In the shift of the left against free speech principles, there is no figure more actively or openly pushing for censorship than Hillary Clinton. Now, reports indicate that Clinton has unleashed her allies in the corporate world to coerce Musk to restore censorship policies or face bankruptcy. The effort of the Clinton-linked “Accountable Tech” reveals the level of panic in Democratic circles that free speech could be restored on one social media platform. The group was open about how losing control over Twitter could result in a loss of control over social media generally. For Clinton, it is an “all-hands on deck” call for censorship. She previously called upon foreign governments to crackdown on the free speech of Americans on Twitter.
We have been discussing how Clinton and others have called on foreign countries to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. It seems that, after years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democratic leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.
Accountable Tech led an effort to send a letter to top Twitter advertisers to force Musk to accept “non-negotiable” requirements for censorship.
General Motors was one of the first to pull its advertising funds to stop free speech restoration on the site.
Of course, the company had no problem with supporting Twitter when it was running one of the largest censorship systems in history — or supporting TikTok (which is Chinese owned and has been denounced for state control and access to data). Twitter has been denounced for years for its bias against conservative and dissenting voices, including presumably many GM customers on the right. None of that was a concern for GM but the pledge to restore free speech to Twitter warrants a suspension.
The letter is open about the potential cascading effect if free speech is restored on one platform: “While the company is hardly a poster-child for healthy social media, it has taken welcome steps in recent years to mitigate systemic risks, ratcheting up pressure on the likes of Facebook and YouTube to follow suit.”
The letter insists that free speech will only invite “disinformation, hate, and harassment” and that “[u]nder the guise of ‘free speech,’ [Musk’s] vision will silence and endanger marginalized communities, and tear at the fraying fabric of democracy.”
Among other things, the letter demands “algorithmic accountability,” a notable inclusion in light of Democratic politicians demanding enlightened algorithms to protect citizens from their own bad choices or thoughts.
In addition to Accountable Tech, twenty-five other groups signed the letter to demand the restoration of censorship policies, including Media Matters and the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. Accountable Tech has partnered in the past with Hillary Clinton’s Onward Together nonprofit group.
I have no objection to boycotts, which are an important form of free speech. However, this boycott action is directed at restoring censorship and preventing others from being able to post or to read opposing viewpoints.
If consistent with their past records, these companies will likely cave to these demands. While the public has clearly shown that they want more (not less) free speech, these executives are likely to yield to the pressure of Clinton and other powerful figures to coerce Musk into limiting the speech of others on his platform.
These campaigns only add support to Musk’s push for alternative revenue sources, including verification fees. As I previously wrote, we can show that there is a market for free speech by supporting Twitter in trying to reduce the dependence on corporate sponsors. If Musk remains faithful to free speech, many customers are likely to join his platform and support his effort to reduce censorship on social media.
Musk should offer free or near free advertising to GM and similar large advertisers to keep them on the site. Eventually cost will go to market. GM and others couldn’t pass up the opportunity.
or we could just boycott these companies.
Or better yet, give it free to Ford
More or less advertising is not going to save Twitter from bankruptcy either way and I’m sure Musk knew that going in and could care less what Hillary Clinton and her allies — the leaders of Russia, Iran and China — think. Musk owns a satellite network that makes the outside the U.S. censorship movement nonsense. And he has probably always planned on bankruptcy as a way to reorganize (it’s been losing money since day one… even with all the lefty advertisers)
But so far the whole verification for money thing has been a pretty nutty approach. He needs subscribers just like the NYT and all the other entertainment networks cannot survive without it. How about a simple money for free “information filled” speech (achieved thru the volunteer program Twitter calls Birdwatch)
Is there any antitrust angle here? A concerted boycott by advertisers to reduce ad prices would be illegal monopsony. Here, the motive could be entirely political– would that make a difference?
Not in my opinion. A “conspiracy to restrain trade” is a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act even if its purpose is not economic. It may not be a per se violation, but if it restrains free trade it is culpable.
She has spent her entire life in the service of a government known for sowing misinformation and disinformation and concealing truth throughout the world. It should then come as no surprise that she is firmly among those who would define for everyone what is misinformation and disinformation, therewith censoring any hope for truthful and legitimate debate. When she and her ilk act to protect us from our thoughts and choices they consider bad they do so for their own distinct purposes and self-aggrandizement. They are, after all, wholly and devout political beings of the first order.
Counsellor, in the 2d paragraph, first sentence, “foreign companies” should probably be “foreign countries” or both when calling out Hillary Clinton’s efforts to curb free speech.
Since typos are so common on his blogs, we just ignore them.
Dear Prof Turley,
Whether or not Chief Twit Musk’s takeover of Twitter creates a more toxic social media ‘ecosystem’, as Hillary suggests, you will always have a Blue Check in my heart (for your efforts during the 1st impeachment.).
So far, however, I see little sign Musk’s takeover of Twitter has resulted in more friendly ‘free speech’ environs. Recently, former UN WMD Inspector Scott Ritter posted on Twitter: ‘Bucha was a war crime. The Ukraine MoD/SBU did it’. It was removed by Twitter within 12 hours.
People sometimes ask me, of all people, who ‘they’ are tearing at the ‘fabric of society’. Obviously, I don’t know who they are. .. I only know they are anonymous
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-an-anonymous-source-raised-a-false-alarm-of-a-russian-strike-on-poland/ar-AA14dAle?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=94c5cb9032e34301b4eaafa3d87adf63
* “Reporters try to navigate the chaos of breaking news by relying on trusted, knowledgeable sources, as the AP apparently did by citing a senior U.S. intelligence official on Tuesday afternoon — albeit an unnamed one.” ~ Story
Professor Turley,
The FOX article you linked to does not offer any details about Clinton’s involvement in the Accountable Tech letter. Her organization Onward Together isn’t one of the 30+ signatories to the letter.
The conclusion that Hillary is “closely-linked” with this organization is based on a tweet from December 18, 2020 regarding a donor relationship, but it does not tie any of Onward Together’s funds to this particular project of Accountable Tech. There isn’t even a confirmation in the article that the relationship still exists two years later.
This is just a Clinton hit piece, without any actual evidence that she is involved. Terrible reporting.
I bet >80% of readers of your blog do not actually click the “news” links to confirm what is actually happening, but this is a textbook example of why it is important to do your homework! If you want to criticize the Accountable Tech letter, fine, do that. But, why drag Hillary into it if there’s no actual evidence of that? All it demonstrates is that we no longer have straight news articles anymore – everything is tinged with a political purpose, which is of course linked to monetization.
The FOX article you linked to does not offer any details about Clinton’s involvement in the Accountable Tech letter. Her organization Onward Together isn’t one of the 30+ signatories to the letter.
Its clear Clinton is working through ‘accountabletech’
Its the trigging letter.
How do you know Clinton is working through accountable tech? Based on a tweet about a relationship 2 years ago? How many contracts have you signed, which have a term shorter than 2 years?
Further, even if there still is a relationship, how do you know whether those funds were used for that purpose? We have no information, based on that terrible Fox article of either. It is always important to check sources and citations when you read! Most of the crap these days is yellow journalism passing as “news”
You really are hilariously pathetic. 🙄🤣
Now defend this dog.
Care to elaborate? I haven’t seen any response to this post yet that actually proves Clinton had anything to do with the letter. If you don’t have this evidence, then what is the purpose of your post? To sideline a question to which you have no answer? Does that make me pathetic or….?
Sure. The Clintons have survived for decades in the swamp because the debris they have left in their wake has usually lacked their DNA evidence. And in those times where they’ve been sloppy, they’ve had their reliable fixers running cleanup.
So do this dog a solid and defend him like you are defending the Clintons.
So, your response is essentially, “News articles should not care about proving their claims with evidence if the subject of their article has a history of doing bad things that are unrelated to the present matter.”
This is the standard of journalism to which you seem to subscribe.
And if you think I am “defending the Clintons,” then you have not been understanding the point of the posts. How many times do I have to say I don’t like Hillary! This has nothing to do with her but rather with the piss poor journalism of Fox (which is being amplified by Turley).
So, your response is essentially, “News articles should not care about proving their claims with evidence if the subject of their article has a history of doing bad things that are unrelated to the present matter.”
Nope. That’s your flawed interpretation of my response.
This is the standard of journalism to which you seem to subscribe.
Again, Nope. Using your own so called standards, what evidence exists that proves I subscribe or rather support a FAKE NEWS style of journalism?
Ok, in your world, what is the standard of journalism that Fox and others should follow. What evidence is needed to post a news (not opinion) article?
Based on the above, it sounds like no evidence is needed. Just the lack of a prompt denial from the subject of the story
It’s hard to say because it is not always the evidence rather much of the time it is the transparency. Fox is reasonably transparent in today’s world. They are in competition with the major networks, a few leftist cable channels, the Washington Post and the New York Times. None of these are transparent, use anonymous sources that don’t exist, and intentionally lie.
You are constantly looking for a gun fight where you carry a gun and want everyone else to come unarmed. There isn’t an ounce of decency in your way of fighting.
It should not be hard to articulate what a reasonable journalistic standard should be. A journalist should always use multiple sources and, when presenting news rather than opinion, should not distort or omit relevant information to present facts in a way that caters to a particular political leaning. No conclusions may be drawn unless the journalist has sufficient and specific evidence to make a conclusion.
Showing a stale history of a relationship between an organization Hillary supports and another organization is wholly insufficient to claim that Hillary is involved in the other organization’s actions. Then, to distort the news by making the story about Hillary (with her photo and name in the title) goes far beyond the pale of acceptable.
It skews the reader into thinking smoke is fire. The decision to make the story about Hillary was not done not out of a desire to accurately report the news, but to drive views due to a readership that wants to justify its hatred for her.
That is not “news.” That is advocacy. The ONLY way this story should have involved Hillary is if there was evidence (perhaps a source which verified Hillary’s support for the letter) or a paper trail that directly implicates Hillary’s involvement. I don’t care if it is “dark money.” Just because accurate reporting is hard to obtain does not provide the journalist with an excuse to thrown away the basic standards all journalists should maintain.
If that is too hard to understand, think about your reaction to a “news” article from NPR or MSNBC, if it were to attribute to Trump, without evidence and with his photo and name in the headline, an action taken by an organization that he was loosely affiliated with in the past. Would that be justified, simply because Trump tweeted multiple years ago about his support for that organization?
No his actual response is that the standards of evidence needed in the news are much lower than in court.
We KNOW as an example that Clinton funded and signed off on the Steele Dossier and the Alpha bank hoax.
Both were lies. Both were sold to the FBI. Both resulted in significant harm to the country.
Both were also perfectly legal – or atleast Clinton’s role was.
Both are also very important news stories – and to the extent the media even covers them it nearly always ignore Clinton’s central role.
Nor is there a quality of the evidence issue – Clinton’s involvement in unethical but legal conduct – on these and many other occasions has been proven.
He said nothing about court. Please connect the Steele Dossier or Alpha bank to Twitter. How is that remotely relevant?
Are you actually asking how Clintons past bad acts connect to the present ?
You brought up courts.
Pattern evidence.
Prior record.
But we are not in a court, which makes them even more relevant.
We have innumerable instances of bad acts by those on the left.
Of lies,
Of hiding the truth.
Of hoaxes.
All of this is proof that for those on the left – the ends justifies the means.
For those of you on the left – it is moral to act immorally, even illegally to gain power to do what you believe is good, or to defeat those you beleive to be evil.
That would not be true – even if you actually were doing good, or thwarting evil – but you are not.
Regardless, because of your past bad acts and because of your open admissions that doing evil to thwart your oponents or gain power is acceptable. it is reasonable for the rest of use to beleive accusations that are perfectly consistent with what you have done,
and what you have said you are willing to do.
I noted that much of the rest of Clinton’s conduct was unethical, but as far as we know legal.
The same is true here.
Eventually this nonsense will quit working.
That may take time and damage the country in the meantime.
Olly – This is a case for Sherlock Hounds and Dr. Woofson.
😁
My 1st thought, it was that damned Cat’s Fault Again!!!
Cause that’s what my 2 GShepherds would swear, with head tilt of course. 😉
Of course. That damned Cat is on the clock for an Arkanside ending. 😱
Anonymous: I do not see where Professor Turley stated that Clinton was directly involved. I believe the good professor merely noted the “Clinton-linked” organization, such link you have not denied. SO it is your very own statement, “This is just a Clinton hit piece, without any actual evidence that she is involved. Terrible reporting,” that does not stand on its own evidence.
Here are relevant statements within the cited article:
“…On November 1, dozens of left-wing groups co-signed a letter calling on advertisers to embrace content moderation or boycott [Twitter’s] platform, Business Insider reported, which included Accountable Tech.
“….Accountable Tech is not a standalone organization. Instead, it’s a fiscally sponsored project of the North Fund, a nonprofit incubator closely tied to a billion-dollar dark money network managed by the Arabella Advisors consulting firm, Washington D.C. business records show.
“…The left-wing group is also closely linked to Hillary Clinton’s Onward Together nonprofit, which the failed presidential contender created following her 2016 loss to Donald Trump to allow her to be a part of the resistance. In December 2020, Accountable Tech joined Onward Together as an official partner, according to a press release.
“….’It’s a tremendous honor to join the Onward Together family,’…work alongside such a dynamic coalition of leaders in the fight for a more just future,” Accountable Tech co-founder Jesse Lehrich said in a statement at the time.
“…Lehrich also served as a spokesperson for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. At the time of the announced partnership, Clinton said she’d work alongside Accountable Tech to provide grants, advice and other support to help propel them to the next level.”
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/clinton-linked-dark-money-group-targets-twitter-advertisers-amid-elon-musks-takeover
Lin,
Re-read the second sentence of Turley’s article: “Now, reports indicate that Clinton has unleashed her allies in the corporate world to coerce Musk to restore censorship policies or face bankruptcy.”
What evidence does Turley or the Fox evidence have of her doing so?
Merely giving to [INSERT ORG] 2 years ago would not mean I have “unleashed” anything without there being any direct tie of those funds to the action in question. I have no idea whether those funds are being used in connection with the letter. They might! But, by failing to provide any connection, the goal of both the Fox article and Turley’s post is to tie Hillary to these activities, without providing any knowledge of a direct connection.
Not to mention Hillary’s picture and name are both used in the title and headline photo.
Just look at all of the comments on this blog and the Fox site, if you really have any doubts whether the purpose is to imply that Clinton is directly involved.
I am not a fan of Clinton, but I certainly dislike yellow journalism much more.
I am not a fan of Clinton… — Anonymous
So, just an apologist?
No. I know it is hard to imagine a world in which people care about more than just TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE. There are so many REAL reasons to dislike her. Why resort to blaming her something we have no evidence she supports?
I just expect more from Professor Turley. This is same type of stuff you see from all of the law professors he routinely (and correctly) attacks. Like Tribe, etc.
I know he pumps out articles multiple times a day, so perhaps fact-checking is not top of mind, but amplifying crappy reporting does a disservice to the pursuit of knowledge.
Anonymous, it sounds more like the advocacy journalism he often rails about than genuine reporting. Or just some of that “age of rage” journalism he despises. Either way he’s clearly just delivering something for his readers to get angry about and keep them reading his columns for more of the same.
Lin, as further evidence, I looked up Onward Together’s list of partners on its website in 2022. This took about 30 seconds to find. It lists 15 organization, none of which are Accountable Tech.
Do you honestly think a news organization should tie Hillary to this based on a 2020 tweet, rather than looking up the partners it lists on its website in 2022?
I responded to you at 6:22. It was posted separately.
I am not sure why it matters that Accountable Tech is a trade name for North Fund. Do we have any additional evidence that Clinton supported North Fund’s involvement in the letter? No. Trade names are very common for businesses and nonprofits. That doesn’t make their actions nefarious.
Both the left and the right use “dark money.” It does not give journalists an excuse to ignore basic journalistic principles and write entire articles assuming without evidence that someone is involved because of a stale tweet from 2 years ago supporting the organization.
Let’s go back to square One:
(1) YOU accused Prof.Turley of identifying Clinton as involved in the AccountableTech effort. That is false.
(2) You then (as usual) expand by pointing to: “Re-read the second sentence of Turley’s article: ‘Now, reports indicate that Clinton has unleashed her allies in the corporate world to coerce Musk to restore censorship policies or face bankruptcy.'”–as justification for your conclusion. False again. Why don’t YOU “Re-read the second sentence???” Did you conveniently skip over the words “reports indicate..?” Did you notice that Turley does NOT say, “Clinton has unleashed her allies?” NO, he rather correctly states”…reports indicate that Clinton has unleashed her allies.”
(3) I humbly note that neither YOU nor I know of Clinton’s actual involvement, since, as so many have pointed out, we are dealing with the trails of “dark money.”
(1) Yes he did. REREAD THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE POST. What is the meaning of “unleashed”? To “cause to be released.” Ergo, he has incorrectly attributed her direct involvement by citing a misleading Fox article.
(2) The Fox article is the hyperlink to the “reports indicate” portion of that sentence. As you pointed out, Fox did not actually report that Clinton was directly involved, rather it implied it by saying “Clinton-linked” and then slapping her name and image to the article and referencing a stale tweet from 2 years ago.
(3) If we do not know of her involvement, then you must acknowledge that Turley erred in stating a Fox report has indicated that Clinton has unleashed her allies in coercing Musk.
This isn’t that hard.
No it’s not hard. You should have quit when I tried to let you save face.
As you can see, your referenced “FOX News” report (dated November 17, 2022) is nothing more than a narrative summary representing investigative compilation and reporting of NUMEROUS independent news sources dating back to at least 2020. Please note that these reports are on/or before the Fox publication.
Fox News simply “reported” that such research existed, and published a narrative summary of findings from these independent news sources.
For your edification and understanding, (although I am limited to two per post, otherwise I could go on for pages) here are a few, two at a time.
https://rairfoundation.com/election-interference-exposed-hillary-clinton-targets-and-deplatforms-trump-supporters-through-dark-money-group/ (2020)
https://americanpriority.com/news/leftists-launch-dark-money-group-to-hold-social-media-accountable/ (2020)
https://meaww.com/dark-money-campaign-advertisers-twitter (May 2022)
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/for-profit-dc-firm-staging-americas-grassroots-movements-arabella-advisors
https://rightedition.com/2022/11/06/twitter-advertiser-boycott-organized-by-dark-money-soros-clinton-and-foreign-networks/
https://rememberthesteal.com/2022/02/the-clinton-global-initiative-a-conduit-for-dark-foreign-money-influence-on-america/
It does nto matter whether Clinton was DIRECTLY involved.
So long as she or surogates or affliated organizations were LIKELY involved both Fox and Turely are accurate.
The standard of proof for reporting and blog posts is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not at this time proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Biden’s activities involving Hunter Biden and foreign governments and foreign actors violated the law. We may or may not ever be able to prove that to a standard needed to convict criminally.
But it is perfectly reasonable for reporters and ordinary people to make such claims – the standard of proof necescary for public acceptance has easily been met.
It is also perfectly reasonable to conclude Biden is politically corrupt – all political corruption is not criminal. But it is all immoral and unethical – and that standard has been met – beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would note that Clinton and others are legally free to do this – Government is not.
Clinton and others are not Morally free to do this. But since when has Clinton cared about morality.
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/the-shape-shifting-dc-dark-money-group-disguising-liberal-campaigns-across-country/
Thank you for this, but how does this justify Fox News’s abject failure in abiding by basic journalistic principles?
I surmise we have answered this for you, showing that Fox is only compiling reporting from numerous other sources. Would you like some more, collaterally/tangentially involving a prior criticism from (yep) far-left HuffPost, regarding the Clinton Foundation and dark money, entitled “Clinton Foundation Must Stop Hiding Behind Dark Money, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-transp_b_7273540 dated 2017.
How ’bout BizPac, https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/11/17/clinton-linked-dark-money-group-behind-campaign-to-pressure-advertisers-to-dump-twitter-1310113/
had enuf? Thanks anyway, bro
“had enuf?”
Never.
Whenever it dislikes an opinion you express, then (like the Sophist it is) it drags you down the rabbit hole of: I demand more evidence. That’s not real evidence. That’s not evidence for your conclusion — after all, I can (in my delusional mind) interpret that evidence 10,000 different ways.
It uses its irrational consciousness as a club over your head.
feel free to share the FoxNews link to the rest of us
Click on “reports indicate” in the Turley post.
This is what Turley would call “chum for my gullible readers”. They won’t go any further than what he says on the article because they don’t have the curiosity or interest in diving deeper into his claims. All they want is that yummy Hillary “chum” to satiate their need to rage against leftists and the evil progressives. Ignorance is the opiate of these masses.
The cowardly corporations hide behind the guise of “protecting vulnerable communities from disinformation and hate speech,” when their true motive is simply power. For Clinton, it’s an existential issue, because if social media were truly a free speech zone, the public would know all her crimes and evil deeds. She’d be toast.
Professor, you are at it again. I have to say it is so disappointing. You once were a legal scholar..now a Republican shill. Apart from the fact that Musk only believes in allowing speech that praises him or speech with which he agrees, free speech is about what the government can do regarding the content of your speech not what the owner of a private platform can do or allow. You should know that.
Justice Holmes: Turley does know that. You clearly aren’t capable of knowing much. He’s warning of the slippery slope, because today it’s Clinton pressuring government — tomorrow it will be someone in the Congress or the WH. If you weren’t so dumbed-down by liberal propaganda, you’d see the bigger picture.
“If you weren’t so dumbed-down by liberal propaganda, you’d see the bigger picture.”
Did you feel good saying that? Does it make you feel smart? Superior to those you disagree with?
You do know that when most people hear people talk like that they shake their head and think what poor intelligence you must have. If you must resort to using 2nd grade language to make your point, perhaps you should grow up a bit.
I like that handle, BabyTrump.
*my n*gro .. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk
Baby, just admit it Justice Holmes never says anything of value and when he tries he is wrong.,
Justice Holmes does say things of value. The problem is that it’s beyond the ability to the rubes on this site to comprehend or at least recognize it. Using 5th grade writing to make his more complicated or nuanced point would be a waste of time. At least here are some here who get what he is saying.
Can you tell us what he says of value? No. That leaves you looking ignorant which is your usual.
I don’t know what Holmes says. Probably nothing. That is a great improvement from your continuous errors.
Like your name BabyTrump.
*here’s a brilliant analysis on why Ohio still loves Trump .. . and other thoughts on the state of our union
well when someone has a name such as “baby trump” i have to call into question the intelligence
Can you point to anywhere in the Fox article where it ties Clinton to the Accountable Tech letter? No. This is not real reporting. Not actual news. Just Fox being Fox. Now that they’ve shifted away from Trump, they are back to attacking Clinton.
Clinton has proven who and what she is. One need not prove that fact repeatedly, except maybe to you because you don’t seem to get the point,.
Thank you Professor Turley for and important and enlightening article despite the fact the left doesn’t seem to get it.
This way of thinking scares me. Facts be damned! One not need to “prove” things anymore. That would be too… logical?
Holmes, as usual, sadly you don’t know what you’re talking about.. government controlled speech is called fascism, fyi. If the owner of this private platform allows the filters against conservative voices to be lifted, then they will be on a par with the radical Left voices who have had free reign now over Twitter visibility and control ALL content. I know, as an experienced Twitter user… The woke filters are still there and all the HATE and filthy language on Twitter is predominantly – like 99% – coming from the LEFT….. If Musk were a radical woke Leftie, Hillary et al would have never bothered with him.
“I have no objection to boycotts . . .”
Identify the companies behind the campaign to suppress dissent. Boycott them.
Isn’t that what cancel culture is all about? You seem to be supporting it quite gladly. There is really on difference between cancelling and boycotting.
“Isn’t that what cancel culture is all about?”
Sure — when you have no idea what “cancel *culture*” means. Or how it is distinct from the concept “boycott.”
When you’re incapable of, or unwilling to, grasp fundamental distinctions, you can call any killing (including in self-defense) “murder.” Lumping things together to satisfy a desire is not thinking. That’s rationalization.
And to think that this person was almost our president. God only knows the damage this force from the dark inner depths of our society would have done as president. She begins to rival some of the greatest female villains of literature. At least the Sea Hag simply wanted revenge for the death of it’s offspring, Morgan le Fay was a progressive railing against male hegemony and wanted her time in the light. Cersei Lannister was all about the throne and protecting her children, Lady MacBeth, well she had no redeeming qualities sort of like our previous Secy of State “What does it matter now anyway?”.
Seems to me that with a new sheriff in Town in the House of Representatives this would be a far more interesting investigation than Hunter and his soiled laptop (no idea what that laptop has seen in it’s short life or where it has been) and the list on the letter should be the list of people and organizations called to account before the investigating committee.
To me this sounds like a conspiracy. I hate boycotts but I will refuse personally to buy occasional products or not see certain films or actors because of their actions (not views). I will not join in any organized boycott.
Seems to me that Mr Musk and his attorneys can come up with something to go after these people. Still think that this is restraint of trade and there should be legal remedies available.
Also the Letter has been removed apparently from Media Matters or whoever was disseminating it, as far as I can tell
Here in Doublestandardstan we have Hillary Clinton yelling that Trump sided with the Russians as she…sided with a Russian to make the election questionable, Clinton arguing about disinformation after the Russian collusion hoax, Democrats claiming Trump and Republicans hindered investigations as Clinton destroyed phones, emails etc, Democrats saying misinformation and disinformation re a threat to democracy as they hire 51 former intel agents to lie about the laptop.
The one thing we can never forget about Trump is that he kept Clinton out of the WH and for that we re forever grateful. Unfortunately his later actions gave us Biden and the most dangerous administration in modern history.
Now that Trump is running again he’s going to produce even MORE actions that result in better “Hillary” candidate. Maybe he shouldn’t run just so that doesn’t happen, right?
While I oppose Clinton’s support of government-coerced “censorship” (illegal under the First Amendment) which will be overturned by the courts anyway. Not as bad as the January 6 coup attempt to overthrow the government, but government censorship is still wrong.
On other matters, Republicans could learn some valuable lessons from Hillary. The label “Republican” means a politician supports a “constitutional democratic republic”. This used to be the Party of Abraham Lincoln. The politics had to operate within that constitutional democratic republic framework.
The “republic” part is Congress and state legislatures, which Trump’s extreme wing (not all Republican voters) tried to overthrow, subvert and commit a bloody coup attempt. Without Congress there is no “republic” which Republicans supposedly stand for.
Ironically today’s GOP could learn something from former Lincoln/Rockefeller Republican “Hillary Clinton”. Hillary – in action, not talk – is more “Republican” than Trump’s extreme wing. Hillary actually supports the American “constitutional democratic republic” model unlike many Trump supporters. Democrats never tried to overthrow the “republic”.
Why did Hillary leave the Republican Party? When the “Civil Rights Act” passed in the 1960’s, many of the racists and bigots in the LBJ Democratic Party flip-flopped to the Republican Party. When the racists and bigots took over the Republican Party, real Lincoln/Rockefeller Republicans, like Hillary Clinton, left the Republican Party.
Many, if not most, of Trump’s extreme wing support a foreign model of government, closer to an Islamic Republic or Germany’s republic in the late 1930’s. America has a “constitutional democratic republic” model which Hillary Clinton supports.
America needs two strong “American” political parties. Republicans should oppose foreign models of government. Hillary might help them for free!
subvert and commit a bloody coup attempt ? I am still waiting for Anyone to Name One person of the hundreds of rioters, that has been charged with “insurrection”, or treason. Both of those are real crimes. Let us put sedition in that list. How many people have been charged with any of these crimes ? Now, why have there been NO charges against the cop who shot and killed the unarmed woman protester ? Maybe because the cop was Black ??
Coup would require the use of weapons (aka firearms), command, control, and communications, securing key objectives, and a chain of command.
For a modern example, reference the US withdraw from Afghanistan and how the Taliban re-took Afghanistan.
BTW, you also need F-15s. Just ask Biden.
This is incorrect. Firearms are not a prerequisite for a coup. They are called “bloodless coups” and they an occur simply through civil disobedience. This happens quite frequently in Latin America.
That being said, reports of the Oath Keepers plans indicate that a violent altercation was planned anyway, so this discussion appears moot.
To answer Solvermn, 11 Oath Keepers were charged with seditious conspiracy, which is an inchoate form of sedition: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/14/oath-keepers-leader-charges-armed-plot-us-capitol-attack
According to the court documents, they had engaged in “tactical planning” and had a “formidable arsenal of weapons.” They created rapid-response teams of armed militia members and had stockpiled weapons. The Oath Keeper named Thomas Caldwell is quoted saying: “If we had someone standing by at a dock ramp (one near the Pentagon for sure) we could have our Quick Response Team with the heavy weapons standing by, quickly load them and ferry them across the river to our waiting arms.”
So, can we please stop with this fantasy idea that this was just a nonviolent protest? That is simply willful ignorance.
January 6th? Anybody still cares or thinks about that 3rd rate riot?
CurrentSitGuy,
Low information, no information voters?
A friend wrote that he supported free free speech as I did. The next sentence began with the word, “however.” I let him know that if he supported free speech as I did, “however” would not be the next word, or anywhere in his comment.
I’ll refrain from supporting companies that supported Twitter’s previous, devious regime, then removed their support now that Musk took over … unless Musk turns out to be like the previous regime with a different accent.
Those people/enterprises that want only the Clinton version of truth should embrace this. Those that believe we need a free exchange of thoughts from all sides should support Musk’s efforts— get a subscription……. and buy a Ford (or anything not GM).
“Those people/enterprises that want only the Clinton version of truth should embrace this.”
And who wants “only the Clinton version of truth”?
Come on, do you really think people are that dumb. Oops, dumb question. you probably do. Sad, so sad that those who think differently than you are all idiots. Perhaps you should become world benevolent dictator. I’m sure the world would be better off. NOT.
And no, I am no Clinton fan, Bill or Hillary. They both should take a multi year trip to Antarctica without cell phones or internet access, the world would be better off.
“do you really think people are that dumb.”
Yes, the other side just elected into the senate a stroke victim who can’t put words together. The other side just voted in a NY governor who was caught red handed taking kickbacks and doesn’t believe crime is a problem. The other side just voted to keep our energy costs high and inflation high and to not fix the border invasion. So, yeah, the other side is a bunch of scumbag idiots. Yes, I added scumbag. I’m tired of having to be civil to these jerks who hate our country.
“these jerks who hate our country.”
Really? Because they have different view points from you they are “jerks that hate our country”? Perhaps they have different values than you. Perhaps they think everyone (gay, black, women, bi) should have equal rights.
Yea, they elected a person that had a stroke over a doctor that sells snake oil. Who loves his view of the Atlantic Ocean from his Pennsylvania home. They elected a Demo over Repo in Arizona where the Repo believed the 2020 election was stolen despite running a partisan recount that found Biden won more than originally thought.
People have different views. We have elections. And you don’t like how other people vote. You are a sad sad person.
” I’m tired of having to be civil” If you really believe this, perhaps you are the problem.
“Perhaps they think everyone (gay, black, women, bi) should have equal rights.”
You keep swallowing that rot. Face it. The left historically and presently is racist. That is how they do their dirty work.
” (gay, black, women, bi) should have equal rights”
They already do, so what is your point?
Ford stopped its advertising on Twitter as well. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/10/28/gm-ford-say-they-arent-running-twitter-ads-as-they-assess-changes-under-elon-musk/?sh=3e9f744a2a19
No one wants the Eli Lilly debacle. Without controls for fake accounts, anyone with $8 can get a blue check and impersonate a company. Of course, Professor Turley has ignored the Eli Lilly story, so you may be unfamiliar with it.
After the fake Eli Lilly account posted a tweet, stating that insulin was now free, its real-life stock price dropped from $368 per share to $346 per share, which amounts to a loss of $15 billion in market cap. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with risk management.
Since Musk took over Twitter Eli Lilly’s stock price has risen from 330 to 361 and is still rising.
If Lilly is the best you can do – I have no problem with twitter selling blue checks to spoofers.
This is a self correcting problem
Left wing nuts seem to think that free market self regulation means nothing ever goes wrong.
It does not. It just means that problems get corrected – obviously rapidly.
If ford wants to back out of Twitter – fine.
I suspect that all auto advertisers might rethink advertising on twitter – but that has nothing to do with free speech policies.
I am happy to be learning what companies are hostile to free speech.
They can all expect that I will be disinclined to do business with them in the future.
I would note that months ago major marketing firms warned big clients that taking ideological positions was a losing proposition.
It costs you more business than it gains.
But if those on the left wish to keep this up – go for it.
There is a recession coming, all of us are tightening our belts and it is good to know what businesses are hostile to free speech.
I would expect car manufacturers to reassess advertising on a site owned by a major competing car maker.
General Motors received government money to survive and now General Motors supports government censhorship efforts. How easy it is to buy loyalty and obediance. When the federal government spends money, it is also creating “friends”.
“General Motors was one of the first to pull its advertising funds to stop free speech restoration on the site.”
Stop the BS Jonathan. How do you know they pulled their ads to “stop free speech”?
Perhaps they didn’t want their ads next to a tweet about Paul Pelosi being beat up by his gay lover? Or perhaps they didn’t want their ad next to an LGBTQ+ tweet? There are a thousand reasons why advertisers would pull their ads, I doubt (but I could be wrong), that they are all against “free speech”
Turns out free speech comes with a cost. You can say any amount of s**t you want, but if you expect other people to listen, and pay for your s**t, maybe they will just walk away.
Poor Elon, turns out free speech cost $44B.
BabyTrump: “Poor Elon, turns out free speech cost $44B.”
Lin: “Poor Elon, placing Principle above Pecuniary interest.”
“placing Principle above Pecuniary interest.” And what exactly is that “principle”? Getting to say crazy stuff you make up off the top of your head? Denigrate people not like you? What a great person he must be to say crazy s**t about people that he knows nothing about. Does Elon’s “principle” include the free speech idea that if you say bad things about him you get censored? Sure seems to be how he is running twitter, and tesla, and spaceX. Sure, he owns the company, he has the right to fire and censor anyone he wants. Just give don’t me the BS about how this is all about “free speech”, It’s not. Neither is it about free speech on this, Jonathan’s site. He censors as well. Principle, sheeeeeeeeesh.
“Getting to say crazy stuff you make up off the top of your head?”
Yes, free speech means exactly that. To bad you do not understand that. It is why your side is evil.
My side? hahahahahahahah And what side is that?
Did I ever say that making crazy stuff up and saying it was not protected by free speech? No, go ahead, say crazy stuff. But if you expect companies to pay to advertise where you say crazy s**t, you certainly don’t know understand advertisers.
Twitter never was, and never will be a pure free speech site. That is not unless Elon (or someone else) plans on paying for its operation forever. Advertisers certainly are not going to pay to be a site where the N word is free flowing, where people denigrate anyone and everyone with differing views. Free speech is about the government censoring speech, not a private company.
Business will sponsor wherever their customer base is, no matter what is or isn’t said because it’s never a good idea to alienate large chunks of them.
I, and millions of other don’t care about a tiny few who spout crazy talk or offensive language so long as we know all voices ae being heard, and we’re keeping track of companies who assist in trying to shit that down, and will direct our spending dollars accordingly.
“dvertisers certainly are not going to pay to be a site where the N word is free flowing”
Apparently you have never listened to a rap song.
(meant to say, “Rich Elon, placing Principle above Pecuniary interest.”
You are the guy at the roulette wheel who bets on red losing 50 times in a row. You don’t recognize that too many coincidences tell you things you ought to know.
GM pulling it’s ads from twitter could be more logically explained by the fact that Elon is the CEO Tesla. Their competitor and who knows how he would allow GM to be labeled or ridiculed by his own social media platform? GM would essentially be paying their competitor to advertise.
With the Clintons behind this move full force, all the more reason to give Musk as much encouragement and support as possible to enable the free speech town square Musk envisioned when I made the decision to take Twitter private last spring.
I don’t see the Clintons trying to shut down Trump’s Truth Social, which also holds itself out to be a freedom of speech and thought site —- not sure it’s working out quite the way ‘the Donald’ had thought it would — but the point is made nonetheless.
Why are we still ‘listening’ to what the Clintons have to say? They were the 1990’s — even had a balance budget or two back then —
It’s pushing 3 decades hence —-
Go Woke: go broke “Ron DeSantis says so.”
How do you know the Clintons are behind this? That was certainly not included in the “news” article Turley linked to? Did you actually read the links?
How do you know the Clintons are behind this? That was certainly not included in the “news” article Turley linked to? Did you actually read the links?
How do you know she isn’t? Why is it your kneejerk reaction to defend the indefensible? You didn’t even bother reading the links. The below are tweets from Hillary Clinton. Unless she comes out to denounce Accountable Tech and publicly cease all relationships with them, then it is reasonable to conclude at a minimum that she endorses their actions to take it to the next level.
Thread
See new Tweets
Conversation
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
·
Dec 18, 2020
Thank you to the 2,000+ members of the wider @OnwardTogether family who joined yesterday’s partner call.
Our big news is that we’ve welcomed two new partners to round out 2020: @HigherHeights and @AccountableTech
.
Tip
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
·
Dec 18, 2020
.
@HigherHeights’ mission is to build Black women’s power in and out of the election cycle, with some incredible wins in 2020.
.
@AccountableTech is taking on the companies at the center of the misinformation crisis that has destabilized our democracy.
Tip
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
.
@OnwardTogether will work with both groups to provide grants, advice, and other support as these organizations take their work to the next level.
Here’s to building power behind the values we share, and even more wins, in 2021.
Can’t wait to get started.
That makes no sense. You think NEWS reporting can make an unfounded claim, and then it is the obligation of the subject of the story to deny it?
What do you think the purpose of the news is?
This wasn’t an opinion article.
You think NEWS reporting can make an unfounded claim, and then it is the obligation of the subject of the story to deny it?
Gosh, unless you’ve been living under a rock (or a bridge), you will have noticed that the NEWS reports unfounded claims about public figures on a regular basis. The term FAKE NEWS was born out of public figures defending themselves against these claims. Oftentimes those claims are proven to be unfounded. There’s a reason certain news outlets dominate viewership, while others continue to decline. It’s because the majority of viewers still have the capacity to recognize fact from fiction, while the minority remain hypnotized by the narrative pumped out by those FAKE NEWS outlets. Clinton could choose to go on the defensive, but she won’t. She’s got sycophants like you and the hoard of “fact-checkers” trolling the internet to do that for her. Most importantly, as long as free speech is permitted, we’ll all have the opportunity to draw our own conclusions.
So, you acknowledge the Fox article is FAKE NEWS? Then why do you believe it?
The problem is that everyone on this blog (AND TURLEY) think it is real. This leads to a confusion of what is fact and what is fiction. I do not think “a majority of viewers still have the capacity to recognize fact from fiction.” Folks still think Paul Pelosi’s attacker was a left-wing radical because that fake news was spewed by Fox.
We should expect more from news organization as large and once well-respected as New Corp. (as well as CNN, NYT and the rest).
So, you acknowledge the Fox article is FAKE NEWS? Then why do you believe it?
Damn! Once again, you prove you have no reading comprehension skills. Nothing in my comment remotely says I acknowledge the FoxNews article is FAKE NEWS. I haven’t even asserted that I believe it to be true. If you had a functioning left-half of a brain, you could possibly glean out of my comment that I consider FoxNews to be far more reliable in their reporting than their competitors. You might even grasp that given the documented history of the Clintons, I would never be so gullible as to believe this time she is innocent of the allegations. She’s earned that reputation.
You said:
“Gosh, unless you’ve been living under a rock (or a bridge), you will have noticed that the NEWS reports unfounded claims about public figures on a regular basis. The term FAKE NEWS was born out of public figures defending themselves against these claims. Oftentimes those claims are proven to be unfounded.”
You also said:
“Unless she comes out to denounce Accountable Tech and publicly cease all relationships with them, then it is reasonable to conclude at a minimum that she endorses their actions to take it to the next level.”
This was your response to justify why Fox’s unfounded claims about Clinton are permissible. Your argument is that the Fox article is justified because news organizations should write a story with unfounded claims and if there is no rejection by the subject, then it is news! If it becomes fake news only if it is rejected by Clinton?
If this is what you actually believe, then we can stop the discussion here. But please think about what you are saying. No journalistic standards are needed. The only way a story is legitimate is if no one denies it apparently. Wow.
Enough evidence exists for Clinton to have a more thorough investigation. When the investigators don’t do their job, other people have to. You know Clinton and yourself are liars so you don’t want anyone investigating
Keep complaining. The evidence is overwhelming and keeps mounting.
If this was an opinion piece making that argument, then I would have no problem with that. But this was a news article, not opinion. Do you recognize the difference between news and opinion?
“Do you recognize the difference between news and opinion?”
Do you know the meaning of:
reports indicate
Clinton-linked dark money group
Of course, Scribed removed the Accountable tech letter on its site. Amazing how quickly the cabal against free speech works
“Tear at the fraying fabric of democracy.”