Companies Join Call to Suspend Advertising with Twitter

Twitter LogoNational Public Radio yesterday posted an article titled “Twitter has lost 50 of its top 100 advertisers since Elon Musk took over, report says.” The article relies on a report from the liberal site Media Matters for America founded by Democratic operative David Brock. The report lists companies that have publicly pulled their advertising and the article strongly suggests that it is due to the pledge of Elon Musk to restore free speech protections on the social media site. These companies are well within their free speech rights to boycott the company or suspend their support in light of possible changes on content. However, customers also have the right not to support companies that do not support their free speech rights.

The NPR article contains this graph:

“Chevrolet, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Ford, Jeep, Kyndryl, Merck & Co. and Novartis AG all issued statements about halting Twitter ads or were reported and confirmed as doing so. The others ceased advertising on the platform for a “significant period of time following direct outreach, controversies, and warnings from media buyers.”

A quick review of these companies shows that many use the same vague rationale of Chipolte that they want to wait to “gain a better understanding on the direction of the platform under its new leadership.” These companies have not expressly called for censorship. They simply say that they will not advertise with the company until that they are satisfied with the company’s new “direction.”

The assumption is that the companies were fine with the “direction” of the old Twitter in limiting free speech. In the very least, it did not seem to be a sufficient concern to prompt them to make public statements suspending advertising in prior years.

The companies have remained silent on why the prior “direction” did not appear to be a corporate concern. They did not apparently view the prior Twitter policies as barriers to advertising.

Specifically, these companies appeared to have no objections to the company maintaining one of the world’s largest and most notorious censorship systems. The blocking of the Hunter Biden laptop story did not appear to be a barrier for advertisers. The blocking of individuals offering opposing views on Covid, climate change, transgender policies or other issues was not an apparent barrier. Yet, the announced intention to restore free speech protections has warranted these suspensions.

There is also a concern that these suspensions have followed a campaign from many on the left to pressure advertisers to pull advertising funds. The public statements have been celebrated by those seeking to coerce Musk into restoring censorship on the platform. The campaign is also ramping up as Musk threatens to reveal back channel communications related to the censorship of political and social commentary. The disclosures could prove embarrassing for many in the political and media establishment.

There is even a campaign on the left to ban Twitter from the Apple and Google stores to pressure Musk to relent on censorship. This could create a massive war between the establishment and these companies against Musk and many citizens over free speech. Musk is reportedly preparing for such a ban.

Companies like Disney have faced backlash over taking political positions  in states like Florida.  However, for the most part, companies assume that consumers will be driven by their products rather than their policies in making purchase choices. They may be right, but these companies are viewed by many as supporting an anti-free speech campaign. That could be a question for some consumers. For shareholders, these decisions raise questions of whether corporate executives are serving their interests in joining an effective boycott against Twitter.

The reason for their withdrawal of advertising remains intentionally vague but the timing and message seems quite clear. The move to pull advertising can lead many customers to question the “direction of the leadership” of these companies on free speech. If these companies do not want the restoration of the prior Twitter censorship policies, they should state so. They should also state what they are demanding from Musk if it is not the censorship or the banning of individuals.

These companies may insist that they do not want to have advertising associated with unpopular or offensive posters, particularly given the “general amnesty” for previously banned accounts. While it did not seem to be a problem to be associated with one of the world’s largest censorship companies, it is clearly their right to associate or disassociate with any company. It is also the right of consumers to choose to disassociate with companies due to their position on free speech.

 

232 thoughts on “Companies Join Call to Suspend Advertising with Twitter”

  1. The list is helpful. We’ll print the list, write the companies and share with like minded friends. Let a ban of those Companies begin. This woke crap needs to die a quick death.

  2. Ah, but history does have a knack for repeating itself. Like the Fascists around Mussolini in the mid-30s who believed it was time to show their true colors and kick-out Jewish journalists from newspapers and magazines in Italy.

  3. These companies are colluding and should be investigated for their illegal activities. Public companies are obligated to maximize shareholder profit not pursue the political agendas of a their powerful, rich, oligarchical executives.

    I’d like a legal POV as to whether this type of collusion, which is adversely in opposition to the stated goals of public companies, is illegal. These entities are working together to influence the market for their own advantage. They are synchronizing their communication and sharing insider information.

    1. The ones who would normally do the investigation are the ones doing the instigation. They’re too buy destroying political opponents and this is part of their agenda. The foxes are guarding the henhouse.

    2. Companies have free speech rights too. If they want to collude they can. If they create an organization they can. Nobody can force them to advertise where they don’t want to. Not even the government.

    3. HESW, Women’s Lives Matter. All women are great and so are colored people. Can we get rid of affirmative action, quotas, welfare, public housing, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, HUD, Obamacare, unfair fair housing laws, discriminatory non-discrimination laws, unconstitutional Social Security and Medicare, Fed, IRS, etc., now, or do ya’all still need it as a crutch you just can’t seem to live without?

  4. I suspect Musk knows how to play dirty if it comes to that. Publishing all the communications between Twitter and the Federal Government on speech suppression should help. We know now that it cannot be suppressed if he publishes. The Feds for now will be no help in this fight but the elections are over except for the senate race in Georgia. There are 3 very powerful governors in Texas, Florida and Georgia who could make life hell for many of these companies. I suspect their Attorneys General are already preparing their briefs as well as most other state Republican Attorneys General. State laws can trip you up. Also there are new people in charge of investigations in the House. Legislation has been held up in the past for far murkier reasons. This is a multi-front war and speech is only the tip of the iceberg. Big business always loves big government. Far easier to legislate your opponent out of business than actually have to compete. If Apple and Google try to ban the app from their app stores, then I think even bigger guns will come into play.
    Meanwhile Disney continue to release stinkers.
    Trump has learned nothing about who he has for dinner without vetting everyone. The man just cannot stop stepping on land mines that are in clear view.
    Wonder if the new law in New York which extends the Statute of Limitations for Sexual assault and rape was just designed for TRUMP. Only extends the statute of limitations for a short period and E. Jean Carroll was right there to file charges for her alleged rape by Trump in 1995-1996. Seems fortuitous.

    1. Agree. Musk is no boy scout, but he no doubt loves a good fight. As for Trump, oh me, but he’s his worst enemy.

    2. @GEB

      I think so too, GEB – that’s the kicker, Elon seems to be utterly fearless, and he has more money – the only language they understand – than any of them individually. It should be telling that a conglomerate the size of Disney recently fired their CEO, they must be feeling the pinch in some tangible way (unless they intend to quadruple down, which I personally doubt; their past number of ‘sure thing’ films have flopped) by all accounts, just due to DeSantis having a spine and understanding law. And if that’s Disney, smaller companies *have* to be. A larger pushback will make a difference. Do not believe the woke/Marxist Dem gaslighting, and do not fall for the meaningless temper tantrums.

      https://news.yahoo.com/disney-fires-ceo-bob-chapek-131235505.html

  5. Consumers can choose which brands they support by their purchases in most cases.

    Big Pharma is one that we cannot but the others we sure can and should do so.

    The Rule should be “Go Woke….Go Broke!” and in time if enough consumers do find alternative sources for their purchases….thes “50” corporations shall see a decline in Revenues, a decrease in Operating Profits, and ultimately challenges to Management by Shareholders demanding the firing of the CEO and Board Members that approved the decision. Clue….what happened at Disney can happen to these “50”.

    Make them defend their position that patently attacks the Free Speech concepts this Nation is founded upon…..and hold their feet to the fire until they reverse their decision and clean house.

  6. The effective action may well be that publicly-held, publicly-traded corporations find out that shareholder involvement, even shareholder lawsuits, are a reality. Boards of Directors are not immune from personal liability in some cases (read Sarbanes-Oxley legislation from the post-Enron disaster).

  7. “[T]hey want to wait to ‘gain a better understanding on the direction of the platform under its new leadership.’”

    That is cowardly PR speak. I’d have more respect for those companies if they’d openly state the obvious:

    We support the Left’s desire to suppress opposing opinions.

  8. How bizarre that some companies have plunged into the world of politics. They should concentrate on making better products and serving their customers and shareholders. Period!

    Business 101. The more customers the better. Play politics and they lose customers. Less customers, less business.

    Now customers know where some of them stand and can factor this in their purchasing decisions.

  9. I’m super curious to see Jon’s rationale for the impending Musk financial crash of Twitter after making it a hobby horse for the right’s take on ‘free speech’. We’ll find out sooner rather than later.

    1. Thus far, Musk has exposed how biased Twitter was.
      He may shine light on the extent of collusion of Twitter with the government to censor various topics.
      That alone might be worth the cost. Could be the biggest story of the decade.

      1. ROFL. I see, so someone blowing 40 billion so you can try to justify your paranoid beliefs is a worthy pursuit.

        1. ATS, your statement shows you don’t have a business mind. Musk is not looking for a few percentage point profit. He is looking for many multiples of what he paid, along with something that binds his industries together. It’s good you have social security because you lack understanding of the business world.ATS, it shows you don’t have a business mind. Musk is not looking for a few percentage point profit. He is looking for many multiples of what he paid along with something that binds his industries together. It’s good you have social security because finance is something you don’t understand.

        2. Are your comments supposed to make sense ?

          Musk did not spend $40B to prove someone else’s beleifs regarding the facts – though he has done that.

          But I would suggest that the left might want to be careful. Your not F$%king with some republican aparatich, or some mere millionaire, or even a lowly billionaire. Your playing games with the richest person in the world.

          The Fed’s wanted Musk to bail out GM. Do you think F^&king with people who can bailout GM is wise ?

          Left Wing nuts are currently trying to push Apple and Google into F$%King with twitter – you are stupid cocky SOB’s.
          Musk may not be able to buy Apple or Google, but he absolute can screw them.

          If you are smart you will leave him alone and pray to your god that he fails – which is highly unlikely.

          Further Musk does correctly understand enough history and reality to grasp the importance of free speech, as well as how destructive left wing nut economics is, and that despite being the single most important individual to reducing human CO2 he is smart enough to easily grasp that global warming is not a problem, and that if it actually were government would only make the problem worse.

          But ultimately Musk is not a “republican” – he is another liberal democrats that you have red pilled.
          Keep it up. A small portion of the interest on his wealth is more than every penny democrats spent on 2020 and 2022.

      1. “Just how many people . . .”

        Nice ad hominem. Might you take a minute to articulate a counter-*argument*?

  10. The left has tried to boycott Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and all of Fox News but the right has never called for a boycott against Joy Reid, Tiffany Cross, Al Sharpton, Nicolle Wallace, Ari Melber, Joe Scarborough or Chris Hayes because the right is happy to have the left tell the public what their ideas are while the left does not want the public to hear what the right has to say. Is that not telling?

    I always say if the left doesn’t like something they want it banned, if the right doesn’t like something they don’t use it, watch it or read it. WE CHANGE THE CHANNEL!

    1. HullBobby,
      Well said.
      The left is all about control. They want to control what it is everyone watches, says, reads, or prints.
      The only point of view, narrative they want to be allowed is theirs.
      All others must be silenced.
      Who are the real fascists?

    2. Hullbobby moans, ignoring the fact the people he cited as supposedly calling for boycotts of Tucker et al. all work for another cable entity (meaning they literally changed the channel).

      1. Anonymous, your comment makes no sense. Just because they work for another channel doesn’t mean that they aren’t calling for a boycott???? Tucker doesn’t say to boycott Joy Reid and yet he works for a different channel. Boy, that was moronic…even by your low standards.

        Upstate, thanks for the reply. Upstate makes sense every day, Anonymous makes a fool out of himself ten times a day. Not as often as Svelaz, but quite a bit.

        1. Your logic makes no sense….

          And none of those people have called for a boycott of Tucker. They, in fact, reference him often enough in their monologue.

  11. “…These companies are well within their free speech rights to boycott the company or suspend their support in light of possible changes on content. However, customers also have the right not to support companies that do not support their free speech rights.”

    Turley calls for boycott on companies boycotting Twitter. Lol. Love how Jon routinely addresses free speech issues with censorship. Sounds an awful lot like he believes in free speech for me but not for thee. Surprising, ay?

    1. He called for a boycott of the companies boycotting Twitter? Did you read a different column than I did?

      1. “Did you read a different column than I did?”

        Yes. It always does.

        It’s desire is to destroy Turley’s reputation. It’s Leftist script is: Distort Turley’s arguments and ideas (and hope that people don’t read too carefully).

        1. Actually “it” quoted Turley and several gullible magats have joined on to call for the boycott of companies Turley has listed in his post…

          Proving that “it” read the article Turley actually wrote.

  12. So they want to “pause” and see where Musk is taking Twitter?
    Okay.
    I can also “pause” and not buy their products, or frequent their establishments.

    Just read Musk might make his own smartphone. I would buy one as an alternative to Apple or Google.

    1. The Tesla phone is done. It is supposed to ultimately be integrated with Starlink and provided actual end-to-end encryption. The entire Tesla ecosystem aims to be outside of Google, Apple and government control. One of the many reasons Musk has been made public enemy #2, right after Trump. The real war is here, not the money laundering Op in Ukraine.

    2. @UpstateFarmer

      If it was more consistent than the iPhone in its functionality between OSes, and it wasn’t a spyware-phone like Android, I would too.

  13. The great uniter, is a great disappointment. Electing a blithering idiot, to be the leader of the formerly free USA, was the stupidest move ever. @musk is doing his best to stop the cancel culture. Who was the idiot that decided food and fuel, are exempt from the inflation calculations? 8% my a$$

  14. These companies have their own free speech rights and they don’t have to make a clear stand on what their position is about twitter as Turley demands.

    He’s just being disingenuous as usual because companies are exercising THEIR free speech rights.

    1. Svelaz

      As usual, you ignore the real issue in order to try to score points on Turley.

      Good debating technique; also says volumes about your moral compass.

      1. Monumentcolorado, nope. What most posters are missing here is the fact that Turley dismissively acknowledges companies have free speech rights by disingenuously and hypocritically criticizing their position and demands they be clear when they are not required to be at all. He’s falsely accusing these companies of being vague because they don’t give him a clear reason to criticize them. So he jumps to conclusions and makes a false narrative to support his disingenuous rhetoric about twitter being “pro-censorship” because they chose to run their platform as they saw fit before Elon bought it. It was legal and their prerogative just as it is now Elon’s now. Turley is a free speech hypocrite.

        1. “Turley dismissively acknowledges companies have free speech rights by disingenuously and hypocritically criticizing their position and demands”

          There is nothing wrong with illuminating the fact that some multinational companies care little for America or the American working family. Let those working families realize who is making their lives miserable.

          1. How are these companies making families lives miserable by not putting ads on Twitter?

            They have every right not to advertise where they don’t want to. Turley is chastising these companies for the audacity of exercising their own free speech rights.

            1. Learn to read the written word.

              There is nothing wrong with illuminating the fact that some multinational companies care little for America or the American working family. Let those working families realize who is making their lives miserable.

  15. “ Companies like Disney have faced backlash over taking political positions in states like Florida.”

    Turley is too cowardly or disingenuous to point out the sad fact that Disney was punished in Florida for exercising THEIR free speech rights. Taking a political position in support of their employees is free speech. Governor DeSantis and the legislature chose to illegally punish them for having the gall to criticize Desantis and his unconstitutional anti-woke policies. That was a massive free speech censorship Turley conveniently ignored and continues to do so.

    Turley is making a lot of assumptions trying to plant a false narrative of what these companies are wanting to do. He demands they should state clearly why they are pulling out of twitter. They don’t have to say squat. Companies have their own free speech rights and they don’t have to say why they are pulling out their advertising or explain clearly. It’s their right as Turley sheepishly acknowledges in his column.

    If companies are being pressured to boycott twitter by the public there’s nothing Turley or twitter can do. He can only be disingenuous and make false claims and dictate what these companies should do and be a massive hypocrite all he wants. That’s his prerogative.

    1. Svelaz, first of all how did DeSantis “ILLIGALLY” attack Disney? Where is the lawsuit? Where are the arrests? Where are the court cases?

      Second, doesn’t the state have the same rights as Disney to make decisions such as the decisions they both made?

      Third, doesn’t Turley have the right to have an issue and therefore a column about these types of boycotts? Especially since nowhere does he claim that these companies don’t have a right to pull their ads.

      Fourth, don’t the people of Florida have the right to have their representatives ban teachers from discussing gender issues with FIVE YEAR OLD KIDS, which is what the law actually does? Is there no right of the parents to protect their kids from your leftist idiocy?

      Svelaz, your arguments seem to be getting weaker and weaker as you are forced to defend more radical leftist ideas every day. Now you are left yelling at DeSantis for banning sexual discussions with kids from FIVE TO EIGHT YEARS OLD. Good luck with that. GROOMER!

      1. You are correct. Disney had more breaks and rights that 7-8 US states. They bit the hand that fed them. As far as the points that groomer made, they were all just unsupported emotional jibberish.

        1. David Norman, Disney didn’t “bite” the hand that “fed” them. They just criticized a policy and the state unconstitutionally retaliated against it because it didn’t like the criticism. Disney had a very good deal with the state and now the district it once governed will be responsible for the debt Disney had on the areas it controlled. Oops. That’s a billion dollars worth or debt heaped on the property owners of that district.

          1. “Disney didn’t “bite” the hand that “fed” them. “

            Yes they did. They bit the hands of families that are now questioning whether Disney is good for their children or not.

            1. “ Yes they did. They bit the hands of families that are now questioning whether Disney is good for their children or not.”

              No they didn’t. Disney defended their employees against a tiny minority outraged because they were being lied to.

              They criticized a government policy and the government retaliated. That’s a direct violation of Disney’s 1st amendment free speech rights.

              1. Svelaz, Florida didn’t bite the hands of families questioning Disney. It was those families that put Ron DeSantis in office. Blame the ignorant intolerance of the left that caused DeSantis to be elected.

                You are ignorant of what happened in Florida. That is not surprising because you are unaware of everything.

                SM

                1. “ Svelaz, Florida didn’t bite the hands of families questioning Disney. It was those families that put Ron DeSantis in office. Blame the ignorant intolerance of the left that caused DeSantis to be elected.”

                  Irrelevant.

                  DeSantis illegally retaliated against Disney because they had the audacity to criticize one of his policies. It was a direct violation of Disney’s free speech rights. It’s irrelevant who voted for DeSantis. The constitution is quite clear on this. DeSantis punished Disney because they chose to criticize him. YOU are the ignorant one. It’s clear you support government censorship and retaliation for exercising free speech.

                  1. “Irrelevant.” No, ignorance on your part.

                    “DeSantis illegally retaliated “ Wrong as usual. It wasn’t illegal.

                    My only suggestion to you, Svelaz, is you don’t visit Florida. Florida doesn’t want people like you.

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      “ DeSantis illegally retaliated “ Wrong as usual. It wasn’t illegal.”

                      So you’re saying that DeSantis, a government official, can retaliate against Disney because they criticized his policy. You’re saying it’s not illegal. Why is that not illegal S. Meyer?

                    2. There are many possible motivations for what DeSantis did. Among them could be leveling the playing field for all businesses. The Disney deal was a special favor to Disney, unfair to competitors. Many people in Florida don’t like your type and pass laws to protect children. Perhaps you don’t like Florida laws keeping pedophiles away from schools. That impacts the pedophile’s freedom to go where he wishes and even his free speech.

                      The country is gradually learning what you are all about and doesn’t like you. You don’t see it, but that is because you remain unaware living in your leftist cocoon.

                    3. S. Meyer says,

                      “ There are many possible motivations for what DeSantis did. Among them could be leveling the playing field for all businesses. The Disney deal was a special favor to Disney, unfair to competitors. Many people in Florida don’t like your type and pass laws to protect children. Perhaps you don’t like Florida laws keeping pedophiles away from schools. That impacts the pedophile’s freedom to go where he wishes and even his free speech.

                      The country is gradually learning what you are all about and doesn’t like you. You don’t see it, but that is because you remain unaware living in your leftist cocoon.”

                      You didn’t answer the question. You say it’s not illegal to punish Disney because they criticized the governor. Punishing Disney puts Disney in a position to censor itself so DeSantis or lawmakers don’t retaliate further. Why is that legal S. Meyer?

                      How does that “level the playing field? Does that mean other companies would be punished for criticizing government too?

                    4. “You didn’t answer the question. You say it’s not illegal to punish Disney because they criticized the governor. “

                      Are you dumb? The question never arrives at your point. There are many motivations for what DeSantis did, some preceding DeSantis ever being elected. Additionally, it is obvious nothing done was illegal. What are the challenges in court?

                      “How does that “level the playing field?”

                      Disney was given special advantages over its competitors. Now the playing field is level. You don’t like it because your persona links to sexually abusive intent. You want such a persona to be supreme over mothers and fathers.

                      Stay away from children.

      2. Hullbobby,

        “ Svelaz, first of all how did DeSantis “ILLIGALLY” attack Disney?”. By punishing Disney because all they did was criticize his policies. That’s a direct violation of Disney’s 1st amendment right, anybody’s right, to be free from government persecution for exercising their right to criticize government.

        Disney hasn’t filed a lawsuit against it. That doesn’t mean their right was not violated. DeSantis “stop woke” act has already been ruled unconstitutional. Government retaliation for criticism is clearly a violation of Disney’s 1st amendment right.

        “ Second, doesn’t the state have the same rights as Disney to make decisions such as the decisions they both made?”

        No, because the state cannot punish someone for exercising their 1st amendment rights. According to John B. Say government has no free speech rights.

        “ Third, doesn’t Turley have the right to have an issue and therefore a column about these types of boycotts? ”

        Sure he does. That doesn’t mean he is immune from criticism and ridicule about his hypocrisy and transparent bias.

        “ Fourth, don’t the people of Florida have the right to have their representatives ban teachers from discussing gender issues with FIVE YEAR OLD KIDS, which is what the law actually does?”

        Why would discussing gender issues be a problem. Five year olds are seeing these issues in public. Their curiosity will lead to questions that teachers should be able to answer. That shouldn’t be controversial at all

        1. Keep talking Svelaz, you are making it much harder for your groomer friends to keep up the scam of “teaching” 5 year old children about gender. All the right wants is for the people to learn what the left is pushing to our children because the sunlight will crush them. No, it isn’t ok to tell 5 year old boys that they may be girls…get it?

          1. Hullbobby, nobody is teaching that they may be boys or girls. Your paranoia is getting the better of you. Get a grip man.

            There are nut jobs taking effective advantage of your ignorance and gullibility. It’s pretty sad actually.

        2. Just to be clear – you are positing a rule that it is a violation of the first amendment for anyone in government to act within government against anyone who has spoken out against them.

          So DeSantis can not act in anyway that might harm Disney – after Disney speaks out against him ?

          So Biden can not act in anyway against Trump – after Trump is critical of him ?

          How is it that you actually imagine this rule working ?
          Anyone can make themselves entirely immune from any government action by speaking out against government leaders.

          If I accuse the local mayor of being a pedo, does that mean I can rob a bank and not be prosecuted ?

          1. “ Just to be clear – you are positing a rule that it is a violation of the first amendment for anyone in government to act within government against anyone who has spoken out against them.”

            It’s not a “rule”. It’s a constitutional prohibition on government punishing or retaliating individuals or organizations for criticism of government. It’s chilling free speech thru the threat of punishment or retaliation. That should be obvious to you.

            “ So DeSantis can not act in anyway that might harm Disney – after Disney speaks out against him ?” It cannot act in any way that seeks to punish Disney because they criticized his policy. Punishing Disney ensures they think twice about criticizing DeSantis again. That’s shutting up Disney thru punishment or threatening retaliation. THAT is blatantly unconstitutional.

            “ So Biden can not act in anyway against Trump – after Trump is critical of him ?”

            No. You should know that. That you don’t seem to understand the logic of what DeSantis and the Florida legislature did in response to Disney criticizing them is unconstitutional is puzzling. Could it be that you secretly approve of government punishing those who criticize it? China does it all the time.

            1. A constitutional prohibition is catagorically a “rule”.

              Next, the way you phrased it. means that anyone who criticises government is no longer subject to any other laws.

              Is DOJ barred from investigating Trump because Trump has been criticising DOJ for 6 years ?

              BTW DeSantis did not “punish” disney, he along with the legislature took away a special priviledge that Disney never should have had.

              You do not seem to grasp that YOUR rule can not actually be implimented.

              If you call a police officer a Pig at a traffic stop – can he no longer write you a citation ?

              Since my hair picked up a bit of gray, my interactions with police have improved dramitically, they are far more polite and I get warnings rather than citations.

              This is the way the world works.

              Do not make stupid rules – and what you are positing is OBVIOUSLY a stupid rule.

              You can not bar people or government from “retaliating” – so long as they do so within the law.

              You may not like that – I do not like that, but you can not make society work otherwise.

              You can never make a workable rule based on your guess at the motives of others.

            2. I understand your “logic” fully.

              It is wrong. The first amendment says Government shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

              It does not say that speech has no consequences.

            3. I approve of very little of what any govenrment does.

              I do not approve of FL giving Disney special priviledges.
              I approve of FL terminating those special priviledges.
              While I would prefer it did not appear to be retaliation.
              Sorry Svelaz – nowhere in the constitution is there ANYTHING about the motives of government.

              There is nowhere in the law or constitution of the US that says some conduct is acceptable if you have good motives and not if you have bad ones.

        3. Hullbobby did not claim the state had the right to free speech.
          He asked if it had the power to act.

          The first amendment bars government from making laws restricting speech.
          It does not bar government from making laws.

          The consequence of Florida’s actions impacting Disney was to end a special priviledge.
          It did not restrict Disney’s speech.

          I would personally prefer if the response was not retaliatory.
          But I am quite happy that FL ended Dinesy’s unconstitutional special status.

          Locking you in jail for murder restricts your first amendment rights.
          No court will listen to a first amendment claim that you can not be jailed for murder because it violates your constitutional rights.

          1. “ The consequence of Florida’s actions impacting Disney was to end a special priviledge.
            It did not restrict Disney’s speech.”

            It was retaliation for being criticized. It’s a direct violation of the 1st amendment. The retaliation forces Disney go curtail future criticism (to censor itself) which is exactly what the first amendment prohibits government from doing.

            Ending the special privilege was in response to Disney’s exercise of protected speech.

            Government doesn’t have to directly lock you in jail to violate ones free speech rights. Mere threat of lockup is a violation. The government cannot infringe on the right thru retaliation or with threats of punishment. It’s the same effect as indirect censorship that you claim is illegal.

            1. “Ending the special privilege was in response to Disney’s exercise of protected speech.”

              Wrong.

              There were many reasons to do so. Many requested this action for decades. Disney created an opportune time for this to be done.

            2. The first amendment says government can make no law abridging the right to free speech.

              There is nothing in the constitution that comes remotely close to what you claim.

              The courts RARELY if ever address the motive of government in acting – and when they do – they err.

              It is limited government that precludes bad conduct by govenrment – NOT your, my or courts speculating about motives.

              Regardless, it si obvious that YOU do not even believe what you say. You have no problem retaliating against Trump and others for speaking.

            3. No the “effect” is not the same. Disney was not prohibited from speaking. There is no “indirect” effect.

              Florida’s ability to “retaliate” against disney is completely limited to the elimination of special privileges

              It is not “punishment” to take away from you something that was never yours in the first place.

              This stuff is not that hard. I do not understand why it is so difficult for you – except that you constantly try to read everything to suit your ill thought values rather than as written.

        4. “Why would discussing gender issues be a problem.”
          What is it that you think is not appropriate for teachers to discuss with five year olds ?

          Regardless, The job of teachers is to teach the specific curricula that parents through their school boards want taught.
          Not to interject whatever they want ?

          Should teachers be discussing particle physics with 5 year olds ? Auto Erotic Asphyxiation ? Beastiality ? Keynesian Economics ?

          “Five year olds are seeing these issues in public.”
          They see cars in public – we do not expect teachers to teach 5 year olds to drive.

          “Their curiosity will lead to questions that teachers should be able to answer.”
          Their curiosity can lead wherever it may – it is NOT the role of teachers or the state to be parents.
          It is NOT the role of teachers to decide whether the curiosity of 5 year olds needs answers.

          “That shouldn’t be controversial at all”
          It is not – teachers of five year olds have their hands full teaching a very small curicula, there is no need to introduce sexual issues.
          There is very limited need to address sex in school AT ANY AGE.

          If at all sex education is a very narrow and limited role for public education.

          I expect that at all ages – schools will stop the bullying of students who are different – regardless of those differences.
          I do NOT expect the school to be advocating for ANY differences.
          This is a SMALL role for schools and can be accomplished with limited resources.
          It is also a REACTIVE role not an active one.

          To the extent that sex education of any kind is part of schools, the purpose is to encourage kids to delay until they are adults.
          To reduce the spread of STD’s and to reduce the frequency of teenage pregnancies.

          It is not to teach kids to “find themselves” – sexually or otherwise. It is not to make them better lovers, or to explore a variety of fetishes.

          1. “ Regardless, The job of teachers is to teach the specific curricula that parents through their school boards want taught.
            Not to interject whatever they want ?”

            Teachers are not automatons. You seem to believe they should be in some capacity. Kids WILL ask questions about what they see outside school. It’s inevitable.

            Teachers are NOT teaching or discussing things such as “ Auto Erotic Asphyxiation ? Beastiality ?” or any of those kinds of details. None do. The only people making those outlandish claims are the ones who are deliberately wanting to scare parents into believing that’s what they are doing for political gain. It’s easy to scare parents to vote for you than to sell stand alone ideas.

            “ There is very limited need to address sex in school AT ANY AGE.

            If at all sex education is a very narrow and limited role for public education.”

            There’s a very broad need. This society is full of sexual promotion in commercial and cultural norms. Appropriate teaching early and progressive explanations as they grow should be part of the curriculum. That does not mean to involve the extremes many here claim due to sheer ignorance. Appropriate comprehensive sex education is crucial in preventing the bullying you say should be diminished or eliminated.

            Teachers are being constrained because parents are being scared into believing their kids are being taught inappropriate content by bigots and political opportunists for political gain.

            Nobody is “grooming” kids and they are not telling them they are going to be the opposite of who they are sexually. Students figure that on their own or should be at least guided into really thinking about what they are going thru rather than demonizing it which leads to the bullying you say should stop.

            “ To the extent that sex education of any kind is part of schools, the purpose is to encourage kids to delay until they are adults.
            To reduce the spread of STD’s and to reduce the frequency of teenage pregnancies.”

            Sex education should be comprehensive and include all methods not just celibacy. Encouraging them to abstain is fine but that shouldn’t stop there it should also involve the reality that at some point students WILL make a decision and they should be aware on the entirety of what’s involved by factual information instead of urban myths and the “advice” of other students.

            “ It is not to teach kids to “find themselves” – sexually or otherwise. It is not to make them better lovers, or to explore a variety of fetishes.”

            They will always do what they want. Nobody can really stop them. The best way to help them make a decision that is best for themselves IS to give them the most information, APPROPRIATE information possible rather than demonizing them and denigration of teachers who can provide it when parents can’t.

            Your idea is all about “limited” instruction when it should be comprehensive in a society that has sex in nearly everything thanks to the free market.

            1. “Teachers are not automatons. ”

              That is why teachers have to demonstrate self-restraint.

              “This society is full of sexual promotion in commercial and cultural norms. Appropriate teaching early and progressive explanations as they grow should be part of the curriculum.”

              You are blind to the facts. Stay away from schools.

              Stop trying to insert yourself into the family. Your ideology promotes the break up of families. Go away.

            2. “Teachers are not automatons. You seem to believe they should be in some capacity. Kids WILL ask questions about what they see outside school. It’s inevitable.”
              Irrelevant. The domain of public education is narrow not infinite.
              What teachers are expected to accomplish within the limited time available is determined by parents.
              Not teachers.

              “Teachers are NOT teaching or discussing things such as “ Auto Erotic Asphyxiation ? Beastiality ?” or any of those kinds of details. None do.”
              And why not ?
              “Kids WILL ask questions”

              Regardless, please explain to me why schools can prohibit discussion of BDSM but not transexualism ?
              Both are just sexual choices.

              “The only people making those outlandish claims are the ones who are deliberately wanting to scare parents into believing that’s what they are doing for political gain. It’s easy to scare parents to vote for you than to sell stand alone ideas.”

              Ir is easy to scare people – because less than a decade ago YOU told parents that gay marraige would not result in the sexual indoctrination of children.
              It is easy to scare people – because you are WRONG and there are teachers going beyond gender. It is not yet mainstream on the lef, but there are already more left wing nuts talking positively about pedophila, and talking about it in the context of schools.

              Are all the things that are being used to “scare” parents today going to be true tomorow ? No – but soon enough.
              Not so long ago sexualizing 5yr olds was something that would never happen.

              Those of you on the left are being called groomers for good reason.
              There is no objective way to tell a teacher “grooming” a child for pedophilia, from those who are not. What we can do – which you will not accept is to somewhat protect kids by limiting sex in school.

              “There’s a very broad need.”
              Nope.
              You stop bullying – by stopping bullying PERIOD – it is irrelvant why a student is being bullied.
              The why need never be addressed. Students get bullied for thousands of reasons many of which are absurd.
              The reasons do not matter.

              Society is NOT full of sexual promotion in commercial cultural norms with respect to children.

              What SHOULD be part of the curriculum is what is NECESCARY.
              There are infinite numbers of things we do not teach. There is always someone who believes their special subject needs to be in school.
              That does not make that true.

              “Appropriate comprehensive sex education is crucial in preventing the bullying you say should be diminished or eliminated.”
              Nope, you stop bullying – by stopping bullying.

              “Teachers are being constrained because parents are being scared into believing their kids are being taught inappropriate content by bigots and political opportunists for political gain.”
              False and irrelevant.

              Yes, this is working out well politically for conservatives – it si just another big failure on the part of the left.
              Education is a massive achilles heal for the left. The more you change the worse you make it.

              “Nobody is “grooming” kids”
              People – and particularly teachers have been grooming kids since long before I was in school.
              Every single place where kids interact with lone adults ALWAYS results in the sexual abuse of kids.
              Boy scouts, altar boys, and teachers
              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3354747/Nearly-700-suspected-paedophiles-including-dozens-teachers-carers-arrested-child-porn-nine-months.html

              “they are not telling them they are going to be the opposite of who they are sexually.”
              Given that you have no objective criteria for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or transexuality – it is not possible for you to claim that.

              “Students figure that on their own”
              Yup, and they do not need your help.

              “should be at least guided”
              Absolutely not – certainly not by government or teachers.

              “into really thinking about what they are going thru rather than demonizing it”

              I do not want cosmetology taught to 3rd graders – that is not demonizing it.
              I do not care what choices YOU make as an adult that do not harm others.
              You are NOT free to indoctrinate kids.

              “which leads to the bullying you say should stop.”
              The way to stop bullying is to stop bullying.

              “Sex education should be comprehensive and include all methods not just celibacy. Encouraging them to abstain is fine but that shouldn’t stop there it should also involve the reality that at some point students WILL make a decision and they should be aware on the entirety of what’s involved by factual information instead of urban myths and the “advice” of other students.”

              Again you completely ignored what I wrote. The LEGITMATE objective of sex education is to DELAY sexual activity until a person is fully prepared for the responsibilities involved. It is to avoid unwanted pregnancy. and to prevent STD’s.

              I would note those were the promises when Sex Ed was first introduced 60+ years ago.

              And everyone of those has been a FAILURE.
              Teens are sexually active at ever younger ages,
              Teen pregnancies have increased
              as have STD’s.

              Given that traditional Sex Education is an obvious failure – why do you think we need more.

              I am not a prude, when my kids were young we had a rule – mom and dad will answer all your questions about sex EXCEPT our own sex life.
              I answered questions to my 8yr old daughter about bondage – which she found on the internet.

              That said I would have no problems eliminating sex ed from public school entirely.
              It has NOT accomplished its purpose or any of what it promised. It has proven a waste of precious educational time.

              I certainly do not wish to expand it. There are many many things in life we learn outside the classroom.
              Adults and children have infinite resources available today they did not 60 years ago.
              Schools need to focus more on the core where they are failing.

              “They will always do what they want. Nobody can really stop them.”
              That is obviously false. Kids do not just do what they want or they would not be in school.
              Parents and to a lessor extent other adults have a great deal – but not total control over kids.
              Some of that is by force, some by example, and some by teaching kids how to make good choices.

              The latter – teaching kids how to make good choices, is pretty much NOT what school is about.
              That is the job of parents and always has been.

              “The best way to help them make a decision that is best for themselves IS to give them the most information, APPROPRIATE information ”
              Again obviously false. You seem to think that kids are miniture computers, processing information and outputting correct results.
              By far the most effective means of teaching kids how to make good choices is to allow them to make their own choices as early as those choices can safely be made and protecting them from life altering consequences while otherwise allowing thing to go wrong.
              Kids learn how to make good choices by making mistakes – so long as those mistakes do not kill them.

              You know very little about kids education.
              Please do not ever become a parent.

              “possible rather than demonizing them and denigration of teachers who can provide it when parents can’t.”
              So much nonsense. YOU and those who want to sexualize kids are being demonized and denegrated for your own stupid conduct.

              You are correct there are good parents and bad parents. That is irrelevant – Teachers are NOT a substitute for parents.
              Whether you like it or not – we KNOW that. Further a great deal of the teachers involved in this nonsense are arguably still children themselves.
              Parents most certainly do not need help from people who have never had children themselves.

              “Your idea is all about “limited” instruction when it should be comprehensive in a society that has sex in nearly everything thanks to the free market.”
              non sequitur.
              School serves a specific narrow purpose. We do not use school to teach kids everything about life.

  16. The Company’s policy of “Risk Management in-terms-of Brand Perception” leveraged by the perception of Twitter’s Free Speech Protections -vs- Censorship policies. Because of the volume of Twitter’s social-network platform, These Companies have taken the position of “Risk Efficacy” into consideration as a ‘Form of their Risk Management’.

    Obviously when they considered this, they took the conservative position of ‘pulling-back’. It was a Management’s decision more-than-less of a Brand’s political statement on Free Speech or Censorship policies.

    In time, … They’ll be Back.

    1. The ‘Brand’s Impact Metric’ (efficacy) is that which generates positive interest in the Brand in a given year.

      How is this “scored”?

      Internet Searches: Number of times a Brand’s name is searched on the internet;
      Earned Media: Number of unique news articles that include a Brand’s name;
      Social Media: Social media score that considers a Brand’s reach, conversation and engagement metrics;
      TV Sponsor Exposure: Duration (time) that a Brand’s sponsor logo(s) appears on screen during Saturday/Sunday telecasts;
      Awareness: A Brand’s general awareness score among broad U.S. population.

      Brand Management considers the Efficacy-at-Risk (Risk Efficacy) when exposed to adverse events & subject matters.

  17. Its too late, but Rush gave the world a masters class in how to beat these pea brains like Brock.
    At the center, is the knowledge, the media cant destroy what it did not create.
    The real world, Musk is smart enough to create a space travel company, my bet is David Brock will be less of a bother than navel lint.

  18. Name the people behind the media buy halts and pushes to have google and apple ban twitter. Show their names, all of them. Show the ties they have to dnc, etc. Shine the light on the roaches.

    1. The left has mastered the art of pressure campaigns. Where are the activists in the centre and on the right to expose the hypocrisy of these companies and to promote a boycott of them?

      I hope Musk publishes the entire hidden techniques of censorship Twitter deployed prior to his takeover, including all correspondence. Not only the coverup of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s criminal enterprise but also all communications with government censors.

      1. “ The left has mastered the art of pressure campaigns. Where are the activists in the centre and on the right to expose the hypocrisy of these companies and to promote a boycott of them?”

        LOL!!

        The left should be thanking for moral majority and the right for the boycott movement. They were the first to call for mass boycotts of companies and organizations that didn’t conform to their ideology. It was the right that sought boycotts of Disney when they had movies and content that promoted something they didn’t like. They created the movement they now despise. How ironic.

  19. Musk will need to make clear the policies of the revamped Twittet until now his pronouncements are vague and misleading. I’m only one consumer but will do my best to avoid companies their products and services , If they simply boycott Twitter!

Leave a Reply