Twitter Suspends Journalist Who Repeated CDC Fact on Vaccines

Twitter LogoGreg Piper writers for the news site Just The News and recently decided to share a story from The College Fix, where he was previously an editor. The story included the line “Vaccines are not safe for everyone.” That line appears to have prompted Twitter to suspend his account despite the fact that some people have medical exemptions from the vaccine due to the high risk posed by preexisting medical conditions. Indeed, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that some people cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons. The latest censorship controversy is reminiscent of the suspension of writer Alex Berenson after he posted the public results of a Pfizer vaccine trial.

The CDC repeatedly has stressed that “All states provide medical exemptions.” CDC website also states that “all states and the District of Columbia allow a medical exemption. A medical exemption is allowed when a child has a medical condition that prevents them from receiving a vaccine.”

This is a standard question for all vaccines. The CDC has a site titled “Who Should Not Get Vaccinated with these Vaccines” that stresses “because of age, health conditions, or other factors, some people should not get certain vaccines or should wait before getting them.”

Specifically on Covid-19, the CDC warns “adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19.” The CDC offers a list of people who have a high risk of severe illness from the vaccine.

However, when Piper noted that “vaccines are not safe for everyone,” he was hit with a suspension for spreading misinformation by Twitter:

Even if Piper’s posting is controversial, the suspension is another example of Twitter enforcing its own corporate view of “the truth.”  It will not allow anyone to debate or discuss opposing views on such subjects.  If Piper’s positing is misleading, then allow others to rebut or refute the posting. Instead, Twitter is enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history.
It is the license of the censor.  Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation. Many on the left, however, have embraced the concept of corporate speech and censorship. It turns out that the problem with censorship for many was the failure to censor views that they opposed. With the “right” censors at work, the free speech concerns have been set aside.

66 thoughts on “Twitter Suspends Journalist Who Repeated CDC Fact on Vaccines”

  1. Government, unfortunately, has to step in and regulate these big tech companies to prevent them from censoring people and spreading their own disinformation. There is no other choice. Big tech is far too powerful. Along with the media they control the narrative, and it’s manufactured to benefit them. Just as free speech has limits, so to does free enterprise. When Republicans regain control of congress and the presidency something drastic needs to be done to release the stranglehold big tech has on speech.

  2. Of course vaccines are not safe for everyone. Not even saline is safe for everyone, because some people have nickel allergies and can’t tolerate the line.

    Do not let the elites control what you can read, watch, or say.

  3. Competition being impossible, and reasonable, effective “patent rights” expired, Twitter, Facebook, Google et al. must be “taken for public use” after “just compensation” and operated as state-regulated utility monopolies.

    5th Amendment

    No person shall be…deprived of…property,…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  4. A majority of the population have cross-reactive (i.e. preexisting), naturally acquired immunity, or are otherwise resistant to infection and disease progression. So, the conditional risk of infection and disease progression should be weighed against the absolute risk of vaccines and 12, perhaps 40 trimesters of missing safety data. The irony is that the general distribution of non-sterilizing vaccines, in an extra-clinical trial no less, are known to be a first-order anthropogenic forcing of viral evolution, which from the data in Britain, Israel, and other jurisdictions, has shown that the pathogen is more transmissible, less deadly, but poses a 6x greater risk of progressive viability to people who are fully vaccinated. And he science long ago established in random controlled trials (with trained personnel) and recently confirmed that masks, even with the minority manifestation of droplet spread and following strict protocol, work with random effect at best, and increase infections at worst, but appeal to cargo cult scientists, and offers limited legal indemnity.

  5. OT: Some on the blog need a better understanding of CRT.
    The Left’s CRT Straw Man Shows They Don’t Trust Parents to Teach Morality

    I taught history in Poland soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. My students were eager to learn objective truth–something which the Soviet regime abhorred. When I look at the fight over Critical Race Theory (CRT), it reminds me of the party-approved curricula that my students’ parents remembered from the days behind the Iron Curtain. Like the Soviet Ministry of Education’s dogma, CRT is blatantly ideological. It’s no wonder CRT’s proponents are intent on muddying the waters with bad faith arguments. …

    No one is asking for schools to not teach about slavery and Jim Crow, or shy away from any other painful parts of our history. …

    Adherents to CRT must believe that white people will always be complicit in racism against non-white people regardless of good intent. In other words, Ocasio-Cortez wants children to be taught to judge each other by the color of their skin. …

    It’s no secret that one of the aims of Soviet education was to consolidate all learning in the hands of the state. CRT’s activist approach to teaching history aims to achieve a similar end. …

    1. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. the racist label “people of color”, “people of white”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination. And while bias is intrinsic, prejudice is progressive. Not quite the wicked solution, but there are diverse precedents for its evolution.

      That said, diversity of individuals, minority of hone. #HateLovesAbortion

  6. To this day Twitter is full of (likely tens of millions) tweets claiming Trump, with the help of Russia, stole the election. Not just old tweets either. I’ve never seen or heard of twitter or Facbook deleting such tweets/posts or suspending or banning peoples accounts for spreading this disinformation.

  7. Here’s a novel idea, STOP using twitter.

    If you still use it, YOU are the problem

  8. Scientific truth is what the party says it is.

    Anyone ever heard of Maxim Lysenko?

    Surely one of my super intelligent, morally superior leftist bettors will know. And can provide an explanation why this is different.

    I can hardly wait.


  9. I looked for that very list at the CDC site yesterday and it is not there. Has a big OOPS! on spot where it was.

  10. Legal issues aside, no one should excuse Twitter’s fake ‘righteousness”, suppression of speech, and suppression of facts. Everyone should should vociferously condemn, denounce and ridicule twitter. Anyone who makes excuses for Twitter’s actions is just perpetuating intolerance and lies.

  11. Seems like th eonlu misinformation in this instance came from Twitter. Do they suspend themselves?

  12. Yet there are those that insist Twitter’s behavior is acceptable and instantly challenge any question of Twitter’s legality.

    1. Those people stand on the idea that Twitter is a publisher. That is true, but the law, including laws Congress has enacted, places these companies in legal jeopardy. Unfortunately, those same people don’t want to look at the laws because Twitter today is on their side. They will howl the loudest when tomorrow Twitter is against them.

      1. Twitter will never be against them. This isn’t about the law it’s about ideology.

        1. Not all of Twitter’s ideology now or in the future is in line with them. That is what the Maoists and Bolsheviks learned when they were put in jail after the revolutions.

  13. If you actually read the law (47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act)

    It is very broad and gives a lot of leeway to the internet provider.

    The issue is that our government has made these companies quasi government organizations. Under the SEC rule FD guidelines… the obligation of disclosure is met thru a twitter announcement. So if you want to follow a stock… you had best get on twitter and follow that stock otherwise you will not be the first to get announcements. Same too for Government news as well.

    Same with FB.

    The problem w Section 230 is that the only violation is if the company acts in ‘Bad Faith’. Yet how could they act in ‘Bad Faith’ if the law allows them to censor anything that they themselves find objectionable?

    Zuckerberg is Jewish. Suppose he kept Kosher. Someone posted a recipe for the ‘perfect cheeseburger’. This isn’t kosher and Zuckerberg finds it objectionable. He orders all conversations around cheeseburgers to be censored. Under Section 230, he would be protected from any ensuing lawsuits, including restaurants who can’t publish their menus that mention cheeseburgers. (I don’t have a FB account… so I have no idea what gets posted…)

    Now that’s an absurd example, but it goes to show a point. You can’t say that they acted in ‘bad faith’.

    Because we as a society now rely on these tech giants who along w MSM have censored news to the point that over 50% of the people never knew of Hunter’s laptop prior to the election… We need to scrap or rewrite CDA. The issue. FB and Twitter can hire a team of lawyers to defend themselves. Smaller competitors can not. So here, doing the right thing protects their monopoly.

    And yes, I said it. These companies are monopolies and its easy to show how and why competition cannot be successful in becoming competitive.


    1. Then change the law, but until then, a user has voluntarily entered into an agreement with Twitter to abide by its rules. A monopoly does not invalidate a binding contract.

      1. The status of being a monopoly by itself doesn’t invalidate a binding contract, but that doesn’t mean all contracts are correct, legal or binding.

      2. @Jeff,
        A shrink wrap agreement?

        The fact that in certain roles or fields… one must use twitter.
        So that they don’t have the ability to avoid it.
        Nor can competitors flourish.

        They are a defacto monopoly and until they are ruled as such… then we are stuck. They have the DNC in their pocket.

  14. The first thing a lawyer should do is to examine the terms and conditions agreed upon by a Twitter user. To my knowledge, Turley has never referenced this contract in his articles. Nor, to my knowledge, has Turley ever cited case law to bolster his contention that Twitter,, are subject to the First Amendment free speech prohibition.

    I am not unsympathetic to his concerns, but if he wants to make a legal case, he should cite supporting case law, if any, and explain how the consent by the user to the terms and conditions of Twitter is a nullity.

    Finally, just once, it would be nice if Professor Turley would provide a hypothetical example of vaccine disinformation which he believes Twitter should remove from its platform. Presenting hypotheticals is the sine non qua of a law school education by which good cases are distinguished from bad.

    Regrettably, Turley, the polemicist, is not giving us the full benefit of his expertise as a lawyer or a professor.

    1. @Jeff,

      Again as always you attack Turley and miss the point.
      Twitter is a monopoly and their actions of censorship cause harm.

      One area of law never looked at is if Twitter and FB are found to be monopolies would they still be able to argue CDA Section 230 protections?


      1. I wish Turley would discuss the law in detail and cite authorities. He does that often in articles, but not in regards to Twitte,, because I suspect these cases are novel. I am not attacking Turley! I am simply requesting that he provide more LEGAL analysis. This is a law blog after all!

    2. Finally, just once, it would be nice if Professor Turley would provide a hypothetical example of vaccine disinformation which he believes Twitter should remove from its platform.

      He has made it quite clear that he’s a free speech absolutist. So he’s likely going to continue being a disappointment to you.

      1. Olly,

        If asked, I believe Turley would provide a few examples of intolerable disinformation which poses great risk of harm, e.g., taking Trump’s advice to drink bleach for a good cleansing. The question, as always, is where one draws the line.

        1. “taking Trump’s advice to drink bleach for a good cleansing. The question, as always, is where one draws the line.“

          Ha, ha, ha, only idiots interpret Trump’s statement that way.

        2. Jeff, Why do you demean yourself by using an obvious falsehood. You know Trump never said to drink bleach. He never said to inject it either. It has been totally debunked that he ever called our servicemen ” suckers and losers”. The ” Russian Bounties ” story was also not true. You have made numerous ,sound legal arguments .Like you said this is a legal blog. Please stop continuing to put a Trump spin on most things. Not a psychiatrist but as a layman I believe this falls into the category of obsession. I wish that those on the left, just one time could address a serious problem in which one of their own has been caught red handed, would not invoke the ” What about Trump defense”.

          1. I believe Cuomo should resign and be prosecuted, but still what about Trump? Trumpists believe that he is above the law OR believe Trump’s lie that ALL the women are liars. Ok, I stand corrected on the consuming of bleach, but it was a dangerous suggestion nonetheless and one that should be banned from platforms

            1. “but still what about Trump?”

              You stand corrected on a lot of things. Like this crazy idea of yours, no one can fix your errors without telling them what your issues are. It would help if you documented them so everyone knows what you are talking about. This time you did, and you got an answer. You were wrong.

              You are wrong about most things, including what people on the right and Trump think about the vaccine. So far, the Trump supporters or libertarians seem to have mostly taken the shot. Did you learn anything from that? No.


            2. Jeff, maybe I am not interpreting your statement incorrectly. But if you ” stand corrected” on the consuming of bleach, how is it a dangerous suggestion? And could you provide information on when Trump said ” ALL women are liars”? If true ,is it possible that context could be appropriate? To my knowledge it would be impossible to find someone who has never lied. I am sure you have told a ” fib ” or two in your life. Is it possible that if true, this statement could have the same format as the ” good people on both sides” blunder. As stated before it was stupid to utter those words in any context at that event. But you need to listen to the whole statement. If you cherry pick pieces it is utterly contemptable.
              And is it going to be the mantra of the left for eternity whenever a Democrat is caught doing something perceived to be wrong or criminal to use the ” What about Trump” defense. That is akin to ” My dad can beat up your dad”. IT IS WEAK!! Why is it not possible to judge each case on it’s own merits?

              You say Cuomo should resign and be prosecuted. Why dilute a reasonable and succinct conclusion with ” what about Trump” ?

              1. Paul,

                In this thread, Olly posts a link to Turley’s article about the dangerous of Trump’s reckless ingestion comments. My memory failed me as to the exact wording of Trump’s remarks, but they were no less irresponsible. Check out the link. As for Trump calling his accusers liars: I’m not aware that Trump has ever admitted to any of the sexual assault allegations except his general propensity to sexually assault women in the secret recording.

                My apologies for not explaining myself so that you can understand me. I DON’T credit the “what about” argument. It does not disprove the allegation at issue. All that argument demonstrates is that the accuser is a hypocrite because when the shoe was on the other foot, he was silent. Therefore, because he is a hypocrite, he has no moral standing to accuse anyone. But the “whataboutism” actually reinforces the wrongfulness of the allegation at issue because the whatabouter is claiming that the wrong the hypocrite failed to object is just as bad (or even worse)! Whataboutism proves that BOTH examples are bad, but that the hypocrite does not have the right to be heard. But someone who is not a hypocrite because he DID complain when the shoe was on the other foot can tell the whatabouter to stuff it.

                Whataboutism is totally irrelevant in a court of law and should be in the court of public opinion, but it often works to deflect criticism. That is why Republicans so despise someone from their tribe, e.g., Liz Cheney, who criticizes Trump because “whataboutism” is unavailing to deflect her accusations that Trump is a liar.

      2. Jeff doesn’t believe in free speech, so he has a problem understanding anyone that does. He’s a wannabe slave owner.

    3. Hilarious, so some on left are now happy that the corporations control speech in the US. These must be different warm and cuddly corporations, different than the evil corporations that have fought for, low wages, pollution, overthrowing foreign governments and bribing governments that aren’t overthrown. Wait for the screams of anger if Trump or his buddy win in 2024 and he uses the same legislation. An unhappy country doing it’s best to make it’s citizens stay unhappy.

    4. Jeff is cheap. He doesn’t want to pay for tuition to an actual law school to get the answers he desires. It is plain bratty arrogance that expects Turley’s time for free.


    5. Have you considered writing or calling the prof to let him know directly how wrong he is? I suggest he doesn’t read these messages after posting his viewpoint so I’m not clear why the constant criticism of his personal opinion is so important that you relish in taking the time to do so.

      1. Thanks for the suggestion. Even if I knew his email, I doubt he would reply. He has no excuse for his hypocrisy. It’s undeniable and would be embarrassing for him to have to acknowledge. It is indisputable that Turley never criticizes Fox prime time hosts for what he denounces other hosts doing at competing cable networks. The record is manifest. It is important that Turley be held accountable. He often points out the hypocrisy in other networks in his commentaries. I do the same. That is all.

          1. Really? He replies? Always? Then why doesn’t he once in a while take the time to clarify his statements on his blog?

            1. Why are you asking me? I gave you his email address, ask him. Damn, do you need me to put in a good word for you? Pass him a note?

              1. Would you? I figure you and he have exchanged messages and are on good terms! If Turley were to provide a response to me, he may request that I not share his reply publicly. Even if he did make such a request, I don’t believe that it would be kosher for me to take the liberty to share his private comments with the blog. And I am not interested in learning his reply exclusively. It’s important that he go on the record publicly.

                  1. Olly,

                    I should have said “even if Turley did NOT make a request” that our email exchange be kept private, I think his reasonable expectation would be that it should remain so. Are you at liberty to inform us of your email exchange with Turley? Is it confidential?

                    1. Jeff, your persona on this blog has been bold and combative. You’ve fearlessly attacked JT on nearly every post he’s written. Now suddenly you’ve exposed yourself as comparably weak and submissive when faced with the prospect of confronting JT directly. The label Keyboard Warrior would necessarily define you.

                      Prove me wrong.

                    2. Olly,

                      Why do you evade my direct question to you? I am not afraid to email Turley. My concern is what good will be accomplished. It’s not important that ONLY I know his answer to my questions. It’s important that EVERYONE knows his answers. I repeat that I do not see the point of asking him a question unless it can be shared on this blog.

                      Since you have been on this blog much longer than I, is there any precedent of someone sharing a private email exchange with Turley?

                    3. ” It’s important that EVERYONE knows his answers. “

                      It’s important to you but not everyone else. Your narcissism is popping up.


                    4. Olly,

                      I often do search the archives, but unless I am mistaken, the search term only searches Turley’s headlines. I appreciate your giving me his email. I asking respectfully if you can direct to the correct information.

                  2. Olly, Jeff doesn’t wear big boy pants and he emphasizes that in his reply to you.

                    He’s a pampered wimp who doesn’t know how to act like an adult.

  15. I closed my Twitter account several months ago. Too bad. I enjoyed following a number of well known commentators. I just go to their websites instead and move on.

    Fool me once.

    The same is true for Google. They have great analytics but for 95+ percent of my searches I use alternatives with success and they don’t track every move I make. Google holds 92% of the market.

    Finding reliable information is like an Indiana Jones movie and everything around is collapsing or blowing up! We used to be able to mostly trust editors and reputable publishers to verify and assure that their news was “Just the facts ma’am.”

    1. “We used to be able to mostly trust editors and reputable publishers to verify and assure that their news was “Just the facts ma’am.”” — E.M.

      Not according to the late professor Dr. Carroll Quigley, noted historian and WJ Clinton’s history professor at Georgetown University. In his book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, he specifically names publications that, prior to the 1960s, published consistent and reliable “establishment” points of view for the masses. It’s quite the list, and his book, an interesting and informative work, is well worth reading. FWIW, parts of it were censored when first published in 1967, including the sections referencing media control.

      “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

      “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.” — Edward Bernays, 1928, Propaganda

Comments are closed.