“This Thing Matters a Ton”: MSNBC’s Melber Issues Dire Twitter Warning That Seems Oddly Familiar

MSNBC host Ari Melber had a revealing moment on Monday that seemed almost a clinical (if not comical) example of transference. Melber warns that Elon Musk might actually use Twitter to “secretly ban” or “turn down the reach” of a political party or candidate. That is apparently worse than Twitter openly banning candidates and suspending accounts of conservatives for years. Melber is warning the left that Twitter could be used against them . . . the way it has been used against their opponents. He emphasized “this thing matters a ton.” That is a ton more than it mattered for the last six years.

Melber warned his viewers that

“If you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t even have to be transparent, you could secretly ban one party’s candidate or all of its candidates, all of it nominees. Or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find about it til after the election.”

That is precisely what Twitter has been doing without a whimper of objection from most pundits on the left.

Melber actually warns that Musk might secretly ban political figures while warning that Donald Trump will have his ban lifted by Musk. While Trump said that he will not return to Twitter, Melber is worried that he could be allowed to tweet again.

None of this was a threat to democracy when Twitter was suspending dozens of political figures and commentators, including the President of the United States.

However, now it is dire as Musk threatens to restore free speech protections to the platform:

“It’s true if you are a democracy like the United States that used to regulate media ownership and say Rupert Murdoch can’t have too many local TV stations and newspapers in one town, they have laws for that are still on the books. Congress hasn’t gotten round to limiting whether someone can own all of Twitter.”

So media figures are calling for government regulation of media after the first major victory against corporate censorship. Musk may prove a fraud or prove to be a champion of free speech. Yet, it is hard to see the downside given the massive censorship system now imposed across social media. There remain media figures who would prefer censorship to the outbreak of free speech.

It seems that, when it comes to free speech, there are simply some people you cannot reach.

 

229 thoughts on ““This Thing Matters a Ton”: MSNBC’s Melber Issues Dire Twitter Warning That Seems Oddly Familiar”

  1. Karen says:

    “What’s the difference between fellow posters in the comments section of a blog saying they wish you would be quiet or leave, and the censorship, harassment, and banning of conservatives by Democrat-controlled Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, Google, K-grad school, and many corporations?”

    Trumpists here do not merely want me to hush-up; they want me to split. One wants me to die. They all would prefer I be banned.

    You say:

    “Well, the former is a blog, and none of the commenters who have a problem with you have any power whatsoever over who runs the blog.”

    Besides the point. I am discussing the principle of free speech, not the practice of it.

    You say:

    “It’s like a telephone operator listens in to all of your conversations, and interjects or hangs up on you if she doesn’t like what you say, regardless of how true it is.”

    I reject Turley’s likening Twitter to Ma Bell. A phone conversation is a private communication between 2 people unlike Twitter which is a communication broadcast to potentially millions of listeners. The analogy is absurd.

    You say:

    “The latter pretended to be a public square, but behaved as a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, deliberately working to tip elections.”

    Your Deep State paranoia is coming to the surface. I’d put a check on that if I were you. It does not serve you well.

    You say:

    “The only way to get kicked off is basically if you threaten or dox someone here.”

    That’s only because Darren is not enforcing Turley’s Civility Rule, to wit:

    “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…. 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.”

    https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/

    Turley bans far more egregious conduct than just physical threats or doxing!! Tell me, Karen, would you approve of Musk adopting Turley’s Civility Rule for Twitter? Would you be comfortable permitting Musk banning users for mere “insults?”

    You say:

    “They can wish to censor you, and you can wish to censor them, but none of you have any power to actually do so on Turley’s blog.”

    If anyone one of my detractors had his finger on the mute button, I would have been muted long ago. That’s the point. Turley is truly a free speech advocate. Trumpists not so much.

  2. Mespo,

    Are you suggesting that I am being a hypocrite for not resigning from a blog whose owner I have demonstrated to be a hypocrite? I don’t follow that logic. I’m not promoting Turley’s site by my participating as a contributor. I’m not a media influencer. I’m a nobody. Turley should resign from Fox News not because of the hypocrisy of its prime time hosts, but rather because he is profiting financially from a network which induces the rage which he *correctly* deplores at MSNBC and CNN. I’m not profiting from this blog!

    Have you ever listened to the screaming fits of Fox’s Mark Levin? There is a good reason why Turley has NEVER mentioned Levin’s name. Because then Turley would be asked whether he defends such a rage provocateur. By NEVER acknowledging Levin’s existence, he might be spared being put on the spot to answer for his silence in the face of the hateful rhetoric of his Fox colleague. When Turley submits to a long form interview one of these days, he’ll have to face questions about his hypocrisy. I don’t envy him.

    1. “Are you suggesting that I am being a hypocrite for not resigning from a blog whose owner I have demonstrated to be a hypocrite? I don’t follow that logic.”
      ******************************
      I’m suggesting — even saying outright- that if you are a man of principle you would not support a blog you believe is created by a hypocrite. If you do, then you are the hypocrite. It’s all very simple. You either state and then adhere to principles or you don’t.

    2. You have proven a hypocrite in your own mind as you talk to yourself in the mirror. All of the literal gibberish you just wrote is worthy of a KH speech. You can be as insane as you want to be and people have every freedom to wish you away and even block you. That is their right. What you are referring to regarding social media and forums isn’t under free speech, it’s under TOS and if you think that those haven’t been applied under the extreme bias across this weird dem/big tech oligarch you are sadly mistaken. It is considered assault in most places to threaten someone but name calling like “trumpist” and “dimocrat” are just low intellect, low vibe indications of bigotry that people have a right to say under the constitution. As usual you, the person this article is about and most anyone on the left who hypocritically suggests others, but not they are guilty of these things, are conflating nuances of totally different things. For example, histrionic people declare that “book banning” is unconstitutional and against freedom when Florida stops the influx of text books written by marxists who hate the constitution while at the same time demanding that Amazon gets rid of the walrus book and that Apple get rid of Truth Social (after successfully having them block other conservative attempts at having a place to speak). In the case of banning books from school, officials are not “banning” them from THE PUBLIC” but rather choosing books for education that stick with facts over inflated opinions by often mentally ill anti white and anti constitutionalists. Just as before books were being rejected that paint america and it’s diversity as good and patriotic. If banning porn in school libraries (which extreme liberals are screaming about) is unconstitutional then so is banning books by Amazon, banning conservatives by social media and banning the Bible from schools. What is taught and not taught in school is shaping our kids and in the case of Florida banning sex and gender curriculum we saw that indeed this was being done in schools by teacher/activists who were too emotionally immature to leave their private lives at home. There is a thing called normal and it’s called that because it’s not anomaly. Trusting science means anomalies present bias. That’s why they call thousands dropping dead of myocardial infarction after a vax “a RARE occurrence”. Teacher with anomalous relationships with themselves and others need to keep their personal lives to themselves because they are teaching children from diverse backgrounds and whether they like it or not, the children belong to families who have a right to teach and raise those children as they wish. The biased application of free speech and constitutional rights by a group of people who have labeled our constitution and founding documents as hate speech, but still use it to try to support their biases is the epitome of hypocrisy. You can’t even get more hypocritical than that. Furthermore, there is a difference between a person who wants to discuss things and a troll. You seem to fit the category of a troll. Let me put the definition in here for you: In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, online video game, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others’ perception. This is typically for the troll’s amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival’s online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]

      1. Train says:

        “You can be as insane as you want to be and people have every freedom to wish you away and even block you. That is their right.”

        Agreed.

  3. It’s wonderful to wake up in the morning and find that you have hit your mark. Thank you, Jeff Silberman.

    You were unable to manage Iowan’s truthful facts and rhetoric. In frustration, you said something like ‘another Meyer’. I am swimming in your head. That is good to know and a wonderful feeling.

  4. Melber warned that Elon Musk might employ similar censorship and banning policy tactics as the Democrats have, through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Google, the public education system, and most universities.

    That would be so unfair. Oh, wait…

    Only totalitarians fight free speech.

    1. Karen warns:

      “Only totalitarians fight free speech.”

      Wouldn’t it be grand if Turley and Melber had a debate? How about a moderated debate between the prime time hosts at Fox and MSNBC?

      RESOLVED: Twitter should ban Trolls.

      Turley claims that good speech will inoculate bad speech. However, Fox and MSNBC viewers exist in their own echo chambers. If both were forced to debate, then both audiences could hear what the other side is saying. They could then decide which side has the better arguments. Surely, you would applaud my suggestion.

  5. Mespo,

    I will add your vote to the other Trumpists here who wish to cancel me from this blog because my views trigger you. I understand you want this blog to be a safe space where opposing views are not tolerated. However, I will deprive you of the satisfaction of censoring me.

    Turley points out how conservative voices are being shut out at liberal universities, but he ignores the many Conservatives here who demand that I among others be silenced. One even wishes for my suicide. Were it put to a vote, I would have been de-platformed long ago by you free speech absolutists! While you people load the gun and point it towards me, only Turley can pull the trigger. So far, he has spared me.

    1. Jeff:

      What’s the difference between fellow posters in the comments section of a blog saying they wish you would be quiet or leave, and the censorship, harassment, and banning of conservatives by Democrat-controlled Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, Google, K-grad school, and many corporations?

      Well, the former is a blog, and none of the commenters who have a problem with you have any power whatsoever over who runs the blog. A blog does not receive Section 230 protection. It is basically a running conversation set up by a private person. It’s like one big telephone call orchestrated by Jonathan Turley, in which he puts a question or issue, and then sets the phone down. Another analogy would be Turley holding a cocktail party, starting a conversation, and then walking out of the room. As long as no one breaks any chairs, yelling is okay. It’s his private home, not a public park, so he sets the rules.

      The latter is the means why which Americans communicate information with each other, locate information on the internet, make their livelihood, or receive their education. It’s like a telephone operator listens in to all of your conversations, and interjects or hangs up on you if she doesn’t like what you say, regardless of how true it is. It’s like your livelihood or your degree is at risk unless you please the politics of those in power. The latter pretended to be a public square, but behaved as a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, deliberately working to tip elections.

      The reason you are allowed to post here is because you don’t trigger the Word Press filter with profanity or more than 2 hyperlinks. The only way to get kicked off is basically if you threaten or dox someone here. You can be left wing, right wing, politically agnostic, or as rude as you like, and your posts will still uploaded. It is not content moderated. What do you think this is? Twitter?

      Do you know why Turley ignores the demands of people who want you to leave? It’s ironic that you don’t seem to understand. It’s because they have the right to voice their opinions, too, as long as they don’t use profanity, more than 2 hyperlinks, or threaten physical violence or dox. They can wish to censor you, and you can wish to censor them, but none of you have any power to actually do so on Turley’s blog.

      1. “A blog does not receive Section 230 protection.”

        You’re wrong. Section 230 applies to the comments posted to a blog: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

        “The only way to get kicked off is basically if you threaten or dox someone here.”

        It appears that Squeeky was kicked off for her extreme racism. I’ve been told that Bug was kicked off for profanity (and Bug as a commenter being blocked is distinct from comments with profanity being blocked). So clearly the reasons go beyond what you claim.

        1. “You’re wrong.”

          A solid you’re wrong from ATS followed by his usual link instead of explicitly stating why Karen is incorrect. EFF (the link) says many good things most frequently heard from the right, but EFF is not a neutral site. It is on the left side of the aisle. When it deals with free speech issues, it stands up for the left, but when it is a right-wing issue of the same caliber, it is silent or brings up language to soften any attack on the left.

          Already, EFF questions Musk’s ownership of Twitter (that is fine) but failed to adequately protect speech rights on Twitter when Twitter was censoring everything on the right side of the aisle.

          After Karen is told she is wrong with a link, not an answer, ATS deflects and discusses Squeeky and Bug. He talks about Squeeky’s comments that, to ATS, were racist (she engages in sarcasm, so without knowledge of everything she writes, it can be hard to tell.) ATS said she was kicked off the blog, but as usual, he doesn’t know. She had mentioned that she might voluntarily leave, so for one to tie racism and her being kicked off the blog is a leap by a partisan who has little concern for honesty.

          ATS, you say things insultingly so, but you don’t follow through with the facts. Instead, you try to wrap your arguments around entirely different subjects, racism and profanity, the Bug and Squeeky..

          1. You post under the name S. Meyer, you post anonymously (which you admit here: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/20/aggressively-individualistic-miami-law-professor-proposes-a-redo-of-the-first-and-second-amendments/comment-page-2/#comment-2145741 ), and in addition to your old name, Allan, you’ve also previously posted under other names, such as Mark N. and Kayla, though you have not admitted it.

            You call some liberal anonymous commenters ATS (Anonymous the Stupid), but you are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, so named because you regularly lie in your attacks.

            Examples of Meyer the Troll Liar’s lies:

            “…instead of explicitly stating why Karen is incorrect”

            I did explicitly state why she’s wrong: “Section 230 applies to the comments posted to a blog.” And then I linked to evidence substantiating my statement that “Section 230 applies to the comments posted to a blog.”

            “ATS deflects and discusses Squeeky and Bug”

            It wasn’t a deflection, Stupid Troll Liar; it was a direct response to Karen’s claim that “The only way to get kicked off is basically if you threaten or dox someone here.”

            “ATS said she was kicked off the blog, but as usual, he doesn’t know.”

            I don’t pretend to know for certain, Stupid Troll Liar, which is why I said “It appears …”

            I truly feel sorry for you and your family that you are too mentally ill to control your desire to lie about people you dislike.

            1. ATS, you are hung up on anonymous postings. You dwell on it day and night, yet you post anonymously. You must hate yourself.

              I don’t lie. I tell the truth and provide my opinion. At the very least, you become confused between opinion and fact, which leads you to lie. When your lies don’t work, you deflect, confuse and change the subject like you generally do. This blog sounds like your life’s work. The only sane reason for you to act this way is if, in some way, you are rewarded for doing so.

              “it was a direct response to Karen’s claim”

              I reread what you wrote, and in this case, you are right. I guess I am too used to your deflection that I recalled only your comment on section 230. That is what happens when you aren’t a straight shooter. Sometimes you get accused of things you aren’t responsible for even though you are justly accused or should be most of the time.

              You said “appears,” but you are too disingenuous for one to accept what you say at face value because you use innuendo all the time, making people spend time correcting things. Lately, I have occasionally put the shoe on the other foot and made you spend the time since that is how you manage most of your arguments. You didn’t understand a truthful argument, so maybe you will better understand the argument you engage yourself with. By the way, when you accuse someone of racism, that is a pretty harsh term, so the use of apparently is not appropriate unless you have evidence. Though some of her comments were a bit edgy, even for me, other remarks by her seemed to indicate that she wasn’t a racist but was tired of being and living PC.

              My family is delighted to live the good life. Thank you for worrying. None that I know remain in lands that have been accused of Stalinist or Nazi types of behavior. Today, I come close to that behavior only on the net when discussing things with people like you. Fortunately, you can’t kill any of us at this time in history. I will work to see that never happens.

    2. JS:

      “I will add your vote to the other Trumpists here who wish to cancel me from this blog because my views trigger you. I understand you want this blog to be a safe space where opposing views are not tolerated. However, I will deprive you of the satisfaction of censoring me.”
      ***********************
      “I’m not censoring you. Say what you will. I’m just holding you to your self-expressed ethical principles. That only seems fair. You criticize JT for being a hypocrite and demand satisfaction by way of retraction or addition of your example. He does not oblige. Yet you continue to promote his site by your commentary.

      You set the rules for yourself. I merely pointed out that to promote hypocrisy is the very act of hypocrisy itself.

  6. I posted this today:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/26/this-thing-matters-a-ton-msnbcs-melber-dire-twitter-projection-seems-oddly-familiar/comment-page-2/#comment-2177913

    Let the record reflect that NOT ONE Republican, Conservative or Trumpist on this site criticized Turley for ignoring Hannity’s texts with Meadows violating journalistic values of non-partisanship which Turley rightly condemns being violated in the MSM.

    Because of this hypocrisy, you will forgive me that I am indifferent to your accusations that the MSM is hypocritical for ignoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

    You gotta walk the walk to talk the talk.

    1. Jeff, forget those texts. It was just a spontaneous riot instigated by ANTIFA elements disguised as flabby older White guys.

    2. Good grief, that’s hardly as important as the MSM blocking the Hunter Biden Laptop info from the public, which possibly cost Trump the presidency.

      1. This claim that the MSM didn’t play up “Hunter Biden Scandal” and that this cost Trump the presidency is pure manure. First of all, WHAT is the “Hunter Biden Scandal”? The story about the laptop came to light via disgraced and suspended former attorney Giuliani, who copied the hard drive, distributed copies to members of Congress before turning it over to the FBI, and who bragged that he had the goods on Joe Biden via the laptop that Trump would spring on Joe Biden to try to win the second debate after Trump flubbed the first debate so badly. It turns out that some of the material on the hard drive was entered after it had been left at the computer repair shop, that, plus the source (Giuliani) constitutes reasonable grounds to question the contents. WHAT is the “Hunter Biden Scandal”, and exactly how should this story be handled by MSM? Pro-Trump media have parlayed this into proof of some Biden criminal enterprise being hidden by MSM, but where is the proof? Even if it shows influence peddling, the SCOTUS ruled that influence peddling is NOT illegal, so what’s there and WHY would anything on the hard drive cause Americans to vote for Trump?

        Secondly, Trump couldn’t get back into office because EVERY poll predicted he would lose, after losing the popular vote in 2016, after never garnering even a 50% approval rating in 4 years’ time, after the shambles he made of our economy, after botching the pandemic by lying and downplaying the significance, causing unnecessary deaths and prolonged closings of schools, businesses and factories, resulting in shortages of consumer goods we’re now experiencing. Then, there’s the trade war he started with China after he couldn’t bully them into doing what he wanted, which has caused the computer chip shortage resulting in the cost of consumer goods going up, contributing to inflation. America NEVER wanted Trump in the first place. He may have been able to cheat his way past losing the popular vote in 2016 but gaining the respect and support of the majority of Americans was out of reach because his only legislative achievement was a tax cut mainly benefitting the ultra-rich. He is a chronic liar, a misogynist, xenophobe, racist, islamphobe and all bluster and show. Trump cost himself the “presidency” because he is, and has always been, unfit to be POTUS.

    3. Almost the entire MSM is in an incestuous relationship with the democratic party and you are wigged out about texts between Meadows and Hanity ?

      First Hannity is NOT a reporter. He is a talking head with an oppinion show – just like Stelter or Maddow or …

      Absolutely many of us criticise those people for being completely in the tank. But they are still oppinion shows – what we expect is opinions.

      And Politicians of all stripes try to game their way onto these oppinion shows for a few seconds of vainglory.

      I would greatly prefer to see the MSM actually go back to bringing on conservatives, no one expects they will get a friendly reception.
      But actual back and forth is valid. I would also prefer if the hosts acted as referees rather than picking winners and losers.
      Face it no one wants to watch a single team on the field playing football, and most of us want honest referees regardless of the team we are rooting for.
      Fox does a better job of this today than the MSM, but Fox has a hard time getting democrats to appear, while republicans have a hard time getting an invite to MSM shows.

      Still my point is this is an entirely different game – this is NOT journalism, or more specifically it is NOT reporting.
      Further most everyone knows exactly who every oppinion journalist favors.

      The journalist ethics you rant about are for REPORTERS – not Op Ed writers, not opinion journalists.
      Hannity is not a reporter.

      I really do not like Hannity.
      I would be happy to find out he had been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

      But claiming that he has violated journalistic ethics when he is not that kind of journalist is laughably stupid.

      1. I thought we agreed that it was a waste of your time to try to convince me of your Weltanschauung?

        You say:

        “But claiming that he has violated journalistic ethics when he is not that kind of journalist is laughably stupid.”

        Then you think Turley is stupid:

        “MSNBC has previously been criticized for its host, Al Sharpton, appearing at campaign rallies. Now Fox is facing an equally serious incident after Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro. Both are known to be close confidants of Trump, but they also work for a news organization that is covering Trump and this election. While many view the journalistic rule of separation as artificial in the age of partisan cable programming, it represents the most glaring breach in the rule that we have seen. The incident raises an increasing conflict with journalistic values and programming. All of the networks now have anchors who are openly partisan but maintain facial neutrality by not contributing or campaigning for parties.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2018/11/06/covering-or-campaigning-fox-news-anchors-appear-with-trump-at-missouri-rally/

        Getting out the votes in Republican precincts is no different than attending Trump’s rally. Both are a glaring breach in Turley’s view.

        1. Then you think Turley is stupid:

          You need to stop putting words in others peoples mouths. And Stop speaking for Turely. He’s a big boy. Able to speak for himself.
          You are using the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy. Every time you do it, you are exposed as an empty vessel of knowledge. Not able to form your own opinion, you mistakenly steal the Reputation of Turley, attempting to add gravitas to your know nothing rants.

          1. Iowan,

            You are not arguing in good faith. The problem with liars is that once they start, there is no stopping. You and your fellow Trumpists embrace the Big Lie unlike Turley and I who don’t. I can speak for him because I read his articles. I study them. You really should devote more time on your homework on Turley’s blog because as of now you are failing.

            1. Big lie? Day after day, more evidence shows the election was fouled by Democrats and some of that information filters to this blog.

              The Big Lie is the Democrat left lie that is so big it has to be broken into parts.

              The election was lawless, and there is good reason to believe Biden is at the White House because of corruption and cheating.

            2. “Iowan,
              You are not arguing in good faith.”

              Jeff, you have defined the problem. You, Jeff, you do not argue in good faith. You can say otherwise, but it is evident in every post. You are the one you are looking at when you talk about liars and the like.

            3. I can speak for him because I read his articles.

              That is nothing but pure crazy.

              No person of even modest intellect would presume to have the ability to speak for others. Turley needs no help, My guess he would prefer no person would speak for him for any reason.

              1. Allow me to rephrase. I don’t speak on his behalf; rather, I repeat what he has taught us about his views.

          2. Stop replying to “trolls and juvenile posters”. Ignore them. You’re giving them exactly what they want…any response so they can continue to act like “trolls and juvenile posters”. They’re not here to add anything constructive to the blog. They are here to agitate. Ignore them. It’s easy.

            1. “Stop replying to “trolls and juvenile posters”. Ignore them.”

              That’s a direct order from our Sergeant Major.

              OBEY!

              BTW, thanks for your service.

    4. They aren’t the same things. By a mile. One was cheating on a federal election by withholding facts from the voters, which some analysis has shown would have changed the outcome of the election had the Big Lie not been told. The other is, well, two guys texting about nothing of importance.

      1. What is the problem?

        Did Hannity do something against the law? Did Hannity, an admitted opinion maker, do something journalists on the left are doing all the time?

        Define the problem.

    5. Get out the vote advocacy is pure democracy. you’re a retard for bringing up the same, non event, 3 times now.

            1. Got it. Unable to identify my lie. So you move on from the logical fallacy of deferring to authority, to the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.

              1. Your illogical reasoning and general obtrusiveness reminds me of arguing with Meyer. I figured you would be proud to be likened to Meyer- not offended by the comparison.

                1. I live in your head, don’t I? According to Iowan, it seems to have crowded everything else out.

    6. JS:

      Well then with your new-found conversion to staunch principle and abhorrence of any perceived hypocrisy, you must in accord vacate this site after JT fails to respond to your criticism lest you be accused of and convicted for the exact “crime” that you condemn JT of. Namely, supporting a platform that engages in hypocrisy. We’ll all be checking our watches for your farewell address. Bon voyage!

  7. Romans 1:18

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

  8. Tesla’s Stock Plunged 11% On Tuesday

    Investors Fear Twitter Could Distract Musk

    Tesla shares fell as much as 11% Tuesday to $890, pushing the stock down more than 28% from its all-time high in November and wiping nearly $25 billion from Musk’s fortune and $114 billion from Tesla’s market capitalization, which now stands at $920 billion.

    In a filing last week, Musk disclosed he’s secured $46.5 billion in financing for the Twitter deal, including more than $20 billion in loans from Morgan Stanley and another $21 billion in equity financing, making it very likely he’ll need to sell Tesla shares and pledge some as collateral to make the deal work.

    As the stock plunged Thursday when Twitter confirmed receipt of the unsolicited takeover proposal, Wells Fargo analyst Colin Langan cautioned Tesla shareholders that the risk of Musk selling even more shares could put pressure on the stock, as it did when the 50-year-old teased sales (that did ultimately happen) late last year.

    Langan also said Musk’s involvement with Twitter could be a distraction for a CEO who already has a full plate, pointing to two recently opened factories in Berlin and Austin, Texas, that are designed to double the company’s global manufacturing capacity.

    Though it’s still unclear what role Musk will take with Twitter, he pledged Monday in a statement to work with the company and “make Twitter better than ever” through a slew of initiatives including new product features, making its algorithms open source, curbing span and authenticating all humans.

    $243 billion. That’s how much Musk, who owns 21% of Tesla but has pledged more than half his stake as loan collateral, is worth, according to Forbes. The PayPal cofounder grew up in South Africa before attending the University of Pennsylvania as a transfer student.

    Edited From:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2022/04/26/tesla-stock-plunge-wipes-out-114-billion-in-value-as-twitter-deal-sparks-fears/?sh=16ac241707cf

    1. One could have purchased Tesla at $89 in 2020 and sold Tesla for $1,222 in 2021.

      One doubts whether Elon Musk is losing sleep.
      _____________________________________

      “Bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.”

      – Jim Cramer
      __________

      The question is, what do non-wealth-creating, other-people’s-money-stealing, parasitic communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) do?

    2. If you are worried about Musks finances – consider the fact that SpaceX is private and either entirely or nearly entirely owned by Musk.

  9. The leftist/socialist definition of “free speech” has predictably devolved, in Orwellian fashion, to mean only politically accepted and approved narratives that are in keeping with liberal ideology. Any opposing facts, evidence and opinion to the contrary are to be viewed as thoughtcrimes and should be instantly cancelled. Are you woke yet?

    Any time you have ideological narrative(s) that subsists and persists despite rampant hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and/or doublethink, you know that you exist somewhere on the Orwellian slippery slope to a dystopian Hades.

    Enter Ari Melber. And, taking a page straight from Orwell, the whole “free speech (as normatively defined) is dangerous to democracy” prevailing liberal zeitgeist.

    Has there ever been a better definition of doublethink (the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination) than “free speech is dangerous to democracy”?

    Free speech is quite simply the foundation of democracy without which it cannot exist (but if your aim is Socialism, then perhaps that’s precisely the point).

    It means, by definition, that you will hear things you will not like or agree with but this is why we are endowed with, ostensibly, the ability to engage in critical thinking, Hegelian dialectical thinking and Socratic questioning (naturally, these must be racist and xenophobic concepts–see thought crimes and cancel culture). We, the people, collectively decide–not an elitist empowered few (see Socialist/Communist regimes).

    If Elon Musk is indeed a free speech absolutist, then anyone that believes in the principles of democracy and freedom should be rejoicing.

    1. M says:

      “If Elon Musk is indeed a free speech absolutist, then anyone that believes in the principles of democracy and freedom should be rejoicing.”

      Let’s hope then that Musk adopts Turley’s well-reasoned “Civility and Decorum Policy”

      https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/

      After all, Turley is a Free Speech academic. Who among us can challenge his expertise on the subject? Who works more tirelessly to advance the cause of the freedom of speech? I say if his Civility Rule is good enough for this blog, it’s good enough for Twitter.

      Do I hear any objections?

      1. Musk is not an absolutist.
        There will be no child porn on Twitter as an example.
        Musk recognizes Free Speech is not ABSOLUTE.
        But he also recognizes that
        First, it must be CLOSE to absolute
        Second, whatever policies there are must be uniformly and transparently applied.

        I honestly do not care what rules Musk imposes – so long as whatever they are, they are applied CONSISTENTLY.

        Many of us expect that Musks plan to make the algotithm’s public will expose the fact that most of Twitters censorship was NOT algorithmic, but the result of the political biases of employees.

        I have not problem with civility and decorum – absent people like you redefining civility and decorum.

        I do not know what Musk will do – but I have no problem with banning someone for an actually racist remark. But if you do I would also ban those who falsely report racist remarks.

        Nor should anything said by anyone ever be banned if it is true or if its truth is not know with certainty but there is a reasonable chance it is true.

        We should never ban facts – or even factual assertions that are not proven false. And we probably should not ban factually false statements.

        1. You say:

          “There will be no child porn on Twitter as an example.”

          What about virtual child porn? No abuse of real children. Just computer animation. No harm, no foul, no censorship.

          You say:

          “Second, whatever policies there are must be uniformly and transparently applied. …. I have not problem with civility and decorum – absent people like you redefining civility and decorum.”

          Turley’s Civility Rule is uniform and transparent. So you agree that Musk should adopt this rule from a universally acknowledged expert on free speech? Yes or no? Don’t evade my question.

          You say:

          “I have no problem with banning someone for an actually racist remark”

          Who gets to decide what is “actual”? You or me?

          You say:

          “And we probably should not ban factually false statements.”

          How about:

          “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. The hoax was plagiarized from several earlier sources, some not antisemitic in nature. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. It played a key part in popularizing belief in an international Jewish conspiracy.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

          Ban or no ban?

          1. Falsehoods are best exposed in the full light of day. Ban nothing, leave actual crimes to be dealt with by the proper authorities.

        1. What ad hominem have I said? Calling someone a liar is not an ad hominem if true which I believe it is; otherwise I would not have said it.

          Same with my accusation of hypocrisy. I dare say I post more links to what Turley has written in the past to back up my claims of hypocrisy or search his archives to be sure that my claims are not contradicted. I have said that Turley NEVER criticizes Fox apart from ONCE condemning Hannity and Pirro for attending a Trump rally.

          NO ONE has proven me wrong. Not even you.

          1. “NO ONE has proven me wrong. Not even “

            You have been proven wrong repeatedly. You wear blinders like a horse pulling a cart, but the horse is more honest.

    2. Hmmm. Hegel:

      ““…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.’””

  10. Let’s face it. If Jeff Bezos bought Twitter,, it would be perfectly ok. But a libertarian like Musk, not good. I’d like to see Musk buy CNN. That would be really neat.

  11. EUROPEAN COMMUNISTS (LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS, DEMOCRATS, RINOS) WARN MUSK
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    EU warns Elon Musk over Twitter moderation plans

    EU commissioner Thierry Breton tells Tesla chief executive: ‘Elon, there are rules’

    Thierry Breton, one of Europe’s most influential digital regulators, said Twitter must follow rules on moderating illegal and harmful content online

    Brussels has warned Elon Musk that Twitter must comply with the EU’s new digital rules under his ownership, or risk hefty fines or even a ban, setting the stage for a global regulatory battle over the future of the social media platform.

    Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner for the internal market, told the Financial Times that Musk must follow rules on moderating illegal and harmful content online after Twitter accepted the billionaire’s $44bn takeover offer.

    Breton said: “We welcome everyone. We are open but on our conditions. At least we know what to tell him: ‘Elon, there are rules. You are welcome but these are our rules. It’s not your rules which will apply here.’”

    – Financial Times

    1. In France, they just re-elected a 44-year-old “man” who has a 69-year-old wife.

      In my experience, that was typically called your mother.

      The global European phenomenon of fertility rates in a “death spiral” must be having a world-wide, deleterious effect on genetics at the level of DNA.

      What in the world is happening globally to European cognitive processes?

            1. I don’t think so.

              Let’s ask his daughter if she is married to her father.

              Looks like I hit a nerve; whom did you marry?

              By your frivolity, you are inane and extraneous.

              1. You could as easily ask Macron if he married his mother.

                Je suppose qu’il comprendrait même si tu demandais en anglais.

  12. Do you guys know what Ari Melber said? Do you guys know what Tucker Carlson said?
    Do I care?
    Very little, frankly.

    (isn’t it kind of silly?)

  13. Can someone explain the ‘nuanced’ difference between ‘free speech’ and purposeful ‘misinformation’.

    It would reasonably and logically seem that one is a conscious effort of constructive discussion while the other is what often seems as unchecked vile made up of a cesspool of unintelligent word vomit by some deplorables. My observation. Thanks in advance.

    1. Mmm, then let’s just apply the rules evenly, if the idea of the right using Twitter for propaganda and misinformation as the left often does without consequence bothers you. Of course, you’re going to lose a bunch of news outlets and a metric crapton of gaslighting bots.

  14. Darren:

    A reminder of a comment you made to another commenter who encouraged someone to commit suicide:

    “To the individual known as “Art Deco x 4 / ‘Darren Smith Banned Me’ / et al”
    “You made a comment on this page suggesting that another commenter commit suicide in a violent manner. Your gross violation of the civility rules is not acceptable and consequently your commenting privilege is permanently revoked.
    “Do not post any further comments to this website under any alias.”
    https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/11/two-new-york-colleges-under-fire-after-targeting-conservative-students-and-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2070059

    I encourage you to make the same kind of *public* response to the person who posted the disgusting “Friends of Presidio Park” 2:33 PM comment to Jeff.

    1. Thanks, Anonymous. If I have missed seeing your advocacy on my behalf in the past, I apologize. I’m glad I caught this instance.

      I suppose there is a political reason as opposed to a technical reason why it is not possible to search a commenter’s postings by name. It would be so helpful to hold people accountable for what they have said in the past. Though in your case, there are more than one “Anonymous.” I still don’t understand why you resist picking a pseudonym.

      It seems that Musk wants to authentic all Twitter users. It’s not clear what that actually foretells. Even Turley acknowledges the problem of anonymity though he has permitted it somewhat reluctantly.

      There is nothing I say here of which I would be ashamed to be held personally accountable.

  15. If the new Twitter is to have any censorship at all, I hope it is limited to those very few categories of speech that the Supreme Court has stated do not benefit from 1st Amendment protection. Notably, neither “hate speech” nor “misinformation” is among them.

    I also hope Musk reveals the methodologies Twitter has been using to impose censorship, so it can be publicly assessed.

    Judging from the reaction by Twitter insiders and progressives to the possibility of a potentially free Twitter, the censorship has likely been even more extensive, one-sided and sinister than we are aware.

      1. JeffSilberman, you insult Professor Turley every day. If Professor Turley stuck to his civility rule you would be banned for life. You are always telling us that the Professor is a sold out shill for Fox News. One would think that you would be grateful for some leeway in the judgement of who should be able to post on this blog. You call for the letter of the law when it concerns other posters who do not agree with you but you call for no adherence when it comes to your own vitriol. We appreciate your so even handed approach. You remove a sliver from the eye of another while ignoring the log in your eye.

        1. TiT claims that:

          “You insult Professor Turley every day.”

          I also praise the fact that he is a NeverTrumper and is an excellent judge of Trump’s character as a “carnival snake charmer.” I credit him for NEVER endorsing Trumpist false narratives such as “Deep State,” “hoax,” “witch-hunt,” or “fake news.”
          I applaud Turley for characterizing 1/6 as a “desecration” and calling for Trump’s Congressional censure. I don’t hear you Trumpists denouncing Turley for joining those on the Left wanting to stigmatize Trump for life.

          “You are always telling us that the Professor is a sold out shill for Fox News.”

          Sold out, yes, shill, no. Turley is no longer an impartial and objective legal analyst. He won’t shill for Fox; on the other hand, he won’t bite the hands that feeds him.

          “You call for the letter of the law when it concerns other posters who do not agree with you but you call for no adherence when it comes to your own vitriol.”

          You are a liar. I am calling for the enforcement of the rule only for the anonymous person imploring me to commit suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate. An unmistakable and undeniable violation.

          “You remove a sliver from the eye of another while ignoring the log in your eye.”

          That’s just my complaint about Turley. He ignores the log of advocacy journalism at Fox, Newsmax and OAN. He even ignored the censoring of OAN from DirectTV! Yet crickets from you free speech advocates….

          1. JeffSilberman, when someone is sold out a perfectly effective synonym would be shill. You say that the Professor is sold out to Fox News and in so doing you brand him as a shill. You can pick over your word salad all you want but the fact remains that you are still allowed to post on this blog even though you insult the blog host on a daily basses. If you would leave out your obsession with Professor Turley being on Fox News we might consider your praise and your criticism of the Professor more seriously. You criticize the Professor’s position on a subject with a knee jerk reaction and then you say you like it when he criticizes Trump. When we look at your praise versus criticism we see a very lopsided picture punctuated by your obsession with the Professor’s appearances on Fox News. It is what it is and it is very apparent. You come day after day with your criticism of the Professor on any subject no matter what it is but when you are criticized your response is ballistic. The log still resides in your eye. It’s been there for so long that that eye has now lost it’s sight.

            1. TiT,

              The definition of shill is “an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.”

              Turley is none of those things. I stand by what I have said. He criticizes the MSM that which he ignores among his Fox colleagues. Prove me wrong. Cite Turley’s criticism of Fox, Newsmax of OAN.

              I will not relent denouncing Turley for joining Fox just like I would not ignore his joining Infowars, for I consider Fox in the same league as Infowars though not quite as fringe.

              My values are more aligned with Turley than those of Trumpists. If I thought he was a lying Trumpist, I would not bother holding him accountable. I would accept the fact that he was a lost cause. However, I believe there is good in the man, and I will continue to post my disgust at his turning a blind eye to the false narratives of his employer. I don’t expect that he will take notice, but perhaps someone near to him will peruse this blog and read some of my comments. I do what I can to lay a record for the sake of posterity for what it is worth. I feel obliged to speak out for Turley’s sake.

    1. Daniel,

      Twitter’s internal research concluded that “In 6 out of 7 countries studied, the mainstream political right enjoys higher algorithmic amplification than the mainstream political left. Consistent with this overall trend, our second set of findings studying the U.S. media landscape revealed that algorithmic amplification favours right-leaning news sources.” (https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com/content/dam/blog-twitter/official/en_us/company/2021/rml/Algorithmic-Amplification-of-Politics-on-Twitter.pdf)

      If Twitter chooses not to censor at all, then it will become a forum for distribution of harmful illegal content, such as child porn.

      If Twitter only censors content that SCOTUS has determined not to be protected, then I hypothesize that most current Twitter users will stop using it and it will be taken over by the people who post to existing unregulated sites, like 8chan.

      Did you realize that Turley removes legal speech (e.g., comments that use the N-word, comments that encourage others to commit suicide)? Do you also want Turley to limit his censorship “to those very few categories of speech that the Supreme Court has stated do not benefit from 1st Amendment protection”?

      1. You want to twist the world so that your viewpoints predominate. You are against free speech and dialogue.

          1. The world will not twist in your favor. You are against free speech. Who I am is of no consequence.

            It is funny how you discuss someone’s anonymity, yet you are the anonymous troll who can’t seem to stay on topic.

      2. Anonymous, your intimation is that people who are against censorship are in favor of allowing child pornography on Twitter. What you have called for in the past is censorship of people that you do not agree with. You try to muddy the waters with claims of child porn being allowed. You can tell us all now that I am wrong by telling us that Donald Trump, articles about the Hunter laptop, and stories about Covid originating from a lab should have be allowed on Twitter. C’mon Anonymous please reference any of your comments where you have told us that Trump and those saying the things that I have referenced should have been allowed on Twitter. We await your humble response.

        1. Ti T, you’re lying when you claim “What you have called for in the past is censorship of people that you do not agree with.” I have not done what you allege in your lie, which is presumably why all you have is an evidenceless allegation.

          “You can tell us all now that I am wrong…”

          I just did, and I’ll repeat: you are wrong.

          It’s also a fallacy — known as “misplaced burden” — to shift YOUR burden to prove yourself correct onto me to prove you incorrect.

          “You try to muddy the waters with claims of child porn being allowed.”

          Actually, I was responding to **Daniel’s** statement “If the new Twitter is to have any censorship …,” by pointing out what would occur if there was not any censorship. It was clear that I was responding to Daniel’s comment because my response started off “Daniel, …” So you’re either having difficulty following a straightforward exchange on the page in front of you, or you’re purposefully trolling by ignoring what Daniel wrote that I was responding to.

          “your intimation is that people who are against censorship are in favor of allowing child pornography on Twitter”

          You are continuing to lie.

      3. In general, I would not censor particular words, even offensive ones, since they are protected by the 1st Amendment. Child pornography is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

        1. Daniel,

          Turley does censor comments with some specific words, such as the N-word. My impression is that he’ll even ban someone who repeatedly uses it.

          What about comments where the issue is not a specific word, such as “Friends of Presidio Park” 2:33 PM comment suggesting that Jeff commit suicide — would you delete it (as Turley generally does with comments advocating that someone commit suicide) or not (since it’s protected speech)?

          As for child pornography, I agree that it isn’t protected speech, but your comment started “If the new Twitter is to have any censorship at all,” which suggested that you’d be comfortable with no censorship at all. Did I misinterpret? Do you want Musk to censor unprotected speech?

          1. It is virtually certain there will be some censorship. What I am suggesting is that it be limited to unprotected speech. That is different from what Turley does.

            1. Time will tell, in terms of what will/won’t be censored, whether algorithms continue to push content — and if so, what they push — or are done away with, and how those choices affect who chooses to use the platform.

      4. “Twitter’s internal research concluded . . .”

        Which is like believing: “Bernie Madoff’s internal auditing concluded . . .”

  16. Musk likely will adopt something akin to Turley’s “Civility and Decorum Policy” for his Twitter. Here is this blog’s rule:

    “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.”
    —————-

    If Musk institutes such a vague and censorious rule banning “uncivil” and “bullying” and “abusive” and “name-calling” and “insulting” and “openly racist” comments, can you just imagine the howls of protest from Conservatives? After all, who gets to decide what is “uncivil” and “bullying” and “abusive” and “name-calling” and “insulting” and “openly racist” commentary?

    The new boss of Twitter may not be so different than the old boss if Musk adopts anything like Turley’s arbitrary “civility and decorum” rules!

    1. Like everything in life, Turley is faced with a conflict, freedom of speech and civility. That means compromise. He rightfully provides freedom of speech more leeway.

      1. Turley does not enforce his civility and decorum rule. That is for sure. We have Darren to thank for that failure.

        1. What goes in one ear immediately goes out the other. Turley finds freedom of speech more important than civility on his blog because most insults do not create a physically violent possibility.

          1. It’s Turley’s professed civility rule, not mine. It speaks for itself. You just don’t want to criticize where Turley draws the line. But Conservatives will criticize Twitter if Musk adopts anything remotely like Turley’s rule.

        2. While it remains to be seen how Musk and his staff will govern the new Twitter, nothing could be worse than the soon to be defunct version where vicious anti-Semitic ramblings by the Mullahs and their allies was just fine, whereas any contradictory view on “transgenderism” was banned. One could go on about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the origins of the Wuhan virus but I wont. Probably a progressive like Silberman would not care so long as Trump was banned.

          1. Time to put an end to the grievance industry. You don’t like what people say about you, tough shit. Ignore it.

            Ahh, but that would end the main fundraising apparatus of grievance industrialists, which would hurt many.

          2. I’m not on Twitter, nor do I follow it. So, I can’t comment on whether what you claim is accurate though I am aware that Trump was banned. I would have banned him too along with the vicious anti-Semitic Mullahs. I consider Trump’s Big Lie dissemination every bit as intolerable as anti-semitism.

    2. Jeff,

      Why do you consider that “likely”?

      I doubt Musk would choose Turley’s rule (not that Turley actually runs this site according to that rule). I’ve never seen Musk argue for “a strong commitment to civility” or most of the rest of what you quoted.

      1. Of course, I was highlighting the hypocrisy of Turley since he is advocating for less civility and decorum on Twitter than his own rule permits!

        Whatever rules Musk adopts will not satisfy those who are demanding no rules whatsoever. And once it becomes his own responsibility amplifying hate, name-calling, threats of violence, etc., he will think again about where to draw the line. Musk will be criticized if he bans ANYONE!

  17. This will come to end under Elon Musk because democracy dies in censorship

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10754559/Criticism-Biden-Twitter-Facebook-censored-646-times-two-years-new-report-finds.html

    “Criticism of Biden on Twitter or Facebook was censored 646 times in two years, new report finds: 140 cases related to the Hunter Biden laptop story and several that blamed the President for inflation”

    Content criticizing U.S. President Joe Biden on Twitter and Facebook was censored 646 times in two years, a new report has found.

    According to the Media Research Center (MRC), through its CensorTrack database, the various censored content included comedic memes and generic posts taking aim at the Commander in Chief, who entered the White House in January 2021.

    Users who posted such content saw their comments deleted, had their activities on the platforms restricted, or were out-right suspended.

  18. Turley, you are once again shaming yourself by twisting the facts. Twitter suspended Trump because he used their platform to foment an insurrection BY LYING ABOUT LOSING THE ELECTION. Five people died because of this lie just on Jan 6th, not to mention Capitol Police officers who were badly injured, battered, one lost an eye and others received fractured bones. Then, there’s the damage done to our Republic by a dangerous narcissistic demagogue who can’t stand to lose and who doesn’t care about the will of the American people. Yes, Twitter was correct to prevent this dangerous loser from having a platform for use in continuing to spread lies and inciting violence. You say: “Melber warns that Elon Musk might actually use Twitter to “secretly ban” or “turn down the reach” of a political party or candidate. That is apparently worse than Twitter openly banning candidates and suspending accounts of conservatives for years.” Yes, Turley, secretly banning or editing the posts of a political candidate is worse than doing so publicly. Twitter announced WHY it banned Trump: for violating its terms of service. And, you are being seriously disingenuous by referring to Trump and those who spread the Big Lie as “conservatives”. They are NOT conservatives, according to real conservatives like Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, George Conway, George F. Will and the members of the Lincoln Project.

    And, calling that repulsive pig “President of the United States” is sacrilegious–he cheated to get into office, he tried to cheat to stay in office for a second term, despite losing the election, and he fomented an insurrection to try to prevent the election winner from taking office, all because of his massive ego and malignant narcissism, hunger for power, praise and adulation. The name of that loser does NOT belong in the same breath as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy or even George Bush, all American patriots, and all who understand what it means to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”–these are just words to Trump. You say that “free speech protections” should apply to Twitter. Turley, you DO know better: the right of freedom of speech only applies to governmental actions, not private companies. All social media have user agreements, which, if violated, result in the user being banned. Trump abused his privilege with Twitter, and THAT’S why he was banned. AND, it was the right call.

    1. “according to real conservatives like Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, George Conway, George F. Will and the members of the Lincoln Project.”

      Um, no. These people are attention-seeking freaks, pedos, pedo- protectors, and losers with a big L.

    2. @Natacha,

      You talk about Twitter’s ‘openly banning’.
      It seems you forgot the history where Twitter was already banning secretly, and only openly banned when they were caught.

      To Turley’s point. The liberal left ‘freak out’ claiming that Musk will do what Twitter has already done… its ironic.

      Twitter helped get Biden across the finish line.
      Now w Musk in charge… Biden grows concerned.

      All Musk has to do is to stop with the censorship.
      -G
      That should freak out those who argue points and then demand than any retort be censored.
      Its a one sided debate where you demand that the other guy try to debate you with his mouth duct-taped over.

    3. Natacha – Did you see where Trump said Prince Harry is “whipped” by Meghan Markle and queen should have stripped them of royal titles? Good stuff, huh?

    4. “ And, calling that repulsive pig “President of the United States” is sacrilegious”

      Americans agreed which is why Hillary lost…twice!

      🤣

      1. NO, she won the popular vote in 2016, but lost the Electoral College due to Trump’s campaign colluding with Russian hackers who spread lies about her. That was proven by Mueller and a REPUBLICAN Senate Committee. You Trumpsters have been misled into believing that most Americans agree with you: WE don’t. America rejected Trump in 2016, and never approved of him in the 4 years it took him to mess up the thriving economy created by Barak Obama, alienate our enemies, and allow a pandemic to get out of control by lying about it and downplaying the severity. This is why more Americans than ever before showed up to make their voices heard and defeated Trump.

        1. You know as well as I that the popular vote is a meaningless statistic. I really don’t understand why people even care about that number.

          I’m also sure you know that a paltry $150k in ads purchased by Russia on Facebook did not change the election results by one iota. Hillary lost because she was and remains one of the most despised people in America.

          I’m going to actually feel bad for you when next year both houses of Congress flip with a veto proof majority and either Trump or someone of similar policy positions enters the Oval Office.

          1. The popular vote doesn’t determine who becomes President, but that doesn’t make it “a meaningless statistic.” It’s not meaningless.

            As for “Hillary lost because she was and remains one of the most despised people in America,” that’s why Trump lost in 2020: he’s even more despised than Hillary.

            1. “that’s why Trump lost in 2020: he’s even more despised than Hillary.”

              If Trump is so despised, why do you guys worry so much about him?

              1. He is currently +4 against Biden in 2024. Betting odds heavily favor Trump.
                Trump is the least unpopular major politician in the country by a long shot.

    5. Here is (was) Twitter’s con game:

      Ban a person whose opinions you don’t like (such as Trump). Rationalize the ban by alleging that their words might incite or foment violence. What words? Words like “American Patriots.”

      And now the Twitter clincher: Consult the user’s *enemies.” Do you feel that those words might incite violence? “Of course. Sure.” Then Twitter offers this public explanation for its ban: The words are “being interpreted as” inciting violence.

      There are those who interpret the appearance of the moon as a rationalization to howl in the night. Clinical insanity, though, should not guide corporate policy.

  19. Yesterday, I asked whether Turley would denounce Hannity for “Texts show[ing] Hannity sought to bring out the vote for Trump on Election Day” as reported in theHill.com.

    “New text messages reveal Fox News host Sean Hannity consulted with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in an effort to turn out more voters for former President Trump during the 2020 election.
Contained in a massive trove of text messages Meadows turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol are text messages between the Fox prime-time host and Meadows, CNN reported. On the afternoon of the election, the outlet reported, Hannity texted Meadows and asked him how turnout was looking in North Carolina:

    “Stress every vote matters,” Meadows reportedly wrote back. “Get out and vote.”

    “Yes sir,” Hannity responded. “On it. Any place in particular we need a push.”

    “Pennsylvania. NC AZ,” Meadows added. “Nevada.”

    “Got it. Everywhere,” Hannity answered.”

    https://thehill.com/media/3462417-texts-show-hannity-sought-to-bring-out-the-vote-for-trump-on-election-day/

    Turley is on the record objecting to this sort of partisanship as stated in his article entitled:

    “COVERING OR CAMPAIGNING? FOX NEWS ANCHORS APPEAR WITH TRUMP AT MISSOURI RALLY”

    “I have been highly critical of what I view as the erosion of the line between journalism and advocacy in cable news, including a column this week criticizing CNN for its unrelenting anti-Trump coverage. MSNBC has previously been criticized for its host, Al Sharpton, appearing at campaign rallies. Now Fox is facing an equally serious incident after Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro. Both are known to be close confidants of Trump, but they also work for a news organization that is covering Trump and this election. While many view the journalistic rule of separation as artificial in the age of partisan cable programming, it represents the most glaring breach in the rule that we have seen. The incident raises an increasing conflict with journalistic values and programming. All of the networks now have anchors who are openly partisan but maintain facial neutrality by not contributing or campaigning for parties. The fear is that a departure from that technical rule will lead to a race to the bottom of networks working as an extension of political parties and a return to the age of “Yellow Journalism.”

    https://jonathanturley.org/2018/11/06/covering-or-campaigning-fox-news-anchors-appear-with-trump-at-missouri-rally/

    I watched Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham last night, and none of them said a word about Hannity’s text messages. Surprise, surprise, surprise! And wouldn’t you know it, neither did Turley denounce Hannity’s naked violation of “journalistic values” championed by Turley.

    As much as I admire Turley for his principles, I cannot overlook his hypocrisy. I have no doubt that Turley would have criticized Hannity but for his engagement at Fox. Let’s all hope that Turley one day will depart Fox so that he can speak FREELY.

    1. That’s just terrible. A well-known conservative FoxNews personality and friend of Donald Trump asked Mark Meadows about voter turnout and where “we” need a push. The audacity of Hannity flexing his journalistic integrity bona fides earned reporting truthfully on the Trump/Russia collusion hoax, Ukrainegate and the Hunter Biden laptop. Isn’t he aware that he is jeopardizing FoxNews ESG score?

      1. Olly,

        Turley objects to “advocacy journalism” on the part of the MSM. He ignores it on the Right. Except for Turley’s one time criticism of Hannity and Pirro, he has never since had one word of complaint about his employer.

        I have pointed out this fact consistently, and yet not one person here has EVER challenged it by citing another example of Turley finding fault with a regular Fox host.

        Turley claims in his civility policy, “I am open about my background and any current cases to avoid questions of conflicts or hidden agendas.” Turley’s employment at Fox IS a conflict of interest. He cannot hold himself out as an impartial legal analyst when he is getting paid by a Rightwing outlet. His agenda to criticize his network’s cable competition is borne out by the facts.

        Again, I do NOT criticize Turley for pointing out the advocacy journalism on the Left, but I will not ignore his hypocrisy for ignoring it on the Right? Has Turley ever even criticized Newsmax or OAN?

        Crickets.

        1. Hannity never hides the fact that he is an opinion personality, and not simply a “journalist.” Hannity is hardly a non-partisan celebrity that should be used as an example of hypocrisy. It is those on CNN, CNBC, NYT, WaPo, etc., that call themselves “journalists,” but are secretly partisans, that you should be speaking to, and not Sean Hannity.

          1. @Sam
            IIRC Hannity admits freely he is not a journalist and that he is an opinionated personality. Its not hiding the fact, he has talked openly about it when he criticized so called journalists.

            I mean I am in violent agreement with you, but wanted to make certain about this one major point.

          2. Turley criticized Hannity for attending Trump’s rally despite his not being a journalist. Turley believes that it is appropriate for Hannity to cross that partisanship line. You don’t see Turley attending Trump’s rallies, do you? Turley is not a journalist either! He went to law school, not to journalism school.

            1. Jeff You and Natacha Two DT haters seem to over look the fact that FOX allowed Chris Wallace (Which no aiphabet of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc would have never allowed) to hug up and kiss Joe Biden more than Jimmy Carter hugged and kissed up Yassar Arahfat. You two also keep ranting that Mueller found DT guilty of Russian Collusion? And DT stole the the election? Guess you guys forgot the 2000 election? Gore and Dems demanding a recounts, particularily FLA. Now 2020 election was more than just recounting paper ballots. Remember the Dominion software and the servers? Fulton County Ga election members were told by Sec of State to not back the data backup on the original servers, and to back the data backup on indepedent external drivers. You know what they did? If not I weill apprise you. They did what they were told not to do. You can continue to harrumph and rant DT called for the stop processs and count the votes again what ever in the hades you want. The FBI has stated; The 01-06-2021 action had No Organized activity. You are hellbound and determined that it was insurrection. For the 2020 election and corruption, you guys rear ends will be chapped by future disclosures. The fat lady has not sung yet. Also to your chagrin barring health issue, DT could run and win in 2024. If he doesn’t run in 2024 DeSantis wiill run and win. Now tell us again as to how DT cheated in 2016 election. As for Fox, I could name you a litney list of Democrat Socialists they have allowed to appear and spew the Democrat Socialists swill innately and regularly. You can not name one Alphabet channel that has or would, or will allow such for a conservative.
              Here is some deep disgusting DT hatred:
              (“Twitter announced WHY it banned Trump: for violating its terms of service. And, you are being seriously disingenuous by referring to Trump and those who spread the Big Lie as “conservatives”. They are NOT conservatives, according to real conservatives like Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, George Conway, George F. Will and the members of the Lincoln Project.

              And, calling that repulsive pig “President of the United States” is sacrilegious–he cheated to get into office, he tried to cheat to stay in office for a second term, despite losing the election, and he fomented an insurrection to try to prevent the election winner from taking office, all because of his massive ego and malignant narcissism, hunger for power, praise and adulation.)”

              1. When you want to take issue with something *I* alone have stated, get back to me. Your post is too convoluted.

    2. Let’s all hope that Jeff one day will depart this life and jump off of the Golden Gate Bridge so that others can breathe FREELY

    3. “Stress every vote matters,” Meadows reportedly wrote back. “Get out and vote.”

      “Yes sir,” Hannity responded. “On it. Any place in particular we need a push.”

      “Pennsylvania. NC AZ,” Meadows added. “Nevada.”

      “Got it. Everywhere,” Hannity answered.

      Generic Get Out The Vote advocacy is the stuff democracy is based on.

      Just ask Zuckerberg. He set the model we should all follow right.

      1. “Generic Get Out The Vote advocacy is the stuff democracy is based on.”

        Liar. Hannity is a partisan for Trumpism.

        1. All Hannity asked was, ‘what is needed’ Answer:“Stress every vote matters,” “Get out and vote.”

          That’s generic ‘get out the vote” advocacy. Something all agree with.

          1. Iowan,

            You are an unflinching liar.

            Hannity asked “Any place *in particular* we need a push.”

            Does that sound like someone trying to get out the vote EVERYWHERE for EVERYONE?

            Meadows replied. “Pennsylvania. NC AZ,” Meadows added. “Nevada.”

            As if there were any doubt what Hannity was attempting to elicit.

            When Hannity responded with “everywhere,” he meant all those Republican precincts.

            1. Neither side of the conversation said who to vote for.

              Compare to Zuckerberg pushing $300,000,00 to local DEMOCRAT run districts to get out the vote. Often Zuckerberg paid staff gaining control of local election offices.

              1. Iowan says:

                “Neither side of the conversation said who to vote for.”

                They didn’t have to. Now, I could call you a “moron” for not being able to discern what was implicitly understood between the two. But I don’t believe you are a moron. I believe you are intelligent.

                You’re just a damn LIAR.

                1. Jeff it is difficult to decipher what you are ranting about.

                  But Zuckerburger spending $1 to buy the tiniest amounjt of control of a govenrment election office is immoral, and probably illegal in one way or another anywhere.

                  Z used his money to direct the priorities of local election officials in ways that were partisan, and in many instances that were the province of political parties NOT Government.

                  A big part of Z’s influence was esentiually GOTV efforts. It is not moral for governmnt to engage in GOTV, it is probably not legal in much of the country.

                  But it is an even worse problem when 90% of Z’s efforts benefited one part and one candidate.

                  Z could have given democrats $1B if he wanted.

                  What he could NOT do is manipulate govenrment using his money to favor one party or candidate.

                  If people wish to “donate” top government – that is only acceptable if the donations have no policy impact.
                  Otherwise it is a bribe.

                  1. You say:

                    “Jeff it is difficult to decipher what you are ranting about.”

                    Then I suggest you don’t strain yourself.

              2. iowan2

                I do not know what Hanity said. Nor does it matter. Hannity is not a reporter.

                I would further note that journalistic ethics are not laws, they are rules the media imposes on itself to persuade readers to trust them.

                To a very large extent those ethics no longer exist.

                Regardless, Jeff is under the illusion that GOTV efforts are illegal, or immoral or something.
                They are not. The left can rail about the money republicans get from big business – or they could until big business started giving far more to democrats. Regardless it is not illegal.

                Zuckerberg can contribute to whatever party he wants. And I would burn the FEC and all government restrictions on campaign contributions to the ground – and eliminate matching funds.

                What can not be done is to use money given to government as a lever to change policy.
                Z can when you give money to government to get what you want – that is bribery.

                1. “Jeff is under the illusion that GOTV efforts are illegal, or immoral or something.”

                  Jeff intentionally makes things up as he rambles along. Sometimes I wonder if he has an impairment since his responses, though linked by time, lack consistency.

            2. You are an unflinching liar.

              I quoted accurately from your post.

              To accuse me of lying, is to shime a spot light your retardation. Walk away before you inevitably start babbling like the current occupant of the Oval Office.

              1. You are a liar because you know damn well that Hannity was interested in getting out the vote only of Trumpists not voters generally.

                1. Hannity is free to do that. Joy Reid is free to GOTV for democrats.
                  They are oppinion shows – not reporting.

                  The NYT editorial page is free to print the letter by the 51 Former intelligence officials claiming the Hunter Biden laptop is russian disinformation. NYT reporters are not free to engage in political advocacy in their stories.

                  Though ultimately it does not matter.

                  two centuries ago reporting was much as it was today.
                  The rules of journalistic ethics were to restore trust in reporting because people do not buy many newspapers if they do not trust the reporting.

                  1. You say:

                    “Hannity is free to do that. Joy Reid is free to GOTV for democrats.”

                    Of course, they are free to do what they want, and Turley is free to condemn them for the manner in which they express their freedoms. You are free to burn the flag. Am I not free to criticize your expression?

                    You say:

                    “They are oppinion shows – not reporting.”

                    No $hit, Sherlock! Turley knows that Al Sharpton and Hannity are not reporters. Makes no difference to him. It is still a bad look for networks which purport to be impartial. I suggest you address your complaint directly to Turley; I’m just espousing HIS principles. I’m learning a lot from him; maybe you should pay more attention to what he has to say.

                    1. “I’m learning a lot from him; maybe you should pay more attention to what he has to say.”

                      What does Turley have to say?

                      More speech.
                      Twitter was anti-free speech.
                      Garland is Stonewalling the Hunter Biden Scandal
                      Hunter Biden’s laptop was not misinformation
                      The Russia hoax was a hoax.
                      Universities are inhibiting free speech.

                      Etc. Welcome aboard, Jeff

                2. you know damn well that Hannity was interested in getting out the vote…..
                  My day goes a lot better by only listening to what people say, and not attempt to read their minds.
                  But you go right ahead and live if the world of mind reading.
                  But understand, facts do matter.

    1. @James,

      WaPo is owned by Bezos so there’s no chance of it not being ‘libtard central’.

      The only way to bring back ethics to journalism is to have a paper/news station where ethics in journalism trumps partisan politics.
      Fat chance that’s happening.
      We are in the midst of a wave of ‘yellow journalism’ where they make money off of the chaos.
      -G

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: