Twitter Suspends LibsofTikTok For Featuring Liberals Talking About Themselves?

Twitter Logo

Twitter has continued its ever-widening censorship of social media this week with the suspension of the popular site, The @LibsofTikTok. What is interesting about this latest move is that it lacks even the pretense of neutrality. The liberal group Media Matters had targeted the site due to its use by Fox News and conservatives to run embarrassing stories for the left. So Twitter suspended a site that entirely features liberals talking about themselves.

Twitter suspended the site for “hateful conduct.” It warned the site “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

However, the site highlights liberals speaking about themselves and their values in their own voices. There is no explanation, which is common for the company. It simply suspended the site and told it to reform itself.

Formed in November 2020, the “Libs of Tik Tok” account has more than 613,000 followers on Twitter and has become a major feeder for conservative new sites. Clearly, if the site changes videos or misrepresents what was said, it can be sued for defamation or false light. However, the primary objections online is that the site fuels criticism of the left.

The success of the site drew the familiar crowd demanding the silencing of opposing voices or groups.

Notably, the liberal Media Matters stressed that the site had simply become too successful. Sophie Lawton described the reposting of liberal voices as “targeting teachers and schools with anti-LGBTQ smears.” She described that the site was growing in influence as the basis for stories by Fox, Joe Rogan, Meghan McCain and others.  However, all she describes is the use of tapes of liberal subjects talking about themselves and objects that “the Libs of TikTok content has become ammunition for their arguments.”

That was apparently enough for Twitter, which defined reposting liberals to be a form of hateful conduct.

The action seems consistent with the chillingly anti-free speech agenda of Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal. In an interview with Technology Review editor-in-chief Gideon Lichfield, he was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment.  Agrawal responded:

“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.

One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention.”

Twitter seems to have followed Agrawal’s lead. It is not just thinking less about free speech. It is not thinking of it at all.  Libs of TikTok was getting too much attention so it suspended it without further explanation.

Notably, there are many sites that watch and repost videos of evangelical ministers and conservative figures for use on liberal sites.  That includes “Right Wing Watch” run by the liberal People for the American Way. It is all free speech. However, Twitter is now in the business of shaping viewpoints and values. It has, according to its CEO, simply moved beyond free speech.

Given such actions, it is understandable why Twitter employees are reportedly not just in a panic over Elon Musk buying the company (and reintroducing free speech principles) but even requiring emotional support to just “get through the week.”

That is the problem with free speech. Just when you think that you have moved beyond it, it just comes back. For corporate censors, it is a perfect nightmare.


136 thoughts on “Twitter Suspends LibsofTikTok For Featuring Liberals Talking About Themselves?”

  1. The interesting thing is Twitter CEO’s comment.
    Clearly he doesn’t understand the 1st Amendment, or how being what Musk has called the quasi Public Square (paraphrasing).

    Remember his remarks when the government starts to crack down on these companies.


  2. (OT)

    Turns out that both Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Chip Roy are among those who pushed the illegal plan to certify fake slates of electors and install the candidate who lost the Electoral College vote:

    The DOJ is already investigating this conspiracy:

    I wonder who, if anyone, will ultimately be charged in this conspiracy.

    1. Mike Lee said: “We the undersigned offer our unequivocal support for you to exhaust every legal and constitutional remedy at your disposal to restore Americans faith in our elections.”

      I understand why you think what he said was terrible. He included the word legal, and you are more accustomed to deception and lies.

      1. I have no problem with that particular quote.

        Keep reading. For example: “I really think this could all backfire badly unless we have legislatures submitting trump slates (based on a conclusion that this was the proper result under state law). Even setting aside constitutional concerns, this will be harmful to the president if we don’t channel this effort properly. We simply have no authority to reject a state’s certified electoral votes in the absence of a dueling slates, with the Trump slate coming from a state legislative determination.”

        The thing is: no state legislature made such a determination, yet in 7 states, slates of fake electors sent documents to the National Archives, copies here:

        “Matt Sanderson, a Washington lawyer who represents many Republican clients, said the purported Trump electors might have committed the crime of making false statements by signing documents describing themselves as the “duly elected and qualified” presidential electors from their states and by claiming that they met to vote at their state capitols, although some were actually turned away. The submissions from New Mexico and Pennsylvania included a kind of disclaimer saying the submissions should be counted if courts later determined that they were, in fact, the qualified electors from their states.” But the electors in other states did not include that kind of disclaimer.

        Interesting that Lee initially pushed Sidney Powell — “Powell is saying that she needs to get in to see the president, but she’s being kept away from him. Apparently she has a strategy to keep things alive and put several states back in play. Can you [Mark Meadows] help her get in?” but later decided “Unless Powell can immediately substantiate what she said today, the president should probably disassociate himself and refute any claims that can’t be substantiated.” Then he started pushing Eastman: “John Eastman has some really interesting research on this. The good news is is that Eastman is proposing an approach that unlike what Sidney Powell has propose could be examined very quickly.” However, Judge Carter recently ruled that “it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

        Meyer the Troll Liar, aka the one and only Anonymous the Stupid:
        Projecting your own faults onto others — “you are more accustomed to deception and lies” — is one of your frequent ways of trolling.

        1. You haven’t described anything illegal other than the usual blunderbuss that happens after a candidate loses the election…democrat or republican.

          1. I suggest that you read Judge Carter’s ruling about why he concluded that “it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” and therefore the crime-fraud exception applied to work product that otherwise would have been protected.

            Conspiracy to obstruct Congress is illegal. Judge Carter didn’t attempt to assess whether there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime of conspiring to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, as he was ruling on a civil suit, not a criminal suit. We’ll have to wait and see whether the DOJ charges anyone in the Trump Admin with criminal conspiracy to obstruct Congress. Several J6 defendants have already been found guilty of criminal obstruction of Congress.

              1. Carter does not even get what constitutes an actual crime right.

                It is within the constitutional powers of congress to REJECT the electors submitted to congress.
                The constitution is NOT Ceremonial.

                Where it requires a vote – those voting are free to vote yea or nay.

                While it was highly unlikely protestors were going to get what they wanted.
                It was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. Carter is CLEARLY wrong because there have been objections to states slates of electors in every election. There have been votes against slates. Yet no senator or representative has been charged for voting against those slates.

                And to ice the cake – in the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 – we had something very close to what we had in 2020.
                Competing slates of electors, claims of fraud – plenty of actual fraud – because like in 2020 the 1876 election was NOT by secret ballot.
                Voters were given prefilled ballots and paid to drop them in a ballot box.

                You should really read about the election of 1876 as that is precisely where we are headed – if we have not already gotten there.

                Non one can criminally conspire to get congress to do what they are legally free to do – no matter how unlikely that may be.

                1. “Carter does not even get what constitutes an actual crime right. ”

                  And yet you’re unable to quote anything he said that’s wrong and provide evidence that his actual statements are wronog.

                  Instead, you invent straw men to battle.

                  “It is legal garbage. There are so many fundimental errors.”

                  Yet you’re unable to quote any.

                  Eastman has chosen not to appeal the ruling, so we won’t find out whether any actual judge agrees with you.

                  If I accuse someone of being wrong, I generally quote what they said, and I provide evidence. For example, you are wrong when you claimed “Stone was found guilty of collaborating with Russia.” He was not indicted for “collaborating with Russia.” Stone was indicted for obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering ( and found guilty on those 7 counts.

            1. I have read it. It is legal garbage.

              There are so many fundimental errors.

              The first is free speech.

              The second is that much of what he thinks Trump conspired regarding is NOT A CRIME.
              The next is that legal oppinions – even wrong ones are NOT A CRIME – or half the left bar would be in jail.

              Had the capital not been closed on Jan 6. and protestors been allowed in and demanded that congress delay certification of the election.

              That would NOT be a crime. BTW this is another legal disaster of the entire nonsense.

              There is a crime of obstructing a proceding – like a trial, there is no crime of obstructing congress – there can not be.
              Congress makes laws – that is POLITICS, It does not Enforce laws. When you obstruct a trial or even an administrative hearing, you are obstructing the enforcement of the law – a crime, just as if you used your car to block a policemen.

              Congress is political, not law enforcement. If SCOTUS does its job all the obstructing a proceeding charges will be found unconstitutional.

              You shoudl ALWAYS presume that when no one has ever been prosecuted for this crime in this way – that is probably because your stretching the law where it does not go.

              None of the Kavanaugh protestors were charged with this idiocy. Because this is an effort to create a crime where there is none.

              And you are an idiot if you support this.

              One of the things the left never grasps is that when they warp the law like this – it ultimate gets used against them.

            2. People are found guilty of things they did not do all the time.

              Stone was found guilty of collaborating with Russia. Yet, the horowitz, report, the mueller report, Durhams work all prove beyond any doubt – ZERO russia collusion.

              And you wonder why no one trusts a DC jury ?

    2. Anonymous, you read into things what you want to see. The wording by the Justice Department was very interesting. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said federal prosecutors were ‘looking at’ the matter – using careful language to avoid providing details of any investigation. The Deputy Attorney General did not say that there was an investigation going on. When she doesn’t want to say there is an investigation going on she says “We are looking into the matter.” The plain language could have been that an actual investigation is underway. She did not say these words. Oh well, you will read into things what you will. We expect no real analysis.

      1. As I said: I wonder who, if anyone, will ultimately be charged in this conspiracy.

        Maybe the investigation will result in charges, maybe it won’t. But the DOJ got referrals from State AGs, and they’re investigating, whether or not you approve of the phrase the DAG used used.

    3. These plans are NOT illegal, The constitution leaves state legislatures solely responsible for electors.

      There is not even a constitutional requirement that states have citizens vote.

      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”.

      That is the totality of the constitutional constraints on electors.

      I would FURTHER note – that unlike other election provisions in the constitution – there is NO role for congress.

      Any federal law regarding the appointment of electors is on its face unconstitutional.

      I would further note that this is also pecisely why the congressional counting an certification are NOT proforma.

      Congress CAN and has been presented with competing slates of electors.
      It is extremely rare that a challenge to electors succeeds – but it has rarely done so in the past.

      Further there has been a rep or senator challenge one state or anothers electors in every single election.

      This is how the process works.

      Had Clinton produced compelling evidence of russian influence in 2016, and been able to persuade congress to reject the electors of several states – she wouldhave constitutionally won the 2016 election.
      That HAS happened in the past – though not for over a century.

      Regardless you do not just get to make up the law and constitution.

      Further if we are going to punish congressmen for objecting to electors – about 1/4 of democrats in congress would be criminals.

      1. “ These plans are NOT illegal, The constitution leaves state legislatures solely responsible for electors.

        There is not even a constitutional requirement that states have citizens vote.”

        Interesting point, you’re not wrong on that technically. There is no constitutional requirement that states have citizens vote, BUT state constitutions do. You can’t have state representatives just deciding to choose the electors they want every time the losing party doesn’t like it. State laws regarding electors vary and legislators can’t just ignore voters’ choices. Switching electors contrary to what the voters choose is no different than what communist countries do with their “elections”

        Plus changing electors using false claims of voter fraud would be hard to justify. Especially when those claims turn out to be untrue. As it turned out in Arizona and Georgia. That would be actually stealing an election.

        What about the 15th amendment?

        “ Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

        Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

        It does mention the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied

        1. It does mention the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied
          You have to read it all together.
          on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

      2. “These plans are NOT illegal, The constitution leaves state legislatures solely responsible for electors. ”

        Again: the state legislatures in these 7 states did NOT authorize the alternate slates of electors.

        Yet in those 7 states, fake GOP electors submitted documents to the National Archives, in 5 of them claiming that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America” from their states, when that was false. Those certifications are contrary to parts of 3 US Code Chapter 1.

        In the other 2 states, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, they wisely didn’t claim to be the “duly elected and qualified Electors” from their states, but instead said that they were submitting the slate “on the understanding that it might later be determined that we are the duly elected and qualified Electors …” (NM) and “on the understanding that if, as a result of a final non-appealable Court Order or other proceeding prescribed by law, we are ultimately recognized as being the duly elected and qualified Electors” (PA).

        More than one State AG has referred these fake slates to the DOJ for investigation of possible crimes, including fraud and forgery. Here’s an example from Michigan:
        For example, the fake MI electors might be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371– Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

        “Any federal law regarding the appointment of electors is on its face unconstitutional.”

        If charged, they’re free to argue that. If you want some legal background, here’s a relevant GAO Report:

        “you do not just get to make up the law and constitution. ”

        I agree. But I haven’t made up anything.

        1. More than one State AG has referred these fake slates to the DOJ for investigation of possible crimes, including fraud and forgery.
          This is the fallacy.
          The federal govt has no standing. There is no such thing as a federal election. Only State Election. The DoJ has no power. Unless you are claiming Amendment 15 discrimination violations.

          1. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress some power over Presidential elections and Congressional elections.

            The Supreme Court has rejected some federal election laws and upheld other federal election laws.

            You can whine all you want about your bizarre belief that “The federal govt has no standing,” but your personal beliefs about this do not change federal law or court rulings. They sent documents to the National Archives falsely declaring themselves to be the “duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America” from their states, and they may constitute crimes.

            If you think that 18 U.S.C. § 371– Conspiracy to Defraud the United States — is unconstitutional, then you can donate to their legal fund if they’re indicted for that.

            1. If you think that 18 U.S.C. § 371– Conspiracy to Defraud the United States — is unconstitutional,
              Exactly how has the Federal Govt been defrauded?

              You cannot get through your head, that the federal govt is inferior to the States.

              1. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress some power over Presidential elections and Congressional elections.
                There is no “Presidential’ Elections. Only the choosing of electors. Even that requires no election.

                1. If you have some personal tic that prevents you from using the phrase “presidential election,” OK. Most other people have no such tic.

                  The Constitution states “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the [Presidential] Electors,” and Congress passed 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 — Presidential Elections And Vacancies, which in part specifies that “The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.” The 2020 presidential electors were chosen via election on Nov. 3, 2020, per the various state laws on choosing presidential electors:

                  You may believe that 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never said that.

              2. 18 U.S.C. § 371 doesn’t require that the government was defrauded, only that there was a conspiracy to defraud it.

                You apparently cannot get through your head that there are federal laws regulating presidential elections, including 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1.

                Since you’re so hung up on state law, though, AG Nessel in MI has also said if the DOJ doesn’t charge the fake MI electors under federal law, then she will charge them under MI law. I don’t know whether any other state AGs have reached similar conclusions about the fake electors in their states.

                1. Defraud how?
                  MI should go ahead and file the charges. When has the DoJ ever charged a person over the naming of electors?

                  1. Prior to 2020, when have fake electors ever tried to pretend that they were the legal electors?

    4. I wonder if the AG will be impeached for conducting a politically motivated investigation of clearly constitutional conduct ?

      Will someone be charged – I do not know – the Biden admin is so corrupt, who knows what it might do.

      Might they even convict – almost certainly – a DC jury will convict for being republican.

      Regardless – those like you do not grasp that all you are doing is making things worse.

      Democrats are becoming both increasingly radical in policies and in the extremity of their conduct and tactics.

      But new tactics typically only work once. And with every new cycle something more extreme must be tried.

      Honsetly I am surprised ANYONE is willing to vote democrat anywhere in the country today.

      Democrats, have been caught so many times in so many big lies.

      If you want people to beleive you when you say the election was not stolen – then you have to behave as people who would not try to steal an election.

      The misconduct of Crossfire Huricane, the soft coup, the SC appointment and investigation, The Faux impeachments, the hunter biden coverup, the lawless conduct
      of democratic governors, the untrustworthy abuses of power reqarding covid, the 1/2 Billion dumped into running an illegal GOTV effort using local election officials.
      The efforts to supress free speech.

      All these are conduct of people who seek to win at all costs, for whom the ends justify the means.

      Go ahead keep doubling down on Stupid. All you are doing is making the backlash even larger.

      I doubt Trump will run in 2024. But Currently he is leading Biden by 5% in the popular vote.

      You frequently get away with immoral and unconscionable conduct.

      But it ultimately does not matter – because you FAIL to govern well.

      Obama was a poor president, Biden is with near certainty going to be the worst since Buchannon – possibly including Buchannon.

      Even voter Fraud will not help you.

  3. If the Twitter criteria is that if comments made by liberals that are used by conservatives to make liberals look bad then it must follow that comments made by CNN employees must also be banned because conservatives use those comments to make liberals look bad. Twitter must then not allow comments by any left wing organization because Republicans will make them look bad by repeating those comments. It now seems that Twitter doesn’t want liberal ideas to be exposed because in so doing liberal thinking might be exposed and pointed out to the detriment of liberals. What we have here is the existential display of a chicken running around with it’s head cut off. The brains are gone.

  4. Kind of reminds me of the “great replacement”. If CNN or another s@@tlib talks about the United States and Western World becoming more non-White, it is praiseworthy and commendable. And “diversity” is a strength, right? If I discuss it, it’s a conspiracy theory and am probably considered a domestic terrorist.

    S@@tlibs only supported free speech when it was communists and pornographers who were the targets.

    When I am weaker than you, I ask for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

    Don’t worry s@@tlibs, you’ll have your beloved “hate speech” laws here once the “woke” generation is running things.

    I want a divorce!


      1. Antonio pays taxes to support racists, bigots and trolls like you. You need Antonio.
        America however does not need more groomers, ph@gz and pedophiles like you.
        Go help Ukraine with their war against Biden’s friends in Russia. Send pics of you holding a weapon


        1. You seem consumed by your homophobia.

          I’m not gay. But I’m a Jew! Are you an anti-Semite as well as a homophobe? Time will tell.

      2. Another word for divorce in politics is called secession…no emigration needed.

  5. If SNL ever decides it wants to be funny again instead of woke, this development is custom made. RIP Gilbert Gottfried.

  6. So, let me get this straight, Twitter suspended this group because they were doing a Jeffery Toobin (exposing themselves in public)?

  7. It isn’t a problem with free speech, it’s a problem with snowflake millennials. Some of us have been crowing about it for years. Their fragility is such that the wrong kind of rain drops send them into a panic. Good job, their parents. And still a real person, trolls. Darren, as admin, can see all of our email addresses. He lets you post anyway. Think on that.

      1. What a worthless, welfare sucking, POS troll you are to groom this blog 25/8 or when youre not tweaking from crystal meth in WeHo. Hunter Biden will be in prison soon which means your crack dealer will be cutting you off any week now

      2. Elvis Bug (the deleted one) was removed from the blog numerous times. I believe the reason was foul language. Why do you try to demean Darrell’s efforts to keep the blog clean? If Darrell removed EB for such a reason, then one should expect EB’s responses to be removed as well.

        You are a nasty person.

        1. James said “Darren, as admin, can see all of our email addresses. He lets you post anyway,” and I was simply providing evidence that sometimes Darren (not Darrell, as you mistakenly name him twice) lets people post and other times Darren deletes comments for no good reason.

          1. My understanding is the Bug was censored more than once for foul language. If a post of his got through, one cannot complain that it was deleted.

            1. The comment had no foul language, as you can see for yourself in the archived copy.

              1. If he were banned from posting, it was rightfully deleted if a post slipped through. Is that so difficult to understand?

                  1. I know he was banned multiple times based on what he said. If you wish to say that he doesn’t know, that is fine with me. You don’t seem to get the point. The vast majority of comments not posted are explainable. Of the unexplainable ones, you have pointed to several unexplained disappearances that occurred with Bug and anonymous, both of which had been banned.

                    If you had a valid complaint, there would have been a lot more based on the tens of thousands of posts. Basic statistics say you are making a mountain out of a molehill that might not even exist.

                    1. Again: I was not talking about comments that are “not posted.” I was talking about comments that are posted and then removed hours later.

                      There are lots more, but I don’t go around archiving most of Turley’s columns, so for most comments that are removed, there’s no way to see them once they’re removed.

                      If eb was banned, then Darren makes strange choices about why to ban some people. Wen Bars encouraged another commenter to kill themself, and Darren removed the comment, but didn’t even give Wen Bars a warning.

                    2. “Again: I was not talking about comments that are “not posted.” I was talking about comments that are posted and then removed hours later.”

                      That is precisely what I was talking about. Isn’t it strange that your proof has relied only on two aliases, Bug and anonymous, over a long time? Both of them have reasons for their responses to be deleted. You are doing nothing but passing wind.

                      “Darren makes strange choices about why to ban some people.”

                      You want to be boss, but you don’t have the credentials or the ability. Much of what we hear from you is complaints about Darren and Turley. That is a sign of frustration and that you cannot pull your weight on the day’s topic.

                    3. “Isn’t it strange that your proof has relied only on two aliases, Bug and anonymous, over a long time?”

                      No, I’d previously given an example of a comment from Squeeky, and I haven’t ever given an example from an Anonymous commenter.

                    4. “I haven’t ever given an example from an Anonymous commenter.”

                      That was under discussion in January, where I successfully predicted which ones of your ‘generic anonymous postings’ would be deleted. The following was one of those posts. You’re mistaken again. The first is my comment the second is yours.

                      >> “I expect the following comments to be deleted.”

                      >Because the moderator is biased.”
                      “No, I’d previously given an example of a comment from Squeeky”

                      I don’t know how many different aliases have appeared on this blog. Squeeky’s comments were frequently on the edge. There may have been a reason to delete some, likely due to a misunderstanding of her sarcasm.

                      That leaves three names out of countless aliases. That means you prove my contention: “If you had a valid complaint, there would have been a lot more based on the tens of thousands of posts. Basic statistics say you are making a mountain out of a molehill that might not even exist.”

                      I think Darren and Professor Turley have done dam- good jobs.

                    5. ATS, did you forget what your claim was? You were demeaning Turley or Darren for inappropriately deleting comments. The comment you posted by Squeeky was legitimate. That is why I said: “Squeeky’s comments were frequently on the edge. There may have been a reason to delete some, likely due to a misunderstanding of her sarcasm.” That makes your demeaning comment wrong.

                      As far as my quote between you and me, I believe that was deleted and probably justifiably so. There was a series of emails back and forth occurring on Jan 10. You can check the blog and the web archive.

                    6. How is anyone to provide evidence of the past conduct of an anonymous poster ?

                      You are demanding the impossible.

                      Logic is not your forte.

      3. Anonymous, I too was banned because I tried to use more than two links in one posting. You admitted that this is what happened to you in one of your previous comments. I was originally upset when one of my comments was not allowed. Darren explained the rule to me and I understood. So what did I do? I simply made a second comment and posted my third link in that comment and it was then allowed. Why should we be surprised when you don’t provide all the circumstances?

        1. First, you were not “banned.” You simply had a comment blocked because of excess links. Banning and blocking are not the same, and neither is the same as removing a comment after it has posted.

          Any “circumstances” are shown in the archived comment.

          The comment from eb posted normally (it was not automatically blocked) and later it was deleted by Darren.

          1. To date, your proof that Darren is deleting comments unfairly has not been proven by you. In fact, over time, you have provided a minuscule number of examples, and there appears to have been a reasonable reason for all deletions.

            You are making a case for something non-existent.

              1. I don’t have a timeline, so I can’t say anything except, to my knowledge, the Bug was banned numerous times and even changed his name on several occasions. If he posted while prohibited, it was correct that his remarks were deleted. You are showing posts by Bug, who admitted to being banned multiple times. Doing so repeatedly without other evidence diminishes your credibility.

    1. James,
      Granted, the fragility of the snowflakes is note worthy, what about those in public school now who are being indoctrinated to hate themselves or others based on the color of their skin? Or to the degree of confusion they may feel about being born a given sex?
      It has been noted the degree people now feel it is their right to bring their activism to work. Wokeism is divisive and hateful. What would compel me to hire such a person who will create a hostile work place for everyone else not interested in wokeism?

  8. Democrats are Fascists in EVERY SENSE!

    if you don’t vote Republican you hate America

  9. Democrats are AT WAR with America
    McConnell and leaders of the RINO are at war with Republican Voters!

    Trump, Musk and a few others are our only hope!

    1. I disagree – The only hope for Republican voters is keeping the people you call RINOs on their side. So continue to attack and malign them, and you’ll end up with a split Republican party and another Georgia 2020 senate run off race. How’d that turn out for you?

      1. carpslaw: I believe you are correct in your prediction(s). Republicans should learn how Democrats succeed: Never criticize your own, and accept everyone and everything, -good or bad, -so that the Democratic Party will grow in number and maintain power.

      2. So keep the geriatrics who keep caving every single time to the radicals?? Been there, done that. Done.

  10. Re: LibsofTikTok “personalities”.
    Maybe the radical Dems got a good look at themselves and it gave them the same fright they give the majority of the nation? The characters they screened on TV reminded me of the bar scene in Star Wars.

    1. they are too lazy, too greedy and too amoral
      They want MONEY…and will do anything for it!

      1. Entitled is the word that comes to mind. If the don’t get their way they throw a fit – kicking and screaming like ill mannered children.

  11. Getting back to the actual content of the post, if I understand this correctly, Twitter is censoring what liberals say in their own words on a public platform, which they proudly post themselves, because the idiocy of those words are being used to prove what idiots they are? No wonder the Left is afraid of Musk owning Twitter.

  12. this abandonment of the democratic process by the RNC.
    I am not responding to a specific post, nor am I feeding a particularly mentally challenged individual.
    This is just to amplify the way leftist get simple things so wrong….but with authority, volume, fail to get things backwards.

    The Commission of Presidential Debates, is a corporation. It exists to provide a service. The Republican National Committee….is a corporation. It exists to provide a service.
    Neither of these Corporations are Constitutional creations.

    These Corporations are no more political than ABC, FOX, or Home Depot.

    The Commission of Presidential Debates, sells its services. When the consumer of the service explains to the corporation, the services offered no longer fill the needs of the consumer, and the corporation fails to address those concerns, the corporation will lose customers.

    There are ignorant posters here. But we get the real time examples of stupid. Those that lack the intellectual capacity to learn

  13. Elon Musk Gives His Definition of Free Speech
    The Tesla CEO also addressed a potential strategy for the edit button, and we have word from Trump on whether he’d walk into Elon’s open arms.
    ByKevin Hurler

    Elon Musk spoke about his definition of free speech at a TED live event this afternoon.

    Following his $43 billion offer to buy Twitter, Elon Musk shared his perspective on the future of the social network on Thursday during a live TED event.

    Elon Musk talks Twitter, Tesla and the future at TED2022

    When TED’s Chris Anderson probed Musk (a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist”) on how the website would approach free speech under his ownership, Musk didn’t seem particularly concerned, stating:

    A good sign as to whether there is free speech is, is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? If that is the case, we have free speech. It’s damn annoying when someone you don’t like says something you don’t like. That is the sign of a healthy, functioning free speech situation.

    Musk branded his buyout of Twitter around filling the need for an “inclusive arena of free speech” and expressed interest in open-sourcing the Twitter algorithm to reduce any behind-the-scenes manipulation. Musk also described his interest in shutting down “spam and scam bots,” as well as integrating an edit button to tweets.

    When asked about the potential for abuse of an edit button, the Tesla CEO appeared uncomfortable and half-heartedly suggested that all retweets and likes will be removed from an edited tweet to prevent people from pulling a bait-and-switch with a viral tweet. He also said he has a “plan B” if his hostile takeover of Twitter fails but declined to say what that entails.

    Meanwhile, the only American President to be banned from Twitter told Americano Media on Wednesday that he has no interest in returning to Twitter, though many of his fans are begging Musk to make that happen. Former President Trump explained that Twitter has silenced some of his favorite conservative voices (he seemingly uses the words “good” and “conservative” as synonyms) and reminisced about the good times when he and his constituents “would go after” left-leaning profiles. “Twitter’s become very boring,” he said.

    Trump was permanently banned from Twitter in January 2021 following the riots at the U.S. Capitol “due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” the company said. It was exactly that moment that the clouds parted, the sun shined a little brighter, and the dumpster fire of Twitter discourse was downgraded to a more manageable trashcan fire. Earlier this month, Twitter told the Daily Mail that the company has no plans to reinstate Trump’s notorious account.

    Of course, Trump is still claiming that his Twitter-clone platform Truth Social is still the future. MAGA fans who’ve actually managed to log in to the platform, have been disappointed to find that Trump doesn’t use Truth either. Considering the fact that Truth’s moderation policies are more strict than those of Twitter, it’s probably for the best that he lays low.

  14. I would agree with tinkertom2021. If your are going to criticize an action by the RNC, jeffsilberman, then at least give the entire reason they stated that they were withdrawing form the Debate Commission. The RNC has previously mentioned that they were considering this withdrawal action and they had stated what they were asking the Commission to change. The RNC had been quite open about it. This was hardly a bombshell or missile strike out of the blue. I thought that their requests were reasonable. One of the main problems with misinformation is quoting out of context, or giving only partial quotes. You know that thing about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that attorneys so often deal with.

  15. Twitter’s civility rule:

    “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

    Turley’s civility rules:

    “Civility and Decorum Policy:

    This blog is committed to the principles of free speech and, as a consequence, we do not ban people simply because we disagree with them. Indeed, we value different perspectives and do not want to add another “echo chamber” to the Internet where we each repeat or amplify certain views. However, the Turley blog was created with a strong commitment to civility, a position that distinguishes us from many other sites. 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. There are times when a poster reveals information about themselves as relevant to an issue or their experiences. That is fine and is sometimes offered to broaden or personalize an issue. For example, I am open about my background and any current cases to avoid questions of conflicts or hidden agendas. However, researching people or trying to strip people of anonymity is creepy and will not be allowed.

    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. However, such transgressions should be raised with me by email and not used as an excuse to trash talk or retaliate. I am the only one who can ban someone from the blog and I go to great lengths not to do it or engage in acts that might be viewed as censorship. We do not delete comments as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Yet, we have had a few people who simply want to foul the cyber footpath with personal name-calling, insults, and threatening or violent language. We will delete personal threats and openly racist comments. If such posters will not conform to our basic rules (which should not be difficult for any adult person in society), they will have to move on.

    We do allow comments as well as anonymity, which some sites have disallowed. It is a curious thing how anonymity will unleash vile and dark impulses in people. Yet, anonymity is part of free speech and, while we have discussed eliminating anonymous comments due to abuses, we are trying to preserve this important element to free speech. It is possible to be anonymous but not obnoxious.”

    Compare and contrast.

    1. Jeff,

      Apparently you don’t obey the 10 commandments of the lord.

      Jeff, today you should paint lambs blood on your door posts. And sing hymns while the destroyer passes by.

  16. What amazes me is that approximately 40% of the country supports censorship.

    Short step from censorship to depriving citizens of other rights.

    Lefties don’t realize that they are destroying our social fabric and that we will push back.

    1. What amazes me is that approximately 40% of the country supports censorship.

      America is not at risk of another nation invading us and taking our rights, But rather we would freely cede our rights for empty promises.

  17. This is just funny. Soon Twitter will only have posts from liberals, and the ridiculousness of their posts will prompt Twitter to ban everyone.

    1. JS

      I realize that you enjoy agitating, but try to stay on this side of stupid.

    2. So I take it you have nothing of value to say on the topic at hand?

    3. Perhaps you should read the article you referred to.
      The Republican National Committee chairwoman clearly stated:
      “”Debates are an important part of the democratic process, and the RNC is committed to free and fair debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates is biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates including hosting debates before voting begins and selecting moderators who have never worked for candidates on the debate stage.”

    4. Jeff,I have defended you in the past, but even I am getting tired of your nonsense. The RNC doesn’t want to be told that the “conservative” moderator will be Chris Wallace and the liberals will be FAR LEFT LOONS. Why should the RNC accede to having a communist from Telemundo, a foreigner no less, being a debate panelist?

      As for you Jeff, seek help, you are really a nut.

      1. Hullbobby,

        All I did was point out a newsworthy story in hopes that Turley will comment upon it! Turley does not disparage Liberals as “loons” nor does he attack anyone as a “communist” as you do. If he did, I would not follow his blog.

          1. Correction- “American Nazis” in retaliation to being referred to as an “American Marxist” by a Trumpist

Comments are closed.