Below is my column in Fox.com on the potential criminal liability for Twitter executives, particularly Jack Dorsey, after the release of the Twitter files. While more material is being released, the files appear to contradict denials of Dorsey that there was no censorship or shadow banning targeting conservatives. As I note below, there are obvious defenses and much must still be learned about the underlying facts. However, Dorsey and others should clearly retain counsel in light of the contradictions in these files.
Here is the column:
The latest Twitter disclosures have raised potential legal liability for Twitter and its executives. No one appears more at risk than Twitter’s former CEO Jack Dorsey.
It is an ironic turn of events since Dorsey supported the takeover by Elon Musk and has called for all files to be released without filtering. Dorsey has the feel of a “designated defendant,” someone who was pushed forward by others to take any legal hit.
On its face, Dorsey has vulnerability after the latest release. He was repeatedly asked by members of Congress about censoring and shadow-banning, which has now been confirmed in these files.
In September 2018, Dorsey testified under oath and denied what these files appear to now confirm. Rep. Mike Doyle, D., Pa., asked, “Social media is being rigged to censor conservatives. Is that true of Twitter?”
Dorsey responded, “No.”
Doyle then asked “Are you censoring people?”
“No,” Dorsey said.
“Twitter’s shadow-banning prominent Republicans… is that true?” Doyle asked.
Dorsey again said no.
Dorsey was also asked about my prior testimony on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate. Dorsey and the other CEOs were asked about my warning of a “‘little brother’ problem, a problem which private entities do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself.” In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.”
It now appears that the entire company was operating as a censoring department. However, there were in fact super-censors. Dorsey did not mention the Strategic Response Team-Global Escalation Team (SRT-GET), which operated above what journalist Bari Weiss described as “a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper.”
That group reportedly included Vijaya Gadde, head of Legal, Policy and Trust; Yoel Roth, the global head of Trust and Safety; CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.
Notably, others at the company made similar denials as Dorsey but may not have done so under oath. In 2018, Gadde and head of product Kayvon Beykpour expressly declared, “We do not shadow-ban. And we certainly don’t shadow-ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
Even if untrue, lying in public is generally not a crime. However, when you repeat a lie to federal investigators or Congress or the courts, it becomes a federal offense.
The question is whether Dorsey was left in the dark on these decisions. He was reportedly a member of SRT-GET. However, some of the files indicate that these decisions may have been made without his knowledge. That includes the decision on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which Dorsey called a “total mistake.”
Dorsey could quibble over the term “shadow-banning” but the question was obviously meant as a follow-up to the inquiry over “rigging” discourse on the platform. He could also stress other answers, where he tied “shadow-banning” to a more subjective notion of political bias. For example, Dorsey also repeated these statements in public, including an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox, when he was asked if “Twitter has ever been involved in shadow-banning, Dorsey again categorically denied such practices: “We do not shadow-ban according to political ideology or viewpoint.”
For most people, Dorsey’s comments clearly suggested that there was no shadow-banning. However, he could claim that he knew that they were shadow-banning but that they were not doing so “according to political ideology or viewpoint.” That is clearly refuted by the new files showing a hair-triggered censorship system directed against conservative and Republican posters.
The other defense is lack of knowledge, but, even if accepted, that will raise the question of whether this was a case of a designated defendant or willful blindness.
In some cases, there is a suspicion that corporations will assign some executive to sign off on compliance or certifications as the fall guy or designated defendant if things go wrong. The chump is often a junior lawyer or executive who takes personal responsibility for certifying a false fact.
Dorsey is clearly no chump or junior executive. The question is then whether this was a case of willful blindness or an attempt by other executives like Gadde or Roth to give him plausible deniability by keeping him in the dark. He then became the public face in unequivocally and confidently denying practices like shadow-banning.
The greatest defense for Dorsey may be found in the Justice Department itself. Any prosecution of Twitter executives could prove a hard sell for Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose department has been repeatedly accused of pronounced political bias.
While Garland has aggressively pursued contempt sanctions against Trump associates, it is not clear if he would prove as aggressive with Democratic allies like Dorsey or other Twitter executives. He could face that question if the House under the GOP pursues perjury or contempt sanctions.
Dorsey once said about Twitter that “It’s really complex to make something simple.” He may now be hoping that his answers before Congress were simple enough to make any prosecution complex.
Deamplifying is the same as shadow banning.
Both reduce or eliminate a persons visibility.
“Both reduce . . .”
You need to learn the difference between “both” and “each.” To atone for that sin, I expect a 2,500-word comment (complete with references to the _OED_) explaining the definition and etymology of each (or is it “both”?) word (or is it “words”?).
What was the topic, again?
No, they’re not the same.
In shadow banning, no one else can see your comments, even if they look for them. In deamplification, anyone who looks for your comments can see them.
Shadow banning eliminates visibility to others; deamplification does not eliminate visibility to others.
One criminal act that permeated Twitter 1.0 was election tampering. Another was conspiracy to commit election tampering in conjunction with multiple federal agencies.
Here in Doublestandardstan Democrats never get prosecuted let alone convicted and sentenced. See Michael Sussman vs Roger Stone, the human manifestation of life in Doublestandardstan. See the FBI agent that lied on the FISA Application, got disbarred…and no he is a member in good standing of the DC Bar. See the top university attorneys that firebombed police cars and compare and contrast with people walking through the Capital on Jan 6th. See Eric Holder being held in contempt of congress vs Steve Bannon being held in contempt of congress. One going to prison, the other never charged.
The unequal legal jeopardy of Republicans and Democrats is one of the biggest threats to our legal underpinning these days.
PS. Anonymous is a contrarian freak that will not admit that red is red, blue is blue and 2 + 2 equals 4. We should all try to ignore the contrarian freak as I think that the attention he gets from his asinine comments is oxygen to his contrarian brain.
I always take insults and lying as the person ceding that they don’t have a good argument and can’t control their urge to insult.
You lie that Democrats never get prosecuted and then give a counterexample, Sussmann, in the very next sentence. Democrats also get convicted and sentenced, you can peruse some names here (and this list is only politicians — there are plenty of non-politicians too, like Avenatti): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
Durham simply didn’t have a good case against Sussman, and plenty of Republicans are also charged but not convicted.
I have no problem saying that red is red, blue is blue and 2 + 2 equals 4, and it’s fine by me if people ignore me. What you don’t get to do is prevent me from making counterarguments to garbage claims or calling out the lies and insults. You believe what you believe, but that doesn’t make your belief true. The DOJ didn’t prosecute Holder OR Meadows because they were both high up Executive Branch advisors. Steve Bannon was not working for the Executive. He should have done what Stone did this time: show up and plead the 5th, but he just had to thumb his nose instead. He deserves what he got.
“I always take insults and lying as the person ceding that they don’t have a good argument and can’t control their urge to insult.”
I seem to remember someone saying that about you. (No, it wasn’t me.)
Garland won’t do anything, but not all of these Twitter executives’ victims reside in D.C. or San Francisco. Cannot state attorneys general could bring charges against Twitter execs for violating the rights of victims in red states? Cannot these victims sue in their own jurisdictions?
The Democrats have weaponized D.C. judges and juries, but even that must have its limits… for now.
Their rights haven’t been violated. They chose to agree to the Terms of Service, and Twitter has not violated the TOS.
You lie.
Nope.
Have you ever read the TOS? I have. I’ve even quoted from it and linked to it on Turley’s site. Twitter has not violated its TOS, and users agree to that TOS when they create an account.
If you think that Twitter violated some part of the TOS, quote the part of the TOS that you believe was violated:
https://twitter.com/en/tos
And no, I’m not going to read their TOS. I read the Constitution.
I want to formally apologize for accusing you of lying. That was very disrespectful of me. I have no doubt you believe you are stating the truth. As Shakespeare wrote, “I have shot mine arrow o’er the house, and hurt my brother.” I hope you can forgive me.
Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to retract that part.
You’re still wrong: Twitter has it’s own 1st Amendment rights not to host speech or to remove a megaphone. Twitter is not the government, and is not being legally coerced by the government, so it is not breaking the law.
If it has section 230 protection, giving it platform protections, and then engages in censoring and shadow banning mainstream conservative content, Twitter is actually engaging in content. Section 230 should be removed in that case. Twitter lied about its activities so it could keep 230 and still interfere in content.
I would add that claiming section 230 implies that censoring mainstream conservative (or liberal) opinion cannot legally be part of the TOS. Assuming the TOS are not inconsistent with section 230, then Twitter would be in violation of its TOS if it censored due to differences of political opinion.
From Professor Hamburger:
“Online moderation can be valuable, but this censorship is different. It harms Americans’ livelihoods, muzzles them in the increasingly electronic public square, distorts political and cultural conversations, influences elections, and limits our freedom to sort out the truth for ourselves….
But there is little if any federal appellate precedent upholding censorship by the big tech companies….
But when a statute [230] regulating speech rests on the power to regulate commerce, there are constitutional dangers, and ambiguities in the statute should be read narrowly.”
“Yet one must worry that the government has privatized censorship.” We now know that they have.
“the danger lies in the statutory protection for massive companies that are akin to common carriers and that function as public forums. The First Amendment protects Americans even in privately owned public forums, such as company towns, and the law ordinarily obliges common carriers to serve all customers on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Here, however, it is the reverse…”
“The tech companies can’t have it both ways. If the statute is constitutional, it can’t be as broad as they claim, and if it is that broad, it can’t be constitutional….”
Much More… https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
Thank you, Alan. This brings up interesting nuances in the law. The cavalry to the rescue 🙂
If you wish I will see if I can’t post it.
But look at this article which I think is abridged and slightly different
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/phil-hamburger-the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-tech-companies-think-the-statute-allows-them-to-censor-with-impunity-the-law-is-seldom-so-simple/
Darn! Foiled by a pay wall! 🙁
Try this Diogenes: https://web.archive.org/web/20210131023207/https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/phil-hamburger-the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-tech-companies-think-the-statute-allows-them-to-censor-with-impunity-the-law-is-seldom-so-simple/
“Try this Diogenes:”
ATS, good try and thank you for posting it. Unfortunately I think it is only the first half of the article, but that has a lot of value.
I posted the full article once before but it was removed. I think that was the best article on section 230 so if the archives captured it before being deleted you might find it there.
However, there is another solution. They put up an audible containing exactly what was said in print. The first half is at the site you posted.
Diogenes, some deception is a form of lying, even though not all are lying. I posit that ATS frequently engages in deception equivalent to a lie because he repeatedly says the same after a statement is debunked.
I think he intentionally lies classically as well.
I think your training in liberal arts is better than mine, so if you have anything to add about deception = lying, such comments will be appreciated. I don’t want to mislabel anyone.
😉
Twitter executives lied under oath about shadow banning and censoring because they knew that undermining mainstream-conservative political opinions was legally risky. Their actions belie their words. They could hardly tell conservatives to shove off in the TOS, so they shoved them out clandestinely. The canard that private companies can do whatever they want has limits, especially when they are acting at the behest of the government.
FWIW: the anonymous commenter who posted the December 12, 2022 at 11:50 AM and December 12, 2022 at 11:53 AM comments is a different person than the one who posted the December 12, 2022 at 9:25 AM and December 12, 2022 at 10:43 AM comments. (I posted the latter. I did not post the former.)
It’s a crime for government and a company to conspire to suppress speech. It’s literally the definition of fascism. But you know that already, right anonymous?
Dorsey ran twittter one way – a perfectly legal way – and Musk runs Twitter in a different way.
I think the advertisers seem to prefer Dorsey’s way of running Twitter.
I do not see Turley even attempting to argue that anything Dorsey did in running Twitter was illegal. So he is trying to say he just have said something in a Congressional hearing that should be prosecuted. But we have seen about 6 years of Trump people thumbing their noses at Congressional hearings and rarely does anything happen to them.
What we also dont hear…is Dorsey refuting much of anything here. In fact, he’s been pretty active on Twitter past few weeks, even while in Africa, and explicitly asked for complete transparency, and to release it all. He likely knows he’s been set up as the dupe here, by happenstance or otw, and he’s smart enough to also want the truth of the actual culprits to come out asap, ugly as it may be for him to have it that way. He may not be innocent, but he has some defenses available to him, criminally and civilly, and this is a good way to start trying to shore them up. Will they be successful? Who knows. Will depend on whether it’s the criminal or civil liabilities at issue, what kind, etc. Prof. Turley is 100% spot on here.
So Musk is threatening any Twitter employees who release emails which might hurt Twitter. At the same time, he is selectively releasing emails to ideologically-aligned reporters to try to create a narrative about what the prior Twitter management did.
So Elon can decide what gets released and no information which contradicts Elons narrative can see the light of day. What also does not see the light of day is how Elon is making decisions today for Twitter, and how he is making decisions regarding these accounts.
I do not think Congress needs to be particularly concerned with what happened with Twitter before Elon got there; these people do not currently find the company; but they should hold Elon to account for all the decisions he is making now.
Shame that it’s not a Public Company anymore and that Elon has pared the Company down by @80%, gotten rid of the official Censorship departments & employees,…and publicly claimed that 1A & the Law of the Land will be the guiding policy for their historic TOS from now on. [He’s also greatly reduced illegal child trafficking, child porn etc…btw; and by curiously more, in the space of a month, than Twitter1 did in a decade!]
Hard then to hold FED hearings to see if a Company is lying & that 1A somehow applies, or should be regulated to, no? It’s also such a shame that the DEMs wont be in charge of the House next month to drum up pretexts like “Hate Speech” (which is gross, but big 1A protected ), “National Security”, etc. to have to haul him in. Musk has said he’s packed and ready to go, so no hauling neede. Thus, the only invite Musk is getting to the relevant House Hearings is a platinum-encrusted invite to spill all, probably followed by a medal ceremony of some kind. And, without the House, a 50-49 DEM Senate can’t do much but bloviate. (That was a Sinema laugh you just heard, btw.) Too bad, so sad. 🤣🤣🤣 – “Elections have consequences”, am I doing this right?
..blah… your commentary makes no sense, in part because an understanding of Corporate culture and protocol is missing. As the CEO Musk has every right to order his employees not to send emails, etc…He also has the right to expose the Machiavellian wrong-doing of the fired staff, et al, via releasing emails & comms as a public service. There is no ‘ideologically aligned’ interpretation here – the facts speak for themselves… e.g., the Interference in the 2020 Presidential Election appears to be clear, and corrupt due to the collusion of officials of the US Fed. Govt., et al.
Garland has not aggressively pursued charges against Trump associates who lied to Congress. He had pursued charges against Steve Bannon for refusing to testify at all. Those who do testify often just plead the Fifth.
Lying to Congress is hard to prove in most cases. In this case it does not sound like Dorsey lied at all. Really, there are terms of service and right wingers break those terms of service more than left wingers do – because a lot of them have to do with hate speech. Now Elon is bringing the hate speech back. This is not an improvement.
..plot.. your commentary shows you have not read any of the Twitter ‘core dumps’ offered by Musk, or you would have seen that Dorsey indeed lied to Congress – whether he knew he was lying or not is the issue. Your sweeping remark about ‘Elon is bringing the hate speech back’ is simply poppycock, echoing the propaganda coming from those either lacking in Twitter experience or with a severe Left-wing bias…If anything, many of us have begged Musk to get rid of the ‘hate speech’ that has already been there for the last few years….
If you don’t know that you’re lying, then you’re not lying. A lie is purposefully saying something false with intent to mislead. If you say something false but don’t intend to say something false, you were simply mistaken. And the law about this is extremely clear that it’s only illegal if you knowingly and willfully make materially false statements to the government.
They admitted to cancelling Trump even though he didn’t break the terms of service. Learn to read before you make idiotic posts. Your bias is showing.
From Twitter. Twitter Public Policy
@Policy
·
Jan 5, 2018
Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.
Twitter has fulfilled this policy by not banning Tweets from the Ayatolla Khomeini. Twitter must agree with the Ayatolla’s politics. If not why haven’t they blocked him. Same for Putin.
How and on what approximate date did Dorsey eventually learn that Twitter was engaging in various forms of political / ideological censorship? Upon learning of the censorship, whom did he talk with about it, and what did he do?
Dear Prof Turley,
I suspect Mr. Dorsey will have to employ the Sgt. Shultz defense in any potential tort: ‘I know nothing. I saw nothing. I didn’t even get up this morning.’
*aside @ Anonymous
shadowbanning [ shad-oh ban-ing ]
Shadow banning is a practice used in online moderation that consists of preventing a user’s content from being seen by others—either partially or totally—without the user being notified or aware of it. This is typically done as a consequence of violating a platform’s rules.
The term shadow ban can be used as a verb meaning to ban a user in such a way and as a noun referring to such a ban. The adjective form is shadow banned. Similar terms such as ghost ban, stealth ban, and comment ban are sometimes used synonymously with shadow ban.
In contrast, traditional bans typically result in the banned user not being able to access their account at all.
Shadow banning instead allows the user to continue to use the site seemingly as normal. The user may not initially realize that they have been shadow banned until they notice a lack of interactions with the content that they post (because it is being hidden completely or displayed to fewer users).
Again: Twitter does not shadow ban.
They sometimes ban accounts (and they tell users in the TOS that they may do this). They sometimes deamplify accounts (and they tell users in the TOS that they may do this too). But they do not shadow ban.
And Twitter itself is explicit about what shadow banning is and that they do not do it: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html
ATS, you are deceitful. Shadow banning has more than one definition and the definition has evolved. You call others liars for saying Twitter shadow bans but you choose the definition you like. Calling others liars based on a definition you control in your mind is a stupid thing to do.
Again, I was just trying to provide a common, understandable definition.
*anybody can have a TOS agreement .. . but it’s abiding by the TOS that’s so important.
You really think that Twitter’s attorneys are so incompetent that they would use a TOS under which Twitter itself wasn’t compliant…or…they didn’t update it immediately upon potential non-compliance and make every user click box to agree to the updated TOS before allowing them to get back on the platform.???
I think those are very very long odds.
I’m sorry to tell you this, despite the clickbait and disinfo with which RW media is conning u, ur confirmation bias that you’re a victim of social media will not be fulfilled with these nothing burger allegations. Twitter had every right to do what they did.
All “for profit” businesses have one obligation above all else and that is to operate in best interest of its shareholders. And moderating hate speech is easily covered under that umbrella.
Jack Dorsey is n CYA mode.
Anonymous says. It all depends what the meaning of is is.
This comment is for Anonymous. It comes straight from the Twitter shadow banning team. Recall from #TwitterFiles2 by
@bariweiss
that, according to Twitter staff, “We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do.” Got anymore weasel words for us Anonymous?
My words for you are: you are the weasel you complain about.
What she’s describing is deamplification, not shadow banning.
Twitter is quite forthright: they sometimes ban people and they sometimes deamplify, but they do NOT shadow ban. Only a dishonest troll — you — would confuse the third with the first two at this point.
You continue to act like Humpty Dumpty, pretending that words mean only what you wish them to mean, regardless of their actual meanings.
Anonymous, shadow banning equals deamplify. You should quite before you embarrass yourself more than you already have.
You should take your own advice.
They do not shadow ban, no matter how often you lie about what it is. They defined it in a blog that your own earlier article (in your 2:42pm comment) linked to: https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html
You proved yourself wrong, but you’re too much of a liar to admit it.
First Anonymous tells us that Twitter is not banning users because shadow banning is not banning. So through defending shadow banning she admits that shadow banning was been done. Then she says that shadow banning was not being done. Why defend shadow banning if it’s not being employed. Wee Wee Wee Weasel words. Scurry Scurry Scurry.
You just continue to lie. It’s all you’ve got.
“First Anonymous tells us that Twitter is not banning users”
Total BS. Not only have I noted that Twitter bans users, I quoted to Sam from the TOS about it. They are totally up front that they will terminate people’s accounts. Users acknowledge it when they agree to the TOS.
“… because shadow banning is not banning.”
Shadow banning ISN’T banning. They sometimes ban users. They do no shadow ban users.
“admits that shadow banning was been done.”
More BS. I have consistently pointed out that they do NOT shadow ban.
“Why defend shadow banning …”
Piled higher and deeper. I have not defended it. I have simply pointed out the fact that it’s not done.
You are a liar. It’s one of your favorite ways of trolling.
So, you didn’t actually read Prof. Turley’s Article…or is it just willful ignorance? HINT: The wordplay/semantics argument isnt going to be a winner in Court bc: especially at the executive level, those employees or partners, owners, etc. are expected to understand and operate within the spirit & the importance of what is being asked & implied. And, the way our laws work, those outside the company or industry will rarely be expected by the Courts to understand the precise terminology or jargon used, especially when industry or company terms and policies are new & also seem to be ever-changing, as is most definitely the case here. US law requires the corporation/vendor/provider to make whatever they do or dont do, clear. End of day, TwitterFiles is big evidence that Sec 230 was violated, civil rights were trampled, PUBLIC shareholders were defrauded, and there’s even argument for everything from Treason to Sedition, and other crimes. – Folks gonna sue in droves at the very least, and a decent enough bit of it will stick to at least be heard. – – – Dorsey, Joel, Vajaya, etc. will definitely need lawyers here, and for many years to come; regardless of what Garland or a future GOP-appointed AG eventually do or not. ……And, the world is smiling at that bit of Justice. It’s something…to start.
Apparently you don’t understand that the meaning of the words is central to whether the answers were or weren’t 18 USC § 1001 violations.
Apparently, YOU dont understand that my pretty clear comment was about how those semantics “defenses” also aren’t going to help the Execs w the likely many civil lawsuits coming their way (from individuals and/or other companies) + the likely potential criminal cases (that eg, State & Local AGs/DAs/etc. will probably also file). And, in case you aren’t aware: most of those cases are likely to have little-to-anything to do with 18 USC §1001. – See, I was agreeing with, and then expanding onto, one of Prof. Turley’s key points. ….I know Free Discourse is new to some of you, but one thing I do agree w you on: If it is, then please just stay in your lane until you get your training wheels off; the embarrassment risk for you + the confusing-the-issue risk for everybody else = much lower that way. Happy Holidays.
PS, – Re: your your original 18 USC Sec. 1001 point (to which I didnt even reply), the “they said it in a blog” argument wouldn’t even pass the evidentiary phase without eliciting laughter from all sides. Expecting Congress (or anyone, really) to have read something in some random blog vs. explaining an issue clearly, when your standing right in front of them, especially under Oath, and as they ask you specifically and repeatedly? – Just, No. Really. No. …I mean, come on. You can’t seriously even privately think that’s how the world does..or even should…work? …..If, eg, a telephone company advertises/publicizes & says repeatedly under Oath to Congress (after being repeatedly asked, point-blank) that they dont silence incoming or outgoing calls,…but then they had quietly stated (albeit publicly, yet in some random blog …out of literally millions of blogs out there)…that “actually, while we don’t technically stop calls from coming and going, we do sometimes turn the volume down so that the recipient cant hear the phone ring when someone calls” = That should be a legit defense to 18 USC Sec. 1001? Seriously?
LOL.
Your argument hinges on alleging some nameless crimes and making a bad analogy. Very compelling. Congrats.
Your most welcome. And don’t worry, we understand: What to you are “nameless crimes” and a “bad analogy” is simply intuitive logic and/or learned basics to others. Everyone has their own learning curve. And don’t forget my emphasis on the Civil liabilities here, bc having to defend and sort those, en masse, that’s what will really break the mold. And, that’s a good thing.
….In the meantime, remember fondly back to this early discourse as some of the varied Twitterfile exposures start to percolate up into the zeitgeist, and certainly as more and more prominent cases get filed; at which time, I promise, you’ll hear allllllll about how Twitter1 Execs want you to think they were juusssssstttt like the phone company and were merely muting dangerous prank calls as best they could. But, the Courts will eventually find that eg, the NYT, running the phone company, in concert w government actors, and censuring accordingly = Not allowed. – Oh, and that sound you just heard…was my mic drop. Peace Out.
I didn’t hear any mic drop. Perhaps you’re hearing things.
Shall we meet again in X months and see whether there have been any charges filed? (I’ll let you specify X.) The courts aren’t going to find anything without indictments first.
Maybe you need something “amplified” then for your hearing, bc the mic definitely dropped, and you’re still in the wrong lane. We moved on in expanding to CIVIL LIABILITIES, where the real legal meat is here (esp. given Garland’s clear bias); going back to my very 1st comment (in reply to someone else altogether, btw). Just 1 example (and there are many): Ask the former Twitter Shareholders if they care about that rando blog….Was the blog part of Twitter1s SEC disclosures? ……Can’t drop it any louder than that, my friend. …Ciao!
You’re hearing things that only exist in your imagination.
All Twitter users agree to the Terms of Service. Twitter hasn’t violated the TOS. No one is going to win civil suits about this.
SaveUSA, I believe that your prognostication will come to fruition in the future. It will be good to see the woke spending their cash on lawyers like they forced conservatives to do. Some bankruptcies by those on the left will be great payback. Hopefully James Baker the traitor will be included.
There isn’t enough Popcorn! And the best part: Twitterverse is now replete with so many formerly silenced/shadowed/or just plain scared voices. Musks own follower account has increased by 2M in 2 weeks, and new users are also in the millions! Our Founding Fathers wb proud. – And I must add, I grew even more respect for Prof. Turley here for not straddling the middle on this one. It’s simply far too important to; for without freedom of speech, there can be no real freedom of anything.
THAT ONE CREATES A FANTASY OF WHOLE CLOTH DOES NOT BEAR.
Not one scintilla of these legal tangents is relevant in this case.
The right to private property is absolute.
That Karl Marx stated unequivocally that his ideology would take private property does not bear.
Legislation that nullifies and voids constitutional rights and freedoms is unconstitutional and must have been struck down, judicial dereliction or corruption being actionable.
The public may “take” private property for public use by providing compensation; that is all.
If the right to private property is not absolute, all property is public and the right to private property does not exist.
Private property is immutably not public property.
The only entity with any and all power to “claim and exercise” dominion over the subject private property is the owner.
Only the owner defines the terms of commerce and hires, fires, directs and compensates all employees and contractors.
No public entity has any power to usurp the power of the property owner.
The public does business with the private property enterprise on the terms of it owners, and relations may be summarily terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.
You appear to have no concern or respect for the concept of American freedom and the severe limitations and restrictions placed on government by the Founders and Framers.
The Supreme Court should have already conducted Judicial Review and definitively resolved this matter with the swiftness and haste of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in 1861.
Please read the authors who wrote the fundamental law; it is easy, simple and not complex:
_________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
______________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people…
dictatorship does.
Someone found the eggnog! Happy Holidays, all!
OMG! You’re one of those. Let me ask you a question. Do you think Obama and Harris are “natural born citizens” and, in any way, eligible for the presidency?
Geez. The Founders must be thoroughly disgusted, nay, devastated with the fact that Americans, such as yourself, could not and had no desire to “keep” the republic they were “given.”
OT
Did Kevin “The Bumpkin From Bakersfield” McCarthy get Joe, Jim and Hunter Biden’s tax records for his House Ways and Means Committee yet?
Oh, and what about His Royal Highnass King Obama’s tax records?
What’s good for Trump is good for Biden, Obama and “The Bumpkin,” right?
Heck, let’s just open up the IRS like we’ve opened up the jails and the border.
One big communist free-for-all!
Except for Trump, recent Presidential candidates, nominees, and Presidents have voluntarily and publicly released their tax returns.
Except for Trump, most FPOTUS’ weren’t successful Billionaires who had run a global empire for decades, nor did they have the cabal of the DNC-MSM, woke ESG Corp marketing depts, corrupt DEM politicians and career civil servants all unified to unseat them as sitting POTUS, for any reason the cabal could manifest. Any law firm or accountancy involved in preparing those returns would be duty-bound to insist that Trump not release them. – – – BTW, Trump quite possibly & definitely reasonably never even reviewed the math or the many, many numbers and entries on his voluminous Returns in depth bf filing, except for a likely cursory review while being told what was in them at a 60,000 ft level and reviewing/confirming “meaningful” issues (which is prob very different than what you would find “meaningful”!). Very few wealthy people w complex returns do otw bc they don’t have the deep & current knowledge to even interpret them. They literally have teams to gather the data, teams to communicate it, teams to interpret it, teams that then prep the returns, teams that review the returns, Partners at some firm who signs them, etc. All the signatures on the Returns make it clear that the taxpayer did not prepare them! – It’s like you people have zero clue how reality works!
Regardless of what others advised, the choice was up to Trump alone, and he lied when he promised to release them.
That is your opinion. Most honest sophisticated businesspeople would disagree bc we understand his desire to release them would have had to eventually cave to his many lawyers and accountants telling him that he can’t. And by can’t, I mean cant; or he would be in breach of his own fiduciary duties at the company. – Geez! It’s really no wonder so many people want their student loan money back!
Trump the person is not the Trump Organization. They have separate tax returns, as should be totally clear from the recent trial of the Trump Org and CFO Weisselberg.
Yes, and per that trial, the Company returns were already available; hence the false charges. Will be successfully appealed/overturned btw. If they’re not, no company would do business in NY bc it’s illegal to ask to see employees private tax returns absent consent, never-mind force them to let you help prepare them, and wb impossibly-cumbersome to get the consent and do it.
Assuming arguendo the Trump Orgs “convictions” were to eventually stand, it means that every Company in NY is basically on the criminal hook for any falsehoods in or behind their employees tax returns, even though the Company has no idea what’s in them, have never even seen them, etc! – If your company pays you and you don’t report the income, that’s legally on you, not the Company, and no Judiciary can step in to change the many FED & State laws around that.
You clearly don’t understand the actual case, which does not put most NY companies at risk.
Does a communist “community organizer” who lives off of other people’s confiscated money pay tax?
I wonder if Obama even filed taxes disclosing his “proceeds” for providing various and sundry “services” around Honolulu to obtain “drug money” according to his high school classmate Mia Marie Pope.
Will there be a case against requiring the Biden Crime Family to surrender its tax records during Joe’s “presidency” and “vice presidency?”
this no good son of a b-tch is the architect of twitter censorship and put the rat bast-rds executive in twitter that Elon has fired and will fire soon.
he gave them the ok for what they told him.they took it to a new level.
We have no idea what they actually told him, or at least the released files don’t make that clear, yet. That is what Jack needs to be focused on or he will end up losing much of his wealth paying off claimants and indemnifying Musk.
Awfully interesting that the CEO of a major social network/news organization decided to be on vacation in French Polynesia during one of the most important weeks in 2020. It was known that the election would be certified or challenged on 1/6/2020 and a major protest/speech by a somewhat off kilter president was going to happen at the same time. We’re all knew that was timing that had the potential for explosive events. This was hardly a secret that there was possible danger and Mr. Dorsey goes to French Polynesia. When did he get his tickets 1/3/2020?
I think General Yamashita tried the Dorsey defense in 1945 to deny all the atrocities that happened in Manila, as he withdrew the bulk of his forces to the mountainous areas of Luzon. I mean he did leave instructions for the rest of his forces to evacuate Manila and how was he to know they disobeyed him. “I did not know”, except he did. It did not end well for General Yamashita either.
Only the owners of private property have any power to “claim and exercise” dominion over their private property.
There can be no doubt that America’s enemies were pleased, adhered to and given aid and comfort.
Jack Dorsey et al. have committed constitutional treason “…in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Some say that in 2018 Twitter wasn’t shadow banning back in 2018. They were not only shadow banning Republicans they were shadow banning Black Lives Matter. https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/31/why-republicans-werent-the-only-ones-shadow-banned-on-twitter/?sh=5795385b434b. In this Article they admit that Republicans were being banned. Taking this information into account it’s obvious that Jack Dorsey was lying.
Banning is distinct from shadow banning. Learn the meanings of the words you’re using. Otherwise, you are like Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Although Dorsey has some explaining to do about lying to Congress, that’s not the real problem. Elon Musk didn’t invest $44B in Twitter to expose Dorsey lying to Congress. He did it to expose government suppressing 1st amendment rights for the purpose of manipulating an election, using big tech as a facade. FBI got caught, fully exposed, totally busted, game over. The facts of the case are in public view; there is no turning back. SCOTUS has to intervene and negate the 2020 election, removing Biden from office. The election was manipulated by the FBI, violating the Constitutional rights of thousands of people. No doubt the shills will huff and puff in a desperate attempt at damage control. But the damage is already done. The current government is flying on vapor. The big guy is finished.
The government did not suppress 1st Amendment rights. The FBI did not manipulate the election.
SCOTUS is not going to intervene. The 2020 Electoral College voted for Biden, and Congress certified the vote. It’s over. Biden is President.
Semantics. A shadow ban is effectively the same thing as an outright ban — the difference is that you are still banned, you just don’t know it.
Semantics focuses on meaning. Yes, it’s semantics: banning and shadow banning do not have the same meaning!
If a user is banned, that’s made explicit, which is not the case for shadow banning. They are distinct.
Anonymous, shadow banning is the same as banning. It’s just done in the shadows. They can’t claim we are banning if we don’t actually announce that we are banning. We’ll just limit their views. Very tricky. Thank you for revealing the nature of this weasel word. Thank you for weaseling it.
No, they’re not the same.
Twitter does ban people, and they are quite forthright about that: “We may suspend or terminate your account …”
Twitter does not shadow ban people, and they are quite forthright about that too: “We do not shadow ban. …”
Thank you for again demonstrating that you’re a lying troll.
While you were all hoping to get a glimpse of Hunter Biden laptop to watch him have sex with various women. Trump was showing off his trove of documents to visitors to his Mary a logo theme park.
Yep, one of these items certainly needs lots more attention.
Bob says that Trump was showing off his documents at Maralago. There has been no evidence that this occurred. I have no interest in Hunter Biden’s naked pictures but I do have am interest concerning his interactions with China and Ukraine. I do give you credit for being too cute. Aren’t you cute.
Is it possible he showed classified documents to people that might not be so friendly to the US? He tried to show off a document to Bob Woodward.
What secrets was Hunter Biden sharing? how great his body looks making love to women? His wonderful American lovemaking skills?
Was Hunter gaining financial favor due to his fathers position as VP? My guess is yes, as did the trump kids. As has quite a few other kids, brothers, wives, etc. of other government officials. It is a swamp of greed that covers all political persuasions. Get money while you can.
Where is your proof? Or you just trying to throw “shade” to see what sticks?
Bob you didn’t say that he possibly showed someone confidential documents you said that he did. Squirming out of what you said doesn’t change what you made up in your mind.
Is it possible he showed classified documents to people that might not be so friendly to the US?
There is no accusation that Trump showed classified documents to anybody. And Since the President can declare any document declassified, its impossible to make a criminal charge.
You cite no law or Article.
Let’s check.
Whoops! It appears that “classification” of materials is entirely a function of the executive branch and the president, in this case, Real President Donald J. Trump.
Classification. Declassification. Disposition. Archiving.
No act of the legislative branch has any power to modify the Constitution regarding the power of the executive branch, and is unconstitutional.
Usurpation of the power of the executive branch by the legislative branch is actionable through impeachment and would require a constitutional amendment.
Acts of treason, such as providing actionable secrets to enemies, are illicit, illegal and unconstitutional.
Actually the files on the laptop showing all the family corruption, right up to the “big guy” needs the most attention. Hunter getting paid millions for being a Biden. The big guy getting his 10% cut. Oh yeah, nothing to see here … move along I suppose.
Vag Gadde must be prosecuted.
For what crime?
I guess you didn’t read the article.
“Lying in public is generally not a crime. However, when you repeat a lie to federal investigators or Congress or the courts, it becomes a federal offense.” He lied UNDER OATH in front of CONGRESS. That’s a prison sentence.
But it wasn’t a lie. They don’t shadow ban. They do ban (which is distinct from shadow banning), and they do deamplify (which is also distinct from shadow banning). Turley either doesn’t understand these distinctions, or he understands and is purposefully misleading people.
Semantics when it comes to intent. Conservatives were primarily targeted. It impacted the election. Tampering.
Oz, ATS (Anonymous the Stupid) has been fighting all days over definitions with many people on the blog. Your statement “That’s called a distinction without a difference” Describes ATS’s arguments.
That’s called a distinction without a difference. 6 + 6 vs a dozen.
Anonymous, stop it already, of course they shadow ban, they even say it in their own words. How are we supposed to debate with someone that is so far gone that he says the sun rises in the west and then uses 100 comments to try to continually make that claim.
They know it, we know it, they know we know it and we know they know we know it, the only idiot that doesn’t know it is Anonymous, a contrarian freak. I don’t like contrarian freaks because it is just an offshoot of narcissism.
No, they do not shadow ban and they explicitly say they don’t: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning
Every time you try to use insults instead of valid argument, you cede the argument. Grow up.