Twitter Permanently Bans Paul Sperry After Posting on the Mar-A-Lago Raid

Twitter Logo

Twitter continued to crackdown on dissenting political views this week with the permanent suspension of columnist and commentator Paul Sperry.  The suspension came down after Sperry allegedly tweeted about the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago. Sperry said that Twitter gave “No warning, no explanation, reason given.” That is a signature for the company, which has little transparency or ability to challenge such private censorship.

Twitter has a long and documented history of suspending those with dissenting political, social, or scientific views, particularly before major elections. Sperry says that he tweeted the following:

Funny, don’t remember the FBI raiding Chappaqua or Whitehaven to find the 33,000 potential classified documents Hillary Clinton deleted. And she was just a former secretary of state, not a former president.

DEVELOPING: Investigators reportedly met back in June w Trump & his lawyers in Mar-a-Lago storage rm to survey docs & things seemed copasetic but then FBI raids weeks later. Speculation on Hill FBI had PERSONAL stake & searching for classified docs related to its #Spygate scandal.

Sperry went on to note that “the current deputy general counsel at Twitter is also the former general counsel at FBI HQ under Comey. His name as you may know is James Baker, and he was the top attorney who reviewed the fraudulent anti-Trump FISA wiretap warrants for probable cause.”

Obviously, all of those points can be — and have been contested — by others. However, that is the point. Social media should be a place for the exchange of viewpoints as part of our national dialogue on controversies like the Mar-a-Lago raid. Twitter, however, has long dispensed with any pretense of neutrality in limiting such discussion to fit its own corporate agenda.

This is precisely why the takeover of Elon Musk is so important for free speech. The company seemingly wrote off free speech years ago. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal 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. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Musk could rectify such abuses by adopting a First Amendment approach advocated in earlier columns. That includes breaking down the extensive censorship bureaucracy at Twitter, starting at the top. That move is already likely as evident in the tearful remarks of Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s head of legal, policy and trust, to her staff this week. Gadde, like Twitter CEO Parag Agrawalis notorious in the free speech community for her record of censorship, including her role in banning Donald Trump as well as the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop. Taking over as CEO and immediately removing such figures will have a clear impact. However, new measures should also include publishing the algorithms and finally achieving transparency in the decision-making at Twitter over content. This should also include a full accounting of any means used in the past to control online discussions, including throttling or shadow banning.

Twitter can adopt a general free speech platform model while allowing individuals to apply specific filters to block racist terms or profane language. Free speech includes the right to readers to choose what they read. The key is that the decision can be left to readers rather than imposed by the company. Just as you can walk away from speakers in the town square, you can choose what you read. You can also choose to read more broadly. Twitter can leave such decisions in the hands of the consumer.

As we approach the critical midterm election, Twitter’s censorship cadre appears to be ramping up controls on what views can be expressed or read. Agrawal’s pledge to limit discussion to “healthy” viewpoints continues to manifest itself in Twitter’s burgeoning censorship system.



99 thoughts on “Twitter Permanently Bans Paul Sperry After Posting on the Mar-A-Lago Raid”

  1. There’s nothing “healthy” about censorship. Musk would be a national hero if he would just go through with the purchase of Twitter and then just shut it down completely. Even better would be prosecution of those people who violated theFirst Amendment.

  2. Elon Musk, if you decline to purchase Twitter, please create your own competing site, which will blow it out of the water.

  3. The imposition of the principles of communism is unconstitutional in the United States.

    Twitter is private property.

    Paul Sperry is free to develop his own media platform.

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

    1. So as private property , restaurant or store owners or bakeries should be able to choose who enters their establishment and who should they bake cakes for. After all, they to are all private buisneses

      1. Seriously? You just asked that? Thank you so much, comrade. Holy —–, where the —- did you go to school?

        Who taught you this treasonous —-?

        In the U.S., the STATE does not own all property as it does under your Communist Manifesto.

        The right to private property is absolute, or the right to private property does not exist.

        The right to private property exists and it exists in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

        You are in the incipient stages of committing acts of subversion, insurrection and treason.

        I hear China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and Laos are nice this time of year, and planes are flying once again.

        These are the currently-United States of America, wherein secession is fully constitutional, under the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        Again, ask James Madison, one of the American Founders and Framers.

        “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

        – James Madison

        5th Amendment

        “No person shall be…deprived of…property,….”

        Let’s give you an American primer:

        The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.

        Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

        You are free to pursue happiness; go do that, and stay out of other people’s money and other people’s business, K?

        Next question.

      2. “should be able to choose who enters their establishment and who should they bake cakes for.”

        Yes and yes.

        Private property is a *principle*, not a convenient notion used to satisfy a desire.

    2. Everyone with a brain should leave that “private property” and bankrupt those communist/Marxist nitwits.

    3. That’s not a serious answer and you know it. Sperry was likely censored at the request/demand of this lawless administration just as they did so to Alex Berenson, hence Twitter has shown itself to be a state actor, under pressure to act on the state’s behalf or lose their special carve out 230 protection.

  4. Twitter reminds me of Ford’s failed Edsel Model in reverse, though Ford knew when to give up on the Edsel model in short order. Ford desired to add market share with this new model, whereas; in my opinion Twitter desires to decrease market share with their changed model. Limiting possible market share increases by banning certain groups or individuals through censorship is contradictory to good business practices. Twitter is after all, for profit business, not a charity.

    As to placing government controls on this information format, it is a terrible idea. Twitter like all other business entities, will succeed or fail on their own accord. There have been many companies with arrogant attitudes in US history who have ceased to exist, is Twitter going be one of them?

    My Second Amendment is not being limited by Twitter; they have no control over what I can say. If they do not like what I say, that is their privilege and right not to foster my thoughts. I most likely wouldn’t be invited to their dinner table either (closed minded individuals they are). Do I think they should allow all voices on their platform, YES, they are not clairvoyant or superior in knowledge.

    Wanting to control what others and self: (hear/see/read) shows a true arrogance towards others/self and in some cases neglect of/or historical context, science or common sense.

    1. “ My Second Amendment is not being limited by Twitter; they have no control over what I can say.”


  5. First, it’s obvious that Twitter is nothing but political with the goal of supporting the Democratic Party. My advice to Republicans and conservatives regarding Twitter is to get off. Second, Twitter is run by Indians who have no regard whatsoever for the concept of free speech and who are only interested in their own viewpoint.

    1. Get out Now. If a preteen can be butchered legally-they can- you have been losing, you are losing and you will continue to lose on Twitter. Pretending you are politically active by being part of the trillions of keystrokes is delusional.
      Get a job, teach a child, stop a crime.

  6. 1. We have a 1A protection to speak our minds freely (and free thought is what twitter, the hive mind liberal, and govy hates), especially on what has become a common carrier.

    2. Structural changes must be enacted to change the nature of social media and the internet;

    A. Individuals must have the right / control to / of their content and be paid according for its use. What we read and type is making these companies $billions and we deserve a portion$$ of our product.

    B. Social media companies / internet must be subject to established protections and laws, especially those deemed to be common carriers like fb and twitter = end the corporate sponsored cancel culture bc it’s contrary to our laws and culture and is communist.

    1. Bingo. America is a unique experiment in individual freedoms / protections based on our God given rights.

    2. It’s not a common carrier, in part because users do not pay a fee to use it.

      1. There is a reason they don’t charge to be a member. It is arguable that Twitter is guilty of fraud in advertising itself as a free speech platform by implication if nothing else when it in no way acts like one BUT for the fact that no membership money changes hands.

        If the government can ruin innocent citizens like Carter Page, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn for political reasons it surely can do the same with Twitter and Agrawal when the power shifts in November

        1. LOL that you call Roger Stone innocent after he was found guilty by a jury. You sound a tad biased.

    3. ” . . . a common carrier.”

      That collectivist concept was first used decades ago by statists to justify government control of the railroads.

      You’re using collectivism to justify usurping Twitter’s right to property. That does not help the cause of individualism and freedom.

      If you don’t like Twitter’s product (as I don’t), then vote with your feet.

  7. This is the problem with foreigners coming from countries with no freedom of speech – or raised by parents who were. We just give them a map and keys to the castle, then complain they follow the rules of their home country. Some thing with Google.

    1. “This is the problem with . . .”

      You’re a xenophobe.

      The fact is that many of those “foreigners” come to the U.S. *because* there is no free speech in their home countries.

      The overwhelming threat to free speech comes from fascist professors in academia. (See, for example, Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, and their progeny.)

  8. Of course, we are the authoritarians. The rule is: whatever they claim we are, it is mere projection.

Comments are closed.