “editor” only monitors for violations of it’s policy. Clearly they don’t do a good job enforcing their policy just as Jonathan Turley does with this site.
Twitter wants it both ways, or many ways. Below any of Trumps tweets the same 3 raging leftist goons appear near 100% of the time often the 1st reply but within the 1st couple, twin brothers and a dr eugene – they rage and screed and attack – then the rest of the lib mob goes nuts doing whatever they want, any lies are acceptable, attacks, shaming, you name it – bullying – everything the libs claim they are against. That all stands.
Then on the very same platform, as soon as an SJW dogma is breached, it’s the exact opposite.
Youtube turned into an MSM lefty promoter after the 2016 election – the search now reels msm news first, foremost, and only, for many pages of scrolling. They censored the very people that made them famous and profitable, in favor of left wing dogma. Before that they destroyed the formerly active, vibrant, helpful, and community oriented responses area, several times they downgraded it, removing features that made exchange and discussion easy – and turned it into a pile of confusing and often not directed to whom you are responding crap. Further, they screwed with the postings order, and even have messed it up so much posts can appear more than once scrolling down.
So what has been happening is the lefts destructive tendencies are separating people, information, conversations, community, entrepreneurs, and squelching everything they can that isn’t dem and lefty and sjw. It’s been going down the tube for many years, they take some, then more, then more then more always in the same direction.
I can hardly wait for the EXEC ORDER. I don’t expect it to do much, but at least it’s a start. I hope there’s a dozen more hammering the left wing tyranny to pieces.
You ought to learn the difference between a ‘lie’ and an ‘opinion’. No matter how much you disagree with that opinion!
what absurd said is the winning combination for the public interest and the common good!
and let me ask, do they pay a sufficient toll for their massive use of bandwidth? or is that all on public and users and utility companies>?
“Insist they choose a role: common carrier or publisher.”
Take note how the left suddenly changes its views on Anti-Trust and suddenly turn a blind eye to the fact that social media determines what they are based on claims made against them. They claim common carrier status when sued and publisher status when they wish to monopolize the written word. They are fascists and many would have little problem devolving into a type of Nazi state where they could carry out their dreams.
For example Hellvis says: “I’ve had two 24 hour bans from Twitter for encouraging Trump to repeatedly punch himself in the face upon wakening. Apparently, I’m encouraging suicidal behavior.” He actually is saying he wants Trump dead. That is how the Nazi’s acted except they had the power to carry out what is in Hellvis’s mind. Based on Hellvis’ mindset one could guess he would have fit in perfectly in the Nazi State.
What, liberals are intellectual and moral frauds? Say it ain’t so…
you’re just lapping up the kudos, miserable phkq that you are