The December Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll is out this week and Mark Penn and his colleagues have some interesting results to share. Despite the refusal of many in the media to cover the Twitter files, nearly two-thirds of voters believe Twitter shadow-banned users and engaged in political censorship during the 2020 election. Seventy percent of voters want new national laws protecting users from corporate censorship.
This week, the media continued to fulfill that common view of a de facto state media by ignoring new evidence of FBI coordination in censorship targets with Twitter in the latest news blackout.
On Friday, Twitter released additional information showing that the FBI and CIA actively pushed for censorship, supplying lists of accounts to be suspended or banned.
Journalist Matt Taibbi described Twitter as acting as a “subsidiary” of the FBI and wrote that “between January 2020 and November 2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth.”
The evidence continues to establish a system of censorship by surrogate or proxy. While the First Amendment applies to the government and not private corporations generally, it does apply to agents or surrogates of the government. Twitter now admits that such a relationship existed between its former officials and the government.
Once again, however, the major networks and newspapers have largely ignored the story. There has been a full mobilization of media, political, and business interests against Elon Musk and Twitter to oppose the restoration of free speech protections at the company. The media is heavily invested in suppressing this story after years of denials of any problems of censorship. Previously, they denied censorship was occurring. When such censorship became obvious, they denied that there was any involvement of the FBI and the government. Now that such involvement is confirmed, they are simply not covering the story.
Instead, the media is “all-in” on the doxxing suspensions (which Musk has now lifted). I have been critical of Musk’s response to the doxxing controversy. In part this is due to the scope of the suspensions and the fact that they occurred only 24 hours after the new policy was implemented. I would have preferred warnings and further clarity on the issue, particularly in what constituted doxxing in some of these tweets from journalists.
Despite the overwhelming coverage, there is little explanation of the media’s approach to the underlying doxxing question. Some have said that this is a “grey area” or may be below the threshold.
For years, the media has supported suspensions due to doxxing. In this case, the location of Musk’s plane may have been used by an individual to threaten his family. Most reports omit any discussion of whether the sending of such live locations information is doxxing. If it is, it has long been banned by most sites and journalists are not exempt.
Previously, figures connected with mainstream media from CNN to the Washington Post have been accused of doxxing. Liberal groups were accused of doxxing conservative justices and others, including dangerously posting information on the children of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It does not seem to matter when the targets are conservative, Republican, or libertarian.
Writers who have long advocated the banning of others with opposing views are some of the loudest objecting in the wake of the doxxing controversy. The Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz expressed fear that she could be next. It may not be a groundless fear since Lorenz has been previously accused of doxxing others and described the reintroduction of free speech protections for others as the opening of “the gates of hell.”
Jack Sweeney, the creator of this site (using publicly available information), has expressed shock at being sued and suspended. However, these articles continue to tellingly omit one of the critical issues. Is it doxxing to supply people with the minute-by-minute movement of the plane used by Musk and his family? That would seem relevant to weighing the merits of these suspensions.
Such slanted coverage is clearly losing its hold on the public or its view of Twitter. Indeed, the media continues to write off a large percentage of readers and viewers with openly biased coverage. The public is not buying it. It is buying Twitter. Not only are users signing up in record numbers, but a recent poll shows a majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.”
In the wake of the latest release, the FBI issued a statement that said that there was nothing to see here and that “the FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities.”
The statement is notable for what it does not contain: any recognition of the seriousness of the allegations or pledge to conduct its own investigation in whether this relationship crossed over to de facto government censorship. According to some reports, as many as 80 FBI agents may have been tasked to assist in the censorship efforts. Yet, the FBI has offered little more than a shrug in the face of credible constitutional concerns.
According to the Harvard/Harris poll, the public believes that such censorship occurred and warrants action. The denials of the FBI and the dismissal of the mainstream media will only serve to magnify such calls for action.
“It’s the [dictatorship of the proletariat], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
IFIFY
This is the Union of American Socialist States (UASS).
Social media are the communist party and the communist party is social media.
The communist party controls…everything.
The communist party holds the reigns of information, speech, choice, differentiation, discrimination, opinion formation/retention, mobility, personal protective devices, health care, industry, profit, gain, regulation, taxation, compensation, central planning, central banking, social planning, social engineering, population ratios, marriage, etc., ad infinitum.
In the UASS, citizens are not allowed to think or act in the absence of dictation by the State – citizens may process only the thoughts dictated by the State and citizens may take only the actions dictated by the State.
Deep in American history, citizens functioned in freedom comprehensively, possessing the maximal freedom to make all choices under a severely limited structure of self-governance which merely facilitated that maximal freedom through the provision merely of basic security and infrastructure, having been provided the power to tax only for debt, defense and infrastructure (i.e. general Welfare), and the power to regulate only the value of money, commerce among the States, and land and naval Forces.
Alas, freedom was abolished in America by Karl Marx and his “Earnest of the Epoch” leading America toward “The Reconstruction of a Social World,” one Abraham “Crazy Abe” Lincoln (Indeed, slavery must have been abrogated and its victims compassionately repatriated, per extant immigration law, as reparation).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
reins
“When such censorship became obvious, they denied that there was any involvement of the FBI and the government. Now that such involvement is confirmed, they are simply not covering the story.” So the corporate media went from being government-censorship deniers to being Twitter file deniers. Come to think of it, “Twitter file denier” is a descriptor that could apply to some of the commenters on this thread.
Svelaz tells us that sixty six percent of Americans don’t know what the constitution says. The last time I can think of when such an elitist statement was made was when Hillary Clinton talked about the basket of deplorables. What a snob.
TiT, when Turley points out that 70% of voters want the government to make a law preventing corporations from censoring. It’s not elitist to point out that is not possible at all since it would be a direct violation of the constitution. Why? because corporations have 1st amendment rights like everyone else and they can’t be compelled to carry someone else’s speech in violation of their policies. So yes a lot of Americans don’t know what their constitution says about their rights and that of others. Clinton was right. She was just a bit in-artful in phrasing it.
When you say “Clinton was right,” that tells me all I need to know about you. Thanks for expressing your hatred of your fellow citizens so concisely, it saves me the time of reading a lot of blather.
It’s not hatred, it’s just a simple fact that she made a revealing observation. She wasn’t wrong, she was just too honest.
Oh yes let me just be honest those untouchables in the American ghettos need not be considered by those of higher breeding. Oh my, now they think they should know what we are teaching their children. Whaat ever will cooum next. Oh poor me aunother coup of tea Svelauz.
TiT, again you are really not thinking it through. You’re just butt-hurt over the fact that you have nothing other than insults.
Yes, she did make a revealing observation – about her own hatred.
And you are echoing that hatred.
Nah, she made an observation of the obvious.
First Svelaz says he isn’t a snob and then he turns around and tells us that Hillary Clinton was right whwn she called us part of the basket of deplorables. Svelaz says she was just being un auutfull in the way she phrased it. Those ignorant coaminers just don’t understand the coanstitution. Oh poor me another cup of tea Reginauld. Just the other day Svelaz said that puberty blockers have no long term effect. It’s just too nuanced and complex for us plebes to understand.
Tit. your nonsensical ranting proves the point.
Can you point out a historical instance where censorship – particulaly political censorship did not result in violence ?
Often murder.
When you decide that another person is not free to speak, it is not a very large step to decide that they are not free to live.
“because corporations have 1st amendment rights like everyone else and they can’t be compelled to carry someone else’s speech in violation of their policies.”
You really like to pretzel law and constitution. Free speech includes the right not to speak yourself (compelled speech) it does not include the right to suppress the speech of others.
Can you identify a single supreme court case in which the first amendment barred laws limiting censorship ?
“So yes a lot of Americans don’t know what their constitution says about their rights and that of others.”
Like you.
“ You really like to pretzel law and constitution. Free speech includes the right not to speak yourself (compelled speech) it does not include the right to suppress the speech of others.”
You didn’t address the point. Government can’t compel corporations to carry someone else’s speech. It’s just a constitutional fact. Free speech also includes the right not to carry someone else’s message if it violates their policies. It’s not a pretzel when you refuse to acknowledge that basic fact.
The constitution’s prohibitions are limited to government. Not private entities including corporations.
“ Can you identify a single supreme court case in which the first amendment barred laws limiting censorship?”
The constitution does not bar censorship from private entities.
You’re avoiding the distinction.
“You didn’t address the point”
I did.
“Government can’t compel corporations to carry someone else’s speech.”
It can and it has.
“It’s just a constitutional fact.”
Nope
“Free speech also includes the right not to carry someone else’s message if it violates their policies.”
Nope
“It’s not a pretzel when you refuse to acknowledge that basic fact.”
Your constitutional analysis is garbage.
What you claim can’t happen constitutionally has happened in the past and even now.
Just to be clear – I do not personally beleive that anyone should be compelled to carry the speech of others.
But that is NOT the state of constitutional law.
The constitution prohibits government from forcing you to say something (there are exceptions)
But it does not preclude government forcing you frame carrying everyone, or everyone engaged in protected speech, or everyone engaged in political speech.
The fact that I do not personally agree with that does not mean that is not the current state of constitutional law.
But you have an entirely different problem.
Government is absolutely free – even required to force people and companies to honor contracts – and that includes inducements made to get you to contract. If you promise to be “the free speech platform of the internet” to get customers, you are bound by that. If you create TOS rules you are bound to follow them not impose them arbitratirly or just ignore them.
And Government can enforce the committments you make to users.
Below is Ted Leu in congress. Some of what he says is wrong.
Regardless, he still pointing out that YOU are wrong.
https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk/status/1602104875680075777?s=20&t=9hHU3jJ4m3rKsAZ9OUl_ig
Jonathan: Boy, do you have egg on your face. Since Musk bought Twitter you pushed the false claim that the billionaire would bring “free speech” back to the platform. Then we had the “Thursday night massacre” where Musk banned a number of journalist critics of his policies. In his weekly column today in the LA Times Paul Thornton summed up the problem with Musk. Thornton says that the “Chief twit” has the right to suspend the accounts of reporters but “the ability of a single person–let alone someone who took over Twitter waving the flag of free-speech absolutism–shows just one of the perils of today’s extreme wealth concentration. When a billionaire can buy a media outlet, such as Twitter, and turn it into his mouthpiece, expect more tantrums of extreme consequences like Musk’s…”
So within 24 hours Musk rescinded his bans on certain journalists–but not all. Keith Obermann, one of Musk’s severest critics, is still suspended. Now Musk claims the reversal was the result of a user “poll” that found 59% wanted journalists reinstated. Musk said the “people have spoken”. I think there is another reason Musk suddenly reversed course. My guess is that Twitter’s legal department, at least what is left of it, told the boss that continuing journalist bans would conflict with EU rules. The EU had already warned Musk that banning journalists could result in sever penalties–fines of up to 6% of Twitter’s global revenues. Not exactly chump change. So I think out of an abundance of caution Musk decided that suspending his critics in the press was maybe not a good idea.
The over arching Q is when is “freedom of speech” decided by a poll? Either there are clear rules or there aren’t. Under Musk’s reign there are no rules. The “Chief twit”, a mercurial tyrant with a thin skin, gets to decide who gets an account. Reminds me of Roman emperors at the Colosseum who called on the crowd to voice their approval/disapproval of a particular gladiator. A thumbs-up/down from the Emperor decided the fate of the gladiator. It appears Musk considers himself like the Roman emperors–the mob gets to decide. Not a good sign for “free speech” on Twitter.
Now here comes Dennis McIntyre. You know the guy who said Twitter as a private entity had the right to censor who it wanted to censor. Dennis will do anything he can to deflect from the real story of the day. Will we hear from Dennis about the FBI instructing Twitter about who it should censor. Of course not. Dennis McIntyre has justified censoring by twitter in post after post. Dennis says, the FBI told Twitter who to censor? Oh, no big deal. Dennis would rather spend his day telling us that stalking is a fine and dandy pastime. Our freedom is at stake and Dennis tells us that Musk should just put up with people putting his child at risk. Dennis just believes that, oh well, if you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.
Dennis is right. He is pointing out the criticism that everyone else is making. Elon’s massive hypocrisy. The FBI did not tell twitter who to censor. That is the false narrative that the right keeps pushing so gullible peons like you keep believing in something that is not true. The government CAN refer to Twitter or other social media platforms to what can be harmful information or deceptive information. It is ultimately up to those platforms to choose whether to decide what to do about it. If they deem it a violation of their policies they can censor it or even choose not to. None of that is illegal or unconstitutional.
Turley is doing his hardest to deflect from the obvious. Elon’s massive hypocrisy. He claims to be a free-speech absolutist. But he cannot adhere to his beloved philosophy because it creates an inconvenient reality for himself.
Svelaz, the FBI sent a list to Twitter. Donald Trump was on the list but the Ayatollah Khamenie was not on the list. Dig a little deeper Svelaz. My estimate is that you have not read one sentence of The Twitter files. They told you to just block it out and like a good canine companion you obey their commands.
The FBI can send any list they want. It’s still up to Twitter or Facebook to decide. You have no evidence that Trump was on that list. Trump did himself in when he made that speech on Jan 6. Even Turley criticized it as he was making it. Twitter didn’t need to make its decision from a list.
I’ve read all the files. The problem is that there is no way to ascertain whether all those files have not been tampered with. Elon has posted BS before and we have no way of knowing if he’s being honest or not. He’s already backtracked on his free speech promises. So why should we take for granted what Elon says the files say?
Oh yes, another conspiracy theory by Svelaz. Those Twitter files might have been tampered with just like the laptop might have been tampered with. Svelaz, I thought you weren’t into conspiracy theories. It’s your pattern to create a conspiracy when your gray matter can’t come up with an educated answer. How can you be so sold out. I’m becoming more an more convinced that you work for the DNC and Twitter.
Tit, if you can buy into the crazy claims the right is telling you. Why would another crazy claim not be possible? It’s YOUR logic, not mine. If you’re confused about it blame it on your own ignorance.
No one is buying crazy claims – except you.
The rest of us are paying attention to facts.
The laptop is Hunter’s – even WaPo and NYT have accepted that.
It was known to be Hunter’s by the FBI a year before the NY Post story.
What is crazy is those who beleive – as you do, the constant lies, coming from the MSM, IC, FBI.
Lies that are offered without evidence.
Lies that are trivially rebutted by obvious facts.
No one is actually denying much of what you call right wing conspiracies.
Hunter does not deny the laptop is his,
many of the communications on it have been confirmed by those who sent them or those who received them.
Whether that is the laptop or the twitter files.
“ Lies that are offered without evidence.
Lies that are trivially rebutted by obvious facts.
No one is actually denying much of what you call right wing conspiracies.”
The majority of Americans are denying these right wing conspiracies. Calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden criminals without evidence is what the right loves to trot out. They are guilty in their eyes absent concrete evidence. That’s why they are conspiracies.
“The majority of Americans are denying these right wing conspiracies.”
Not in any polls I see.
Not that the truth is measured by poll.
“Calling Hunter Biden and Joe Biden criminals without evidence is what the right loves to trot out.”
That would be a problem if it were true.
But it is not. There is not going to be any problem convicting Hunter of a number of crimes outside DC.
There is more than sufficient evidence of Criminality on the part of Joe to appoint a Special Counsel.
You constantly make this bizzare claim that you must have proof beyond a reasonable doubt to open an investigation – unless the target is Trump then no evidence is needed.
The actual standard is reasonable suspicion – that standard is more than met.
“They are guilty in their eyes absent concrete evidence.”
And yet there is concrete evidence – though again that is not the actual standard.
“That’s why they are conspiracies.”
A conspiracy is just a group of people acting together usually secretly.
All conspiracies are not crimes.
There is Zero doubt of a vast conspiracy to rig the 2020 election. That is FACT. What is still uncertain is whether it was an illegal conspiracy.
A conspiracy theory is a theory that there was a conspiracy. I am hard pressed to think of any recent right wing conspiracy theory that is not now an established fact in some form.
If you can not figure out how to use words correctly – how do you expect to make arguments.
https://twitter.com/beinlibertarian/status/1604183092427628544?s=20&t=19UdNBrGCk8XO84jY7Zaog
https://twitter.com/larryelder/status/1604241522005708800?s=20&t=9hHU3jJ4m3rKsAZ9OUl_ig
You think this way because you are a fascist.
“The FBI can send any list they want.”
No they can not. There is no part of the FBI’s job that involves even ASKING to supress speech.
There is no part of law enforcement that involves silencing view points.
There is no part of “counter intelligence” that involves silencing citizens.
The FBI involvement is illegal PERIOD.
There is a legitimate question as to whether SM is also acting illegally – whether they have become an agent of government.
But government may not even ASK.
“Trump did himself in when he made that speech on Jan 6.”
And yet, the staff at Twitter tore the speech apart thoroughly and while they were completely offended by it and wanted to ban Trump for it they universally admitted that it did not violate twitters policies.
“Even Turley criticized it as he was making it.”
So what ?
I criticize your remarks all the time – yet, no one is looking to ban or silence you.
“Twitter didn’t need to make its decision from a list.”
They made it arbitrarily.
“I’ve read all the files. The problem is that there is no way to ascertain whether all those files have not been tampered with.”
Of course there is. The Twitter files are the internal posts of real people. Those people have NOT spoken up to claim their comments have been tampered with.
This is also true of the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop.
Anything that has been made public that was actually tampered with would have been exposed by now.
Do you think that the people whose communications are being made public would not be screaming bloody murder if they were altered ?
“Elon has posted BS before”
When ?
“we have no way of knowing if he’s being honest or not.”
Of course we do.
“So why should we take for granted what Elon says the files say?”
Many reasons, Regardless, this is not Musk – do you really think he has the time for this ?
There is a reason that these journalists were brought in.
What we are seeing is a small potion of millions of messages.
We see that the decision to ban Trump was not driven by any violations of the rules.
But something like 60,000 people nearly all conservatives were banned or supressed in some way.
Each and every one involved some discussion like that of Trump, and many of those decisions are equally arbitrary. We have seen some of those exchanges for others and other issues.
Musk has discussed the possibility of making it ALL public.
but for now he has several trustworthy reporters rummaging through all these messages trying to decide what works together to tell the story.
““The FBI can send any list they want.”
No they can not. There is no part of the FBI’s job that involves even ASKING to supress speech.
There is no part of law enforcement that involves silencing view points.
There is no part of “counter intelligence” that involves silencing citizens.
The FBI involvement is illegal PERIOD.
Nope, you’re wrong.
They are not silencing viewpoints. They CAN refer to certain entities or their information and relay that to social media platforms. They are not asking. They can refer to what they are seeing and that is not illegal. It’s part of their job to share what they are seeing if they deem it important enough to do so. It’s ultimately up to SM to decide what to do with that information. They are not obligated to do anything other than decide on their own what to do. None of that is illegal or unconstitutional. The FBI does monitor SM as it is available for anyone to monitor. Their job is to keep an eye on groups that have encouraged violence in the past and are anti-government or belong to white supremacists. All they can do is point out to SM what they think is a concern and SM decides what to do about it. They don’t tell or ask them to do something. That is the line they do no cross.
Conflating “asking” with ‘commanding” them is used to enrage the more gullible readers that the FBI is doing something illegal when it’s not.
““So why should we take for granted what Elon says the files say?”
Many reasons, Regardless, this is not Musk – do you really think he has the time for this ?
There is a reason that these journalists were brought in.”
He has time. He constantly engages in petty squabbles with twitter users over his decisions. Even these journalists he is giving them the files to are saying Elon is being a hypocrite for suspending them.
“”The old regime at Twitter governed by its own whims and biases and it sure looks like the new regime has the same problem,” she wrote in comments pointed at Musk.”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-clashes-with-twitter-files-journo-bari-weiss-after-she-criticizes-journalist-suspensions
“What we are seeing is a small potion of millions of messages.
We see that the decision to ban Trump was not driven by any violations of the rules.
But something like 60,000 people nearly all conservatives were banned or supressed in some way.
Each and every one involved some discussion like that of Trump, and many of those decisions are equally arbitrary. We have seen some of those exchanges for others and other issues.”
Trump was banned because they chose to in the end and it was their right to do so. Just as it is Elon’s right to suspend liberal journalists for the same reasons. It just points to his hypocrisy which is the issue.
“Nope, you’re wrong.”
False
“They are not silencing viewpoints. ”
They obviously are.
“They CAN refer to certain entities or their information and relay that to social media platforms.”
Nope, law enforcement is about gathering information in order to prosecute.
“They are not asking.”
BOLO is asking.
Warning is asking.
“They can refer to what they are seeing and that is not illegal.”
Nope, if it is not illegal it is not the business of government.
“It’s part of their job to share what they are seeing if they deem it important enough to do so.”
Nope.
“It’s ultimately up to SM to decide what to do with that information. They are not obligated to do anything other than decide on their own what to do. None of that is illegal or unconstitutional.”
There is alot of law on this governing when a private actor becomes a government agent – what you describe makes the private actor a govenrment agent.
Regardless, in all cases government ASKING violates the first amendment,
Further, no where in the constitution is there an assignment of power to the federal government that is implicated by this.
Government is not free to do something just because left wing nuts think it is reasonable.
Whether Twitter was a government agent – Government acted outside he constitution.
This is going to be an issue in the AZ election lawsuits as Hobb’s was in regular contact with Social media asking that they take down posts. The Biden campaign did that. It was immoral but not illegal. When the Biden administration does it, it is illegal.
When Hobb’s are SoS responsible for elections does that – it is illegal interference in elections.
Hobb’s was free to tweet herself as SoS – within the confines of her duties.
As Brandeis famously noted in Whitney – the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence.
“The FBI does monitor SM as it is available for anyone to monitor. ”
A completely different issue. I would note that Government is not inherently free to do anything that individuals can do.
This is what drove caselaw on agents of government – government can not accomplish what it is prohibited from doing, by asking a private party that is not to do it.
“Their job is to keep an eye on groups that have encouraged violence in the past and are anti-government or belong to white supremacists.”
Nope. Actually advocating violence is a crime and requires prosecution not monitoring.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about being anti-government. https://c4ss.org/ – perfectly legal.
There is also nothing illegal about “white supremecy”. Just as there is nothing illegal about
many views that some of us do not like.
“All they can do is point out to SM what they think is a concern and SM decides what to do about it.”I
Nope. I would suggest looking up the Church Committee revelations and the laws that resulted.
“COINTELPRO involving the surveillance and infiltration of American political and civil-rights organizations;
Operation Mockingbird as a systematic propaganda campaign with domestic and foreign journalists operating as CIA assets and
dozens of US news organizations providing cover for CIA activity.
It also unearthed Project SHAMROCK in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA (while officially confirming the existence of this signals intelligence agency to the public for the first time).”
Here is a long article by the ACLU on the illegal nature of Bush era domestic Spying on americans.
https://www.aclu.org/other/nsa-spying-americans-illegal
“Conflating “asking” with ‘commanding” them is used to enrage the more gullible readers that the FBI is doing something illegal when it’s not.”
Actually it is the standard in caselaw. Government does not ask, it commands.
There is nothing about government that is voluntary.
Government is not a person.
“He has time. ”
Nope and the evidence is that he did not spend the time.
He was unaware that James Baker was filtering the files – Bari Weiss figured that out.
“He constantly engages in petty squabbles with twitter users over his decisions.”
Mostly I think Musk should focus on running twitter rather than being on twitter.
But that is advice he has not taken.
At the same time he is brilliant and his takedowns have been epic.
None of it is petty.
Those of you on the left have gotten too used to saying whatever stupid things you want without addressing the actual issues,
and without thinking about consequences.
“Even these journalists he is giving them the files to are saying Elon is being a hypocrite for suspending them.”
No Bari Weiss noted that the prior owners acted arbitrarily and Musk should avoid repeating that.
I agree. I think he should have warned them first.
Regardless, he suspended them for 7 days. That is not capital punishment.
It is appropriate.
“Trump was banned because they chose to in the end and it was their right to do so.”
Correct – arbitrarily without transparency or following their own rules.
“Just as it is Elon’s right to suspend liberal journalists for the same reasons.”
Correct – but Musk did not act arbitrarily, he did act transparently, and he did follow the rules.
John, it’s obvious you have no idea how the FBI works.
Asking is not what they are doing. Warning is not asking. The can relay information to SM. Nothing in the law prevents them from doing that.
Referring certain posts or content from known violent groups is legal. You have not provided any evidence or documentation showing what you claim is fact.
You’re conflating different issues on surveillance to justify your false claims. They are not even related.
The FBI can monitor SM. They CAN relay information to SM. None of that is illegal.
“ Just as it is Elon’s right to suspend liberal journalists for the same reasons.”
Correct – but Musk did not act arbitrarily, he did act transparently, and he did follow the rules.”
He acted arbitrarily. Transparency is just making it clear that he acted arbitrarily. He is being excoriated because his hypocrisy is obvious. He changed the rules to justify his decision. He can do that, just as twitter could with Trump being banned.
“John, it’s obvious you have no idea how the FBI works.”
The constitution and the law dictate that.
Please become familiar.
“Asking is not what they are doing. Warning is not asking.”
Warning is worse.
Do you actually know anything about any of this ?
The actual tweets they reported are available.
None fall into the domain of legimate FBI concern.
“The can relay information to SM.”
Nope.
“Nothing in the law prevents them from doing that.”
Not how the constitution and the law work.
The powers of govenrment are narrow and enumerated.
What is not specifically permitted is denied.
The rights of individuals are broad and unlimited.
What is not specifically denied is permitted.
This is not just about what the FBI can not do, it is what Government can not do.
There is a very very limited role of govenrment in elections.
It must conduct them according to the law.
It is barred from participating in them.
No one in government is permitted to put their fingers on the scales to influence who will win or lose an election outside the very narrow constraints of enforcing actual law.
There is and can be no law regarding what people can say about elections.
Therefore the FBI may not even suggest that people should be banned.
Beyond that your argument is incredibly ludicrous – the FBI can not warn Twitter that posters are engaged in election sarcasm.
“Referring certain posts or content from known violent groups is legal.”
No it is not,
A post that is actually criminal speech can be prosecuted by the FBI.
That is it.
“You have not provided any evidence or documentation showing what you claim is fact.”
Twitter Files – go read them.
“The FBI can monitor SM.”
Possibly – the FBI can not just go to Twitter and scroll through posts.
The standard for the FBI to look at posts acting as Government is low, but it is not anything goes.
“They CAN relay information to SM.”
Nope. If they were conducting an investigation such a leak would be a crime.
If they are not they are acting outside the law.
“None of that is illegal.” some of it is.
“He acted arbitrarily.”
Nope, there was a rule. Everyone was aware of it.
These journalists did not follow it.
They were suspended.
“Transparency is just making it clear that he acted arbitrarily.”
Pretty much the opposite.
“He is being excoriated because his hypocrisy is obvious.”
Musk did not ban people who were critical of him.
He banned people who violated the rule.
“He changed the rules to justify his decision.”
He changed the rule because his personal experience informed him of the need to do so.
He did not create a new rule he slightly expanded an existing rule.
I have zero problem with the change.
Musk was not targeting Journalists.
They stupidly violated a published policy.
They thought they were exempt from the rules.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1604130682451550208?s=20&t=9hHU3jJ4m3rKsAZ9OUl_ig
Svelaz,
Just about every claim in this article comes from information received by the ALF from Maricopa County.
Almost every problem reported is not a claim by Kari Lake or Republicans, But Maricopa County’s claims about its own election problems.
Maricopa County certified the results of the election when there were unresolved errors larger than the margin of victory in several races.
That is illegal.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/election-confusion-arizona-county-officials-struggled-resolve-ballot
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1604488634958323719?s=20&t=9hHU3jJ4m3rKsAZ9OUl_ig
“ John, it’s obvious you have no idea how the FBI works.”
The constitution and the law dictate that.
Please become familiar.”
You are clearly not familiar. Nothing you stated has been backed by evidence of your claim. The FBI CAN monitor social media in the same way you and I can look up anybody’s social media postings. YouTube, or Facebook accounts. They don’t need a warrant when all that information if publicly shared.
This is how white supremacist groups who stupidly post a lot of content on their accounts, which is perfectly 1st amendment protected, can be monitored by any government agency that has an interest in their activities. As long as the content is publicly available they can look and see what they say.
They can share their concerns with SM platforms or refer to certain posts and let SM decide what to do about it. NOTHING about that is illegal or unconstitutional. If those accounts were PRIVATE then the FBI would need a warrant to monitor or surveil. THAT is the distinction.
“ Asking is not what they are doing. Warning is not asking.”
Warning is worse.
Do you actually know anything about any of this ?”
How is warning worse? What exactly is illegal or unconstitutional about the FBI warning a SM companies or even individuals about what they think is worthy of being pointed out? You never point out exactly what law or constitutional amendment prohibits the FBI from doing that.
Warning is NOT asking. You clearly want it to be, but even grammatically it’s not the same. That just shows us your twisted mind in wanting to force reality into your version.
“ The actual tweets they reported are available.
None fall into the domain of legimate FBI concern.
“The can relay information to SM.”
Nope.”
Again you keep failing to articulate exactly why they can’t relay that information. Making broad and vague declarations about enumeration and specific limitations without pointing out exactly which of those prevent the FBI from sharing that information. You keep ignoring the fact that all that information is already available to the public. Pointing out specific posts or comments is not illegal for them to point out.
“ The powers of govenrment are narrow and enumerated.
What is not specifically permitted is denied.
The rights of individuals are broad and unlimited.
What is not specifically denied is permitted.
This is not just about what the FBI can not do, it is what Government can not do.”
John, you didn’t prove that they can’t do what I’ve been saying. Warning SM or referring them to certain information is not illegal or unconstitutional, period. Then you go for on some rant about elections and other claptrap having thing to do with what we are discussing. You’re deflecting from the fact that your assertions that the FBI is asking or demanding censorship of certain content are uncorroborated by the facts or the law.
You or anyone else has not proven the claims that the FBI literally asked or demanded certain content be banned or censored. The Twitter files don’t prove it either. All they say is they met with Twitter execs to discuss certain content and shared information the FBI believed was malicious. Sharing it is not illegal or a demand. What the files do show is that twitter deliberated a lot about what to do with that information and they ultimately made the decision not because the FBI told them to but because they chose to. This distinction is widely recognized by the courts and it’s why they FBI is able to do this. YOU are the one who is completely illiterate about what the law says and allows them to do. Every post you make makes it more and more obvious just how uneducated you are about the issue.
Svelaz, your entire post is garbage.
I linked a video of Ted Leiu in congressional hearings conducted by republicans getting everyone to agree that the FBI can not do precisely what you are now claiming they can. While Leiu made a few errors – his claims regarding what the FBI can and can not do are correct.
They are determined by the constitution, and then by hundreds of years of caselaw.
There are no government rights, only powers, There certainly no government right to speech.
Government powers are defined by the constitution. Everything government does must either be directly specified by the constitution, or be necescary to perform a task specified in the constitution.
It is debatable whether the FBI is constitutional at all – there is no general police power given to the federal government.
To the extent the FBI can exist it is only as necessary to enforce federal laws that are authorized by constitutional powers.
Regardless, lets presume that some federal law exists, and that it is constitutional.
The FBI can investigate where there is reasonable suspicion the law is being violated.
It CAN NOT randomly or broadly monitor US person’s communications
Government Communications Surveilance without reasonable suspicion – even in public is generally not constitutional in the US.
You are correct that the public private distinction is what determines that a warrant is required.
You are incorrect in presuming that any communications surveillance that does not require a warrant is permitted without reasonable suspicion.
You are also completely incorrect regarding government interference in communications – with or without a warrant, with or without reasonable suspicion.
The 4th amendment is implicated in searching for and requesting information. But the First amendment applies to absolutely anything that government does to suppress any form of expression. The distinction regarding whether government is asking, telling, directing, suggesting has importance with respect to whether Twitter violated users first amendment rights. It has no bearing at all regarding the fact that the governments actions are violations of the first amendment.
BTW the most recent batch of Twitter files undermines your claims further. The government was not asking – it was TELLING,
it frequently used the language of command, and those in Twitter making the decisions stated they were being coerced, and that they were concerned about consequences if they did not do as they were told.
I would further note that at this time we have seen only a small portion of what Taibbi and Weiss, have, and they have only seen a small portion of all communications regarding govenrment directed or political censorship.
The evidence is already damning and will only get worse.
“You or anyone else has not proven the claims that the FBI literally asked or demanded certain content be banned or censored. ”
Please read the twitter files – it is clear you have not. You are repeating narratives that are disproven by the actual communications.
While what you claim occurred is actually legally sufficient to prove a first amendment violation – government is not free to do even what you claim it did. But the actual facts are worse.
One of the clearest areas of government first amendment violations is the exchanges with the FBI election integrity unit – which should just be renamed the FBI election interference unit.
Taibbi and Weiss claim they were told that though nearly all banning, supression, etc was of conservatives and libertarians – that twitter did supress and bann some on the left. But they saw no evidence of that. They claim they were told that Both the Biden WH and the Trump WH sought to have users and tweets banned – Taibbi found no evidence of any Trump WH activity. But specifically in the FBI election integrity unit, a small portion of supressed tweets where from people on the left.
At the direction of the FBI Twitter supressed factually correct tweets – ones those at Twitter KNEW were correct, it those tweets cast doubt on election integrity.
The effectiveness of this effort should be self evident from YOUR lack of knowledge of election problems – in 2020, in 2022, in general.
Tweets linking to MSM articles on the very high number of mailin ballots that were being rejected in the 2020 democratic primary were supressed. This is also one of the reasons that the Marc Elias Election lawfare team went to work destroying election integrity laws accross the US – because had the law requiring verification of mailin ballots been applied – as democratic judges did in the 2020 primary, 8-22% of mailin ballots would have been rejected in 2020 (and 2022) and democrats would have been obliterated) – they may have even lost the popular vote for president.
Tweets joking about the election or engaging is Satire were flagged by the FBI for suppression – – regardless of the politics of the poster.
Almost the only place that the left was being caught up in the FBI’s net was in political satire regarding election process.
Absolutely none of this is within the legitimate domain of the FBI.
Absolutely all of this is not merely an FBI violation of free speech, but also election meddling.
It is the task of government (not the FBI) to assure that elections are conducted without error or fraud.
Government establishes trust in elections by conducting elections with lawful processes that can be trusted and work.
Not by propogandizing people into believing there are no problems, and/or supressing claims – often accurate that there are lots of problems.
Svelaz – you clearly have no clue about the courts.
First
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1993).
While SCOTUS had previously held must carry provisions unconstitutional – in 1993 they found that constitutional.
Government can force private actors to carry the speech of others.
That is the current state of the law.
I do not like that. It is wrong. But it is the law.
And you are Incorrect in your claim that Government can not compel a business to carry the speech of a 3rd party.
This is not the only instance in which SCOTUS has required businesses to allow 3rd party speech.
It is rare, but bit as you claim unconstitutional at this time.
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)
Government can not Punish social media posts
This was a school case which is where SCOTUS has given government the broadest latitude.
Biden V. Knight (actually Trump v Knight) was remanded as Moot. Lower courts ruled Twitter was a public Forum and that Trump(Government) could not block users. But a great deal is made of Thomas’s concurrance as it telegraphs possible future first amendment cases involving social media.
Thomas wants to apply Common Carrier law to SM.
Whether that will apply or not is undecided.
That said every single claim you have made about the first amendment is FALSE with respect to common carriers.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018)
Police can not violate a persons first amendment rights even when there is probable cause they have committed a crime.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)
Government interest in election integrity does not allow violating free speech.
Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
Governmnt can not bar even sex offenders from access to Social Media.
Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir.) (2015)
Law enforcement can not remove people from a private festival, against their wishes even for their own protection.
Elonis v. United States (2015)
Set a very high standard for protected speech on social media.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014)
False claims related to an election are free speech.
I have provided a variety of SCOTUS cases on Free speech – some SM free speech that each confirm elements of my claims.
You have provided nothing but naked assertions several of which are wrong.
Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968),
Law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigation.
That is the minimum requirement to conduct a public search – such as social media.
A private search – such as Email must meet a higher standard.
“ There is absolutely nothing illegal about being anti-government. https://c4ss.org/ – perfectly legal.
There is also nothing illegal about “white supremecy”. Just as there is nothing illegal about
many views that some of us do not like.”
Nobody is saying any of that is illegal. Even the FBI. When those groups post on FB or Twitter or eve the right-wing sites like Parler or chat. All of them are open to the public The FBI can monitor their accounts and their conversations if they are not private just like anyone else.
Those groups have histories of violence against the government and others they dislike. The FBI has plenty of justification to monitor them and if they deem it relevant they can share the information with SM or even the public.
You have not been able to cite what law or regulation prevents them from doing that. Not once.
Federal agencies may share information they collect from social media across all levels of government and the private sector and will sometimes even disclose data to foreign governments (as with identifiers on travel and immigration forms). Mostly, information is shared domestically with state and local law enforcement.
This unfettered data sharing magnifies the risks of abusive practices: once social media data is disseminated, the originating agency has little control over how that information is used, how long it is kept, whether it could be misinterpreted, or how it might spur overreach.“
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/federal-government-social-media-surveillance-explained
If SM told the FBI they cannot monitor certain accounts they CAN tell them that and they legally cannot monitor it. But those accounts that are publicly available to anyone any law enforcement agency can look at it and use that information to share or analyze.
You keep this “government can monitor anything” nonsense up.
That is not true.
The actual constitutional standard is reasonable suspicion.
Currently FBI and DHS are using a standard something like “Authorized area of inquiry”.
This is part of the outrage over Garland’s new “threat tags” because each of those authorizes specific inquiry.
And according to current DOJ/DHS rules that is sufficient to search SM.
That BTW is NOT the constitutional standard. The constitutional standard for any law enforcement search – even of public information, is reasonable suspicion.
The distinction is important. All the constitutional standards for law enforcement action are driven by the conduct of the individual.
The US government has broad power to conduct searches of non-US persons, and no one is seeking to change that.
But the US has never before allowed government to conduct even the most cursory inquiry into US Persons without some foundation from the conduct of that person.
This is one of the big differences between the EU and US – except that despite broad power the law enforcement in the EU is impotent compared tot he US fortunately.
Regardless, it is surveilance – particularly communications surveilance without individualized focus driven by conduct that gets us to 1984.
There is nothing on the brenancenter web site that establishes that the conduct of the FBI is constitutional.
I would note that the Brennan Center itself is NOT happy with what is occuring.
You STILL have not made your argument.
All you have done is proven that the DOJ/DHS …. are not secretly unconstitutionally engaged in communications surveilance.
What powers government has and does not have are determined by the constitution – not what DHS or FBI claims its policies are.
There is nowhere in the constitution where the FBI actions we are seeing at Twitter are authorized.
Government is NOT self authorizing. DHS can concoct any policy it wants. If that policy is not consistent with the law and constitution – it is illegal.
We are dealing with a fundimental issue of liberty here – and you do not seem to grasp that.
You are happy to see unconstitutional powers used against those you do not like.
But do not seem to grasp that inevitably they will be used against you.
You rant about Several left journalists getting suspended. Yet you are oblivious to the fact that the FBI was coercing twitter into banning tweets and people of far less consequences with far less basis.
I do not care whether this is driven by Trump or Biden it is WRONG, and it is unconstitutional.
The inquiry is wrong, and the actions taken are wrong.
They are self evidently wrong.
And if you are incapable of seeing how easily this can be flipped and used against Democrats, the left, you, then you are a moron.
We had a big mess when Clapper testified that the US did not conduct domestic mass surveilance.
We know that was a lie. But this is beyond that.
It should be self evident – even to someone as dense as you – that nothing the FBI is doing has anything to do with law enforcement – its actual purpose. Nothing it is asking to do has a legitimate purpose.
Are you really so dense that you do not see how egregiously bad this is ? How easily it will be turned against you ?
This is the authoritarianism you accused Trump of. It is real, it is happening in the US. It has already been used for bad purposes – to supress a long list of truths.
About election integrity
About the Biden’s
About Covid.
At what point is it that you start to care about this ?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
You are somewhat correct about what is happening – though you clearly have a poor understanding of the actual facts, as you keep making factual errors, and saying X has happened when it has not, or Y has not when it has.
YOU correct about the “justification” that government is using.
You are incorrect about its morality and constitutionality.
Nor do you grasp this is guaranteed to end badly.
You say that SM is free to comply or not. As I have said that is NEVER true with government. While sometimes they understate it, the courts have ALWAYS grasped that even a mere encounter with government is inherently coercive.
It is self evident from both Twitter staff remarks – including some of the most left leaning, that they felt the FBI had gone too far, and that they could not say no. It is also evident from the fact that the only pushback they gave FBI was on high profile accounts like Billy Baldwin.
So that is your first problem – as I have said before – when government asks it is very very hard to say no, and always comes at a cost.
The 2nd is that an awfull lot of what was being done was TRUTH suppression.
Next time it could be your truth that gets supressed.
Regardless, that should deeply concern you.
One of the reasons why there is no first amendment exception for lies, is because ultimately government violating the first amendment either starts with the truth or arrives their rapidly.
How can you trust government when government controls what you know.
How do we know we cant Trust Elon Musk ?
2M people have bought cars from Musk.
He certainly passes the “would you buy a car from this man” test.
“ How do we know we cant Trust Elon Musk ?
2M people have bought cars from Musk.
He certainly passes the “would you buy a car from this man” test.‘
LOL! If that is your benchmark for trust you are setting thee bar way too low.
Elon has already made a lot of false claims,, verifiable false claims. For example flight tracking is NOT doxxing. He banned the twitter account that tracked his jet. His justification was that it was doxxing. That is not doxxing, especially when the information is publicly available information. He was annoyed by the fact that people could track his flight. it’s not illegal. It’s what happens in the digital public square, He didn’t like it. So he banned it. He was perfectly within his right to do so HOWEVER it is contrary to his free speech absolutist claims making him a massive hypocrite.
That is the crux of the criticism against him. He’s being ridiculed for being such a hypocrite after touting loudly and very publicly how much he cares about free speech, until it involves himself. He’s miffed at being called out and he’s lashing out by doing what he accused twitter of doing.
“LOL! If that is your benchmark for trust you are setting thee bar way too low.”
Actually that is a fairly high Bar. Would you buy a 60K car from someone that you have no basis at all to trust ?
This is one of the problems with you left wing nuts – you do not understand that free markets are quite literally entirely about trust.
We expect different results buying from Tesla, that from a car dealership than from a used care dealer, than from some guy on Facebook.
Most of us do more due diligence and pay less the further down that trust ladder we go.
“Elon has already made a lot of false claims,, verifiable false claims.”
” For example flight tracking is NOT doxxing.”
In your opinion. I have provided one definition – the first I found online that clearly includes someones location as information that would be called doxxing.
“He banned the twitter account that tracked his jet. His justification was that it was doxxing.”
Yup, outside of you very few people have a problem with that.
Musk is also suing the guy for exposing him to a threat.
“That is not doxxing”
In your oppinion. Not in most peoples, and not by most definitions.
“especially when the information is publicly available information.”
Almost all information that is considered doxxing is public information.
street address, Dead name, email addresses, phone numbers are all found publicly if your search skills are good enough.
“He was annoyed by the fact that people could track his flight. it’s not illegal.”
Correct. He was annoyed because it put him and his family at risk.
You are correct it is not illegal.
If it were the person in question would be facing charges.
Instead he is facing a tort lawsuit. Tort’s is one of the ways we punish people for legal actions that cause harm to others.
“It’s what happens in the digital public square,”
I would be careful using the term “digital public square” – all of your arguments depending on SM being a Private forum.
The moment they are public the first amendment applies.
“He didn’t like it. So he banned it.”
Doxxing was already banned. Musk just added location to the information twitter considers doxxing.
He also announced this publicly.
“He was perfectly within his right to do so HOWEVER it is contrary to his free speech absolutist claims making him a massive hypocrite.”
We have already grasped that you are game playing with first amendment absolutism.
Musk is not and never was going to make Twitter a first amendment absolutist platform.
If you take that seriously – that means allowing child porn and Musk would be jailed for that.
Even if you say first amendment absolutism means all legal speech – that would drive away most users and most advertisers.
Those like you on the left have been trying to make exactly that happen – with far more rhetorical than actual success.
Regardless, twitter is a business. Musk is going to maximize profits. That means maximizing users.
That means finding the right balance of rules to draw the largest number of people.
I left twitter a couple of years ago because it was just means and nasty. People on the left who I knew and often respected were bitter and said very stupid and mean things on twitter.
I returned a week after Musk took over and Twitter was far more pleasant.
But it is degrading once again. While users is up, after their initial shock and high profile claims of leaving.
The bitter left wing nuts are back, and look to piss and moan and defame everyone over the slightest disagreement.
Atleast here when I get that kind of nonsense it comes from people like you who I have never trusted or respected.
Imagine if Turley started posting about a predilection for sex with preteens – how long do you think people would stay ?
“That is the crux of the criticism against him. He’s being ridiculed for being such a hypocrite after touting loudly and very publicly how much he cares about free speech, until it involves himself. He’s miffed at being called out and he’s lashing out by doing what he accused twitter of doing.”
If that is your argument – I DO NOT CARE.
I would note – this is not about himself.
Musk said he would take Doxxing seriously – he said that significantly before the incident with his son.
After the several journalists were temporarily suspended, Taylor Lorenz was suspended for a long history of doxxing.
While she took it personally – Musk did not make that decision. He just made the decision public when Lorenz claimed it was personal.
Nor was Lorenz the only person. GenFlynn was suspended at the same time.
If I wanted a near anything goes free speech platform, I would go to Gab.
You accuse Musk of being hypocritical – but you are hypocritical in your accusations.
I actually care about free speech – you do not.
I am happy that for a brief moment a bunch of elitist left wing nut journalists have been suspended for the same conduct they have gotten plebes banned for. That is real hypocrisy.
But as much guilty pleasure as I get in that “turn about is fair play” in the end I want clear rules.
With the recent high profile suspensions the only real problem was the initial lack of understanding. The impression that Twitter had returned to the arbitrary pre-musk nonsense.
That failure to communicate is on Musk.
Musk has promised to change that.
Soon if you are blocked or shadow banned – you will know it and you will know why. And everyone else that wants to know will also.
That should have happened a decade ago.
Musk is also implimenting a transparent appeals process.
“I’ve read all the files.”
Obviously not.
“The problem is that there is no way to ascertain whether all those files have not been tampered with”
Of course there is. This is all communications. There is a sender, and a receiver, and often a reply reversing the sender and the receiver.
There is always atleast two people – that is what it takes to communicate, often more.
Is ANYONE coming forward and saying – wait a minute, my Email, or text, has been altered ?
Is the FBI or DHS, or Kattie Hobb’s denying any of this ?
Are the twitter staff now all on the streets saying – that is not what I wrote, or what was sent to me ?
Not only have many been asked – sometimes by Weiss and Taibbi – that is journalistic due dilligence, sometimes by other reports, no one has denied anything and most have confirmed. Many of these people are proud of their censorship.
I would note what I write about is also true of the Biden laptop, and it was true right after the NY Post story ran.
The above is not the only means of authenticating raw data, there are others and good journalists try them all.
Regardless, whether it is the Bradley Manning leaks, the DNC leaks, the twitter files, the Snowden files, or the Biden laptop.
There are many ways of authenticating leaked or hacked information. This is a normal part of ACTUAL journalism.
And it happens all the time.
Svelaz: I have decided not to reply directly to ThinkitThrough (TiT). It’s not worth the effort. He lives in a cocoon in which facts don’t matter. What matters to him is repeating what Turley says with any critical analysis. As you pointed out the FBI did not tell Twitter what or who to censor–as TiT falsely claims. As the FBI public statement says: “Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any action they take on their platforms”.
And this is where TiT goes off the rails in his comment. He claims I think “stalking” is “fine and dandy”. Where in any of my comments have I said that? What I tried to point out is that Jack Sweeney, the 20 yr old college student Musk banned, was not “stalking” the Twitter CEO. Sweeney was not even “doxxing” Musk– as Prof. Turley tried to assert. It appears Sweeny is a committed environmentalist who was tracking Musk’s jet, based on publicly available information, to show the amount of fuel burned, cost and duration of Musk’s private jet–all to point out Musk’s hypocrisy in his public concern for the environment. At no time was Sweeney putting Musk’s child “at risk” as TiT seems to think. “Stalking” is when you case the SF house of Nancy Pelosi, break into the premises and then attack Pelosi’s husband with a hammer.
People like TiT don’t deal in facts. They just repeat what Turley says in his columns without any independent critical analysis. You and I are attacked by TiT and others on this blog because we do just that.
Dennis, you’re right about Tit, even Johh B. Say who I deem a more sophisticated version of S. Meyer, keep making the same claims despite the fact sayin otherwise.
John could save a lot of words by being more direct and accurate by saying you are dumber than a pile of bricks.
That is accurate and the truth. End of discussion.
I find i interesting that both you are Dennis fixate on defaming others rather than actually making arguments.
Both you and Dennis make say that the facts are X, but you do not demonstrate it.
I provided you with Supreme court cases on free speech that state openly and authoritatively what is constitutional and what is not.
You reply with a Brennan center link that restates government policy – and does so with a strong undercurrent of disapproval.
And Brennan center is a left site.
Dennis quotes a press release from the FBI. But we have some actual FBI communications with Twitter, as well as some of Twitters internal discussions, and those are at odds with the FBI press release.
What is the Truth about the constitutionality of mass communication surveillance ? The supreme courts rulings on the constitution ? Or FBI policy ?
What is the truth about What twitter was told to do and why they did it ? And FBI press release or what we read in FBI emails, and Twitter internal discussions ?
I am glad that you are at least starting to use actual sources to support your claims. I wish you would do a better job reading them. And then I wish you would learn to distinguish between primary or authoritative sources and any source.
“It’s a privately owned company: he can do what he wants to do!” Sound familiar? It should, in light of the fact that this is the same reasoning everyone on the liberal left used when conservatives complained they were being banned, shadow-banned and de-platformed…which all turned out to be true!
Twitter does not shadow ban. The issue is not about complaining about Elon banning people. It’s the hypocrisy of his banning people when he was complaining on twitter about doing exactly what he did.
“Twitter does not shadow ban.”
They use several other names,
Regardless they admit doing. so
Kepp up.
“ Twitter does not shadow ban.”
They use several other names,
Regardless they admit doing. so”
Nope. Wrong again,
Shadow banning has only one meaning, It’s not interchangeable with any other form of banning. Twitter explicitly does not shadow ban.
Shadow banning is when only the poster can see their tweets but everyone else cannot. The post still exists on the platform. Being banned means even the poster cannot see their own post. Twitter does not shadow ban. Their claim is still true.
It’s telling when nobody can articulate what shadow banning is. Learn the difference and you learn that Twitter was not lying about their claim.
Svelaz – You are correct Twitter denies shadow banning.
You are incorrect both in claiming they do not, and in claiming that shadow banning is some specific thing, and in claiming that twitter did not do that specific thing.
Again read the twitter files – it is all there.
Internal twitter communications use the term shadow ban.
Internal twitter communications refer to reducing distribution all the way to the point where only the author can see the tweet.
Finally – while you are wrong in every single detail.
You are also wrong generally, which is more important.
External traffic shaping outside the public rules governing the distribution of a tweet are censorship and are wrong.
But more specifically they are wrong when they are an effort to disfavor one ideology.
They are wrong when they are an effort to alter the outcome of an election.
They are wrong when they are an effort to distort debate over public policies such as covid.
As Justice Brandeis got right over a century ago, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence.
Musk/Twitter have continued attaching editorial corrections to “misinformation” – I oppose that then, and now.
If Musk wishes to personally rebut misinformation – he can reply. Just as can anyone else.
But silencing someone, or attaching some misinformation tag from an alleged authority is error.
We have learned from Covid – if we did not before that the “Experts” are constantly wrong.
If I tweet “masks do not work” and you wish to tweet, “yes they do” or reply with a study that refutes me – that is proper free speech
But Twitters old, or Musks new band of experts, supressing or tagging content is interference in public discourse with false appeals to authority.
Someone at Twitters trust for a specific group of experts is NOT the same as my acceptance of those experts or broad acceptance, and most importantly those “experts” are just another voice that all too often has proven little better than the rest of us, and certainly not worthy of special favor.
Little is worse than the combination of meaninglessly pedantic and wrong.
Yes, Twitter lied. PERIOD.
More importantly they were massively engaged in censorship in a wide variety of forms.
One of the purported principles of old school journalism is “report the news, do not be the news”.
Users expectation of Twitter is that outside of actually unprotected speech, true threats, and child porn, that twitter and SM generally would be the platform on which we communicated our views, that their job was to spread what we write, following minimal and clear rules.
Not to decide based on their own – or outside views what we get to see.
SM is supposed to spread our views, amplification or de-amplification is supposed to be driven by US, Not the platform.
SM is not supposed to externally alter the amplification or de-amplification.
How many others are guilty of control by government?
Not just loss of rights, corporatism.
“Seventy percent of voters want new national laws protecting users from corporate censorship.”
Turley knows that is not possible. Corporations have 1st amendment rights as well. They have a right from the government to compel speech. Creating laws “protecting” users from corporate censorship is unconstitutional. Turley should know this. Ironically because Elon owns Twitter he CAN censor whoever he wants. Government can’t tell him not to. He’s engaging in anti-free speech practices, the very ones Turley has been critical of, but with Elon he’s particularly silent.
The heart of the matter is that the FBI was involved with the censoring of Americans by Twitter. Svelaz is correct when he says that Twitter is a private company and can censor who it wants. However, when a private entity becomes a censorship arm of the federal government it is the federal government that is limiting free speech through a proxy. The governments limiting of speech is prohibited by the constitution. Once this happens the private company argument falls apart. Some such as Svelaz persist in this argument and refuse to recognize the transition of Twitter into an arm of the FBI. The Harvard/Harris poll shows that most of America recognizes this reality but reality is something that Svelaz is not familiar with. I am sure that Svelaz would be very happy if The Washington Post or The New York times checked in with the FBI before they posted a story. I for one have no interest in living in a country where the government colludes with the press. How about you Svelaz?
“However, when a private entity becomes a censorship arm of the federal government it is the federal government that is limiting free speech through a proxy.” There is no “proxy”. Government CAN make referrals to social media platforms. It’s literally not illegal for them to do that because the decision to censor ultimately rests with the private entity. The fact that twitter only followed those referrals a third of the time means they still made their own decisions, not the government.
The Harvard/Harris poll shows that most Americans don’t fully understand how the constitution works or what corporations can do. When they say there should be laws preventing corporations from censoring. The problem is those kinds of laws would be unconstitutional since they would infringe on THEIR 1st amendment rights. Something the government is prohibited from doing by the constitution. The only reason this whole “proxy by private entity” idea is being peddled by right-wing media is that it fits their narrative of getting ignorant people to believe those false claims. They are complex issues that require more nuanced explanations than simple ones. They want things to be simple because it’s easier to push on to the gullible.
“The Harvard/Harris poll shows that most Americans don’t fully understand how the constitution works or what corporations can do.”
Oh, like you (svelaz) do, hunh?
You don’t S. Meyer. Corporations have free speech rights like everyone else. Government can’t compel PRIVATE corporations not to censor since the constitution does not prohibit them from doing so. They literally can’t violate your rights when it comes to free speech. You are the perfect example of how Americans don’t understand how the constitution works when it comes to free speech rights.
That wasn’t my post, but I agree with his assessment that you don’t know squat. I am letting you know not that I care when you are wrong about who I am, but I want you to recognize how many people think you aren’t smart.
When you post anonymously which many on the right here do it’s fair to assume you are someone other than what they think.
I am unconcerned. I wouldn’t give you the time of day. You lie, You don’t read what another says and then you repeat things already proven wrong.
I play with you as do others. You are the blog’s pet Gerbil.
When a post is anonymous it is irrational to assume that any specific person or even a prior anonymous poster made that post.
Whether you are on the right or left, or even the author of an anonymous post, you are a fool if you are trying to attribute that to a specific poster.
Your side-kick Meyer admits to posting anonymously and is the king of attributing other anonymous comments to a specific poster.
“Your side-kick Meyer admits to posting anonymously and is the king of attributing other anonymous comments to a specific” loser. That loser is you, but not all of them are from me. (thank you to the other posters)
I post to you anonymously because almost everything involved with you is junk and need not be read by everyone. I advise all anonymous postings be deleted including my own because they are not worth the time.
“Your side-kick Meyer”
I spend more time arguing with SM than anyone else here.
“admits to posting anonymously”
I have no problem with posting anonymously.
The problem is with anonymous posts that pretend they are not subject to the consequences that come with posting anonymously.
“the king of attributing other anonymous comments to a specific poster.”
I have criticised him and others for that.
I think it is pointless and dangerous to try to guess which anonymous posts are from the same source.
Or match to some pseudonym, or which posters have changed pseudonyms.
I have criticised others for trying that.
But I have no right to stop others from doing something that is error prone pointless and stupid.
Though it is less dangerous and stupid than the coercive and failed demands of those on the left,
that all too often turn into destructive public policies.
““Your side-kick Meyer”
I spend more time arguing with SM than anyone else here.”
Svelaz doesn’t understand discussion. I appreciate our discussions and find them a learning experience. I hope you feel the same. Svelaz doesn’t understand that we can come to different opinions, but we generally don’t disagree on facts. That is where he goes wrong. He cannot tell the difference between his opinions and accepted facts. He doesn’t learn from debate and as I proved recently, he lies hoping others will explain the discussion to him. When they do, he doesn’t acknowledge the reply but will repeat his errors at a later time.
With his nose in the air Svelaz tells us about how complex and nuanced the issues are. He tells us that we the unwashed just don’t have the ability to understand the issues. This is how he dismisses the Harris/Harvard poll. It’s not surprising that sooner or later Svelaz would reveal his superiority complex. I can picture him sniffing his perfumed handkerchief now to drown out the smell of the common horde. Get the picture?
Tit, it’s a poll. Polls have been wrong a lot. Elon relies on polls and when they say what he doesn’t agree with he ignores them. It’s not about being “elitist” it’s about you being ignorant. Sometimes it takes a lot more than simple assumptions and explanations. Are you afraid of complexity and nuance?
Svelaz, indeed some polls are wrong. But a poll that says that sixty six percent of the populace thinks in a certain manner theres a pretty good chance that a majority of the people our in concurrence. For arguments sake lets just say that the poll is off by five percent. That still leaves sixty one percent. For the numbers to be this high many Democrats had to also agree. Just because you fail to read the hand writing on the wall it doesn’t mean that it’s not there. Though you wish you may and wish you might it will not disappear.
LOL! still as oblivious as usual. Tit, when 60% of voters say the government should make a law prohibiting corporations from censoring political speech or any speech it shows that majority is ignorant on what the constitution’s limitations are about. Those folks are failing to read the hand writing on the wall. It wouldn’t be legal for congress to make laws banning private corporations’ ability to censor content or ban people.
False.
While it would be wrong for government to bar private censorship – it is not a constitutional violation.
Further government has done that in the past.
And such laws exist even today.
The phone company can not censor people’s speech by law.
“ Further government has done that in the past.”
The only time government can do that is when government is providing funding and puts conditions on said funding. Absent any public funding the government cannot force a company to censor or compel speech.
You really are clueless. Especially about law and constitution.
Government funding does NOT create some special rights of government to censor.
It is actually the opposite. Government funding makes the recipients of funding a government agent and therefore restricted in censoring to the rules that apply to government.
You are on the wrong side of an is/ought fallacy.
I actually agree with you on how things OUGHT to be.
But that is not the way they are.
“Absent any public funding the government cannot force a company to censor or compel speech.”
First – your government funding remark is false.
All government funding does is makes the recipient a government agent, and therefore subject to the same contraints regarding censorship as government.
Next, you are changing the debate.
Government can not compel speech – true with some exceptions that are not relevant to this discussion.
Government CAN prohibit censorship – that is not the same as compelled speech.
Finally Government MUST – constitutionally, enforce agreements between private actors,
It is litterally one of the fundimental tasks of govenrment.
If you agree to give me an orange for a $1, and I give you $1, and you do not give me the orange, I can ask government to force you to honor your agreement.
You have spent myriads of posts talking about TOS’s – and while you are clueless about them.
They are in fact contracts, they are a specific type of contract – a contract of adhesion. Those are a class of onesided contracts that therefore have all ambiguities and uncertainties weighed against the author.
When Twitter promissed to be a free speech platform – users can insist that government enforce that agreement.
When Twitter and users agree to a TOS – that is a two way committment. Twitter is obligated to comply with the TOS – construed narrowly favoring the user – because it is a contract of adhession.
Essentially government and users do not get to make the rules at twitter – but they do get to require that twitter follow those rules.
What is clear from the twittter files is that they did not.
Nothing bars a company from being ideological. But telling users you will not be, that you are not, and then secretly or not so secretly acting ideologically is a violation of contract. It is also a breach of fiduciary duty with shareholders.
The latter is why the left is whigged out. If Twitter under Musk outperforms Twitter previously and the primary factor is the reversion to clear rules based content moderation – all other SM companies will have to follow – Shareholders will demand that.
And this actually goes bigger than SM and censorship – ultimately it could put an end to ESG.
The management of a company can not run the company in ways that harm shareholders – not even for some alleged greater good.
Polls are often wrong – by a few percent.
It is extremely rare for a poll to be off 10%
You are correct it is not about the elites, it is about the faux elites.
“Sometimes it takes a lot more than simple assumptions and explanations.”
Correct, but we will be all dead before we get anything thought through from you.
“Are you afraid of complexity and nuance?”
No, have you ever delivered either.
“I am sure that Svelaz would be very happy if The Washington Post or The New York times checked in with the FBI before they posted a story.” They do, in fact they write whatever the agencies of the national security state tell them to write. Glenn Greenwald exposed this last week:
If the stories involved potential exposure of national security issues or issues pertaining to ongoing criminal investigations that could endanger witnesses then it would be prudent for them to confer with the FBI or any agency involved. They are not required to but it is common courtesy if they chose to.
Svelaz, so banning a doctor who said that lockdowns were harming children is a national security issue. Twitter didn’t confer with the FBI. The FBI conferred with Twitter. It was the FBI that contacted Twitter with the FBI’s suggestions about who should be and should not be heard. I guess someone who said that Covid was from a lab was also a national security issue. You just keep on diggin. A smart plumber knows that if he digs down far enough he needs to support the walls. Smart being the operative word.
“Svelaz, so banning a doctor who said that lockdowns were harming children is a national security issue. Twitter didn’t confer with the FBI. The FBI conferred with Twitter. It was the FBI that contacted Twitter with the FBI’s suggestions about who should be and should not be heard.” If twitter chose to ban that doctor they could do that just like Elon can now. Even without the involvement of the FBI. They CAN do that as a private company. You agree that they have the right to do that and you agree that there is nothing you can do about it other than complain.
You are smart enough to understand that Elon can do whatever he wants with Twitter including banning certain people or content. It’s nothing different than what Twitter chose to do when Elon was not the owner.
“If twitter chose to ban that doctor they could do that just like Elon can now. ”
Correct.
“Even without the involvement of the FBI.”
The FBI can not constitutionally even suggest restricting speech outside of the small domain of speech that is illegal.
” They CAN do that as a private company.”
If they are acting as an agent of the government they can not.
“You agree that they have the right to do that and you agree that there is nothing you can do about it other than complain.”
So long as government is not involved.
That does not make doing so moral.
“You are smart enough to understand that Elon can do whatever he wants with Twitter including banning certain people or content. It’s nothing different than what Twitter chose to do when Elon was not the owner.”
It is quite different
Musk is not acting at the direction of govenrment.
Musk is following public rules.
Musk is not doing so driven by political bias.
The first is constitutionally prohibited.
The latter two would be immoral.
I do not want to see the law changed – aside from eliminating S230 special protections – or just eliminating the entire DMCA.
But that does not mean that the censorship that has been exposed is moral or should continue.
Svalez, you should watch the Glenn Greenwald segment before responding. The agencies of the national security state are telling the “journalists” what to write, and the journalists write it without question, so as to get ahead. It’s not a matter of “conferring” with those agencies. It’s 10:00 of your time, for which you’ll get a good education.
LOL!! you have no evidence for your claims. You’re way deep into your conspiracy theories.
You have an excuse, ignorance.
“LOL!! you have no evidence for your claims. You’re way deep into your conspiracy theories.”
Please pay attention. Greenwald is the top investigative reporter on the hational security beat over the past almost 20 years.
Read what he writes, or listen to his vlog’s. He provides evidence for everything.
So far the right is batting 1000 on verified “conspiracy theories”.
The citizen must support communism and the communist party; truth is of no consequence.
Matt Taibbi put it succinctly when he wrote that the relationship between the FBI and Twitter was a master-canine relationship. Svelaz thinks that this relationship is just dandy. Do another trick for your master Svelaz.
Tit, you’re way into the whole conspiracy theory realm that is peddling that nonsense. It’s easy to accept it because it reinforces your preconceived notions of what you erroneously think is true. You don’t…think it through.
The Hunter Biden laptop was also deemed a “conspiracy theory” by the left. Things have changed a little because these days, the difference between a conspiracy theory and what is reported as fact is . . . about three weeks.
Svelaz, you say that I am into conspiracy theories. How about you and RussiaGate and the laptop was just Russian disinformation. Do you ever make use of some personnel introspection before you make a comment? Sorry stupid question.
You don’t think things through despite your handle. AT THE TIME it was believed to be Russian disinformation. Remember this was at the time when Russians DID hack into DNC emails and spread them just before the election. They had reason to believe their initial suspicions and with no other evidence, they had to warn others of the possibility. THAT kind of introspection is what allows you to understand the context, not just the bits and pieces you WANT to believe in. Think it…through.
You were wrong on the details and took forever for you to figure out it was a hoax. You fell for each hoax since and I can’t remember you being right about anything of significance.
Svelaz and Gigi and several others STILL have not grasp so many things they were wrong about.
“You don’t think things through despite your handle.”
Please look in the mirror
“AT THE TIME it was believed to be Russian disinformation.”
Nope, the FBI had the laptop for nearly a year prior to this story.
They already KNEW it was not Russian disinformation.
regardless, the damning messages in the NY Post article can be authenticated in a few minutes.
“Remember this was at the time when Russians DID hack into DNC emails and spread them just before the election. ”
False, Crowdstrike has testified under oath that they do not know who hacked the DNC and that they do not know that the DNC emails were hacked or leaked.
“They had reason to believe their initial suspicions”
Nope
“and with no other evidence”
Lots of other evidence, you seem to be ignoring the fact that this was a news paper article. the communications and photos used in the article were all authenticated prior to printing. Further there was more than enough information for anyone to authenticate each one.
“they had to warn others of the possibility.”
Nope. There is no need to warn people of something that is not possible.
The content of the NY Post article was fully vetted.
“THAT kind of introspection is what allows you to understand the context, not just the bits and pieces you WANT to believe in.”
Read your own remarks.
You clearly did NOT think them through.
You were wrong in nearly every word that you wrote.
You do not think it through
“For years, the media has supported suspensions due to doxxing. In this case, the location of Musk’s plane may have been used by an individual to threaten his family. Most reports omit any discussion of whether the sending of such live location information is doxxing. If it is, it has long been banned by most sites and journalists are not exempt.”
Doxxing is NOT illegal. Turley doesn’t dwell on that particularly important aspect of why. Especially because all of that information is publicly available. It can’t be doxxing. Turley wants to call it doxxing because it gives you a sense of maliciousness that he can argue so that it’s OK to censor it when it’s not. So he can get away with supporting censorship that his beloved “free speech absolutist” philosophy remains “intact”.
Aircraft tracking apps track aircraft in real time. It’s public information and you can still do that without Twitter. Free speech absolutists are all about free speech except for themselves. Elon and Turley are proving that to be true every time they keep making excuses after censoring others for things they complained Twitter did before Elon.
Svelaz: While you are correct in noting that doxing is not, per se, illegal, you conveniently fail to mention that its purpose, and the malicious intent often found behind it, IS often (not always) used to evidence illegal conduct such as stalking, harassment, intimidation and threats, blackmail, ID theft, etc. That appears (at least on the surface) to be the purpose behind the doxing of Musk’s location.
Lin, the problem is that there is no credible evidence that there was indeed any stalking, harassment, etc. Even Elon does not provide evidence of his claims about his tesla being part of a road rage incident. It only “appears” to be because that is what Turley and Elon are using as an excuse to ban these individuals. Because they are “free speech absolutists” they are not supposed to ban or censor these kinds of things. Even if they are harmful. Remember before Elong twitter used to ban information that was considered harmful to others and both Elon and Turley criticized Twitter for censoring the information or banning people from posting. The hypocrisy is pretty clear.
The malicious intent is manufactured. It’s used as an excuse to do what they loudly criticized others for doing. In essence, it’s Turley doing a 180 on his own cherished free-speech absolutist philosophy. They are both being hypocrites and that is why the media and everyone else are criticizing them. Flight tracking is nothing new. It has been available for years and you can track aircraft in real time with a slight delay. Banning people because they shared information that is not classified or proprietary is contrary to their free speech positions. Turley is conveniently ignoring that important aspect and deflecting by focusing on a different narrative that is speculative at best.
” there is no credible evidence that there was indeed any stalking, harassment, etc.”
Wrong.
“It only “appears” to be because that is what Turley and Elon are using as an excuse to ban these individuals.”
You are making things up. Most intelligent people know the risks that high profile people have and that is why they have security and do not let others know their exact movements and times.
As an example for common folk with children, the children are on FB and will tell their friends when the family will go on vacation and when they return. Guess what? That is an invitation for a home burglary.
There is no hypocrisy. Musk states the reasons.
Though you have been told many times free speech absolutism varies considerably when people define it. What you are doing is lying.
The most valued thing in free speech absolutism is political speech. That is what the original Twitter violated. Musk is not violating political speech.
You demonstrate ignorance absolutism on a daily basis.
” Flight tracking is nothing new.”
You push for violence towards people who you don’t like. Twitter provides a mechanism for everyone to know what airport Musk or his family will be landing stand the time. Calling an airline lets one person make considerable effort to get that information and then confirm it on a continuous basis. Twitter permits millions to know its the crazies located in the right place at the right time can act. That tremendously increases the odds of an attack.
You are violent because your desire is to provide crazies with information so they can hurt people you do not like.
“there is no credible evidence that there was indeed any stalking, harassment, etc.”
Wrong.”
That is not an argument. Even you can’t provide credible evidence of the claim. Saying “wrong” is not proof.
“It only “appears” to be because that is what Turley and Elon are using as an excuse to ban these individuals.”
You are making things up. Most intelligent people know the risks that high profile people have and that is why they have security and do not let others know their exact movements and times.”
Nope. They have provided zero credible evidence of their allegations. None. He has security alright and that is part to any wealthy individual’s life. Because the information on where their jet flies to or where it’s going IS public information it is not a reason to ban journalists from twitter. It’s all part of being in that digital public square Elon loves to tout.
“There is no hypocrisy. Musk states the reasons.
Though you have been told many times free speech absolutism varies considerably when people define it. What you are doing is lying.”
LOL! you don’t know what free speech absolutism is. There is a reason why the word absolute is in it. It means there are NO EXCEPTIONS. It’s an absolute. There either IS free speech or there isn’t. Whether it’s political speech or not absolutism does not make exceptions like Elon or you do.
“You push for violence towards people who you don’t like. Twitter provides a mechanism for everyone to know what airport Musk or his family will be landing stand the time. Calling an airline lets one person make considerable effort to get that information and then confirm it on a continuous basis. Twitter permits millions to know its the crazies located in the right place at the right time can act. That tremendously increases the odds of an attack.
You are violent because your desire is to provide crazies with information so they can hurt people you do not like.”
Lying about what I think is typical of you S. Meyer. You do that to everyone. Twitter is banning journalists because they shared information that you can get from multiple apps that track flights in real-time. There are always going to be “crazies” even conservatives use the same tactics that would be banned and have been banned on Twitter before. but Elon and Turley have criticized those bans because it was deemed anti-free speech. Now we have Elon doing exactly that and making excuses. That is why he’s being called out, because he’s a massive hypocrite. Just like you.
“You are violent because your desire is to provide crazies with information so they can hurt people you do not like.”
Unfortunately, that is exactly what providing a digital public square allows. It’s free speech and all the dangers it brings. It’s what free speech absolutism is all about. You don’t understand that because you are an idiot.
>>Wrong.”
>That is not an argument. Even you can’t provide credible evidence of the claim. Saying “wrong” is not proof.”
—-
Svelaz, we have gone this route before on many occasions. The evidence was presented many times on the blog. You lie again as you lied here. Below is an example of your chronic lying.
—
“Svelaz writes: “Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.”
Here are a couple of locations where I mentioned the address of the FDA report. This proves you don’t know what you are talking about.
In the first one, I copied your statement, which is what is being argued about and is completely wrong,
You said: “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. ”
Below is one of the many FDA postings I made. I believe others have posted FDA sites as well
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-1/#comment-2148321
In the second of the posts, I showed one of the reasons Pfizer might like this legal distinction.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-3/#comment-2148317
I posted other things from the FDA with their addresses, and much of what I said was pure quotes from the FDA.
This proves you to be what everyone knows you to be. You were wrong again, and it isn’t just about Covid. You have been proven wrong repeatedly on a multiplicity of subjects where proof has been provided. You deny the truth and the proof provided even when it is on the same official papers you have posted.”
“Nope. They have provided zero credible evidence of their allegations. None. ”
Svelaz, you lie again. The evidence you say doesn’t exist was provided. See below for an example of how this is your modus operand.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
The above link represents a slew of lies from Svelaz with documentation.
” It’s all part of being in that digital public square Elon loves to tout.
In countless earlier postings, you denied that Twitter was a public square. Do you need to be reminded?
“LOL! you don’t know what free speech absolutism is.”
That also is a lie. I discussed free speech absolutism in other posts.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/17/harvard-harris-two-thirds-of-voters-believe-social-media-engaged-in-politically-motivated-censorship-and-demand-congressional-action/comment-page-2/#comment-2246787
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/12/from-shadow-bans-to-black-lists-musk-forces-a-free-speech-reckoning-for-politicians-and-pundits/comment-page-3/#comment-2246164
You can also refer to Turley’s definition. It has been posted several times in his op-eds
Your ignorance and lying appear side-by-side so it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins.
“Lying about what I think is typical of you S. Meyer.”
I provided my opinion and provided proof of your mendacity in prior postings with links provided.
You are a liar.
Musk is correct about the dangers of real-time mass postings of where prominent people will be. You don’t have the intellect to understand why. That is your problem.
—
>>” You are violent because your desire is to provide crazies with information so they can hurt people you do not like.”
>Unfortunately, that is exactly what providing a digital public square allows. It’s free speech and all the dangers it brings. ”
Once again, you prove yourself a hypocrite. Before Musk’s ownership, you denied Twitter was a public square. You change your mind to fit your arguments. Musk is limiting danger for all people. You want to limit danger only to those you support.
You are a fascist who promotes violence.
Yea Svelaz, if it’s not your kid thats being put in harms way your alright with it. Just because doxxing us not illegal it doesn’t make it moral. You wouldn’t know about that.
TiT,
That right there.
There is a difference between knowing what is may be legal but immoral.
Leftists are without morals, so they seeing doxxing as okay.
TiT, nobody is threatening his kids simply because his aircraft is being tracked. There is no more harm than can be done with other private aircraft that can be tracked thru these apps. He’s the world’s richest man. Surely he can land anywhere where security is tight or he can have security precautions in place.
Right-wing conservatives have been using doxxing for years without a peep from Turley or right-wing media. Only when it concerns their interest do they pay attention or make it an issue because it’s beneficial to manufacturing rage. It’s all part of that “digital public square” that Elon loves to tout. It was until he was being personally affected by it that he chose to break his “free speech absolutism” ideals. It’s the hypocrisy that is getting him in trouble and what everyone else is pointing out. It’s easy to tout free speech protections until you personally don’t benefit. It’s a cop-out plain and simple.
“TiT, nobody is threatening his kids simply because his aircraft is being tracked.”
If you believe that, you are an idiot, so I guess you do.
Millions of people can get instantaneous updates and within that millions of people there are many crazies. You are aiding and abetting criminality.. That makes you a supporter of violence. You also seek to censor political speech. That makes you a fascist. You also support sexualizing of young children.
What do those things make you?
Stop lying and start thinking. Start being a decent citizen. Stop being ignorant.
Anonymous, Elon WANTED a digital public square when he purchased Twitter. To be a free speech absolutist is to allow the free flow if ideas, speech, and information INCLUDING publicly available information on his cherished digital public square. Elon is upset that he suddenly realized that this information, public information, is being shared on twitter. It’s part of the free speech he loudly promoted. Guess what even in a digital public square there ARE crazies. You didn’t know that? You should, you are one of them and you are allowed to be in that digital public square like everyone else. Just like Elon envisioned.
“You are aiding and abetting criminality.. ”
Now YOU are lying. It is not a crime to share publicly available information. It’s free speech. It seems YOU want to criminalize exactly what Turley and Elon said should be free speech. You are just as hypocritical as they are.
“That makes you a supporter of violence. You also seek to censor political speech. That makes you a fascist. You also support sexualizing of young children.”
Now you are engaging in pure slander which ironically would not be allowed under Twitter. Or even Turley’s blog but we know how he is about his non-enforcement of his own policies. It’s what hypocrites do. I’m not surprised. BTW political speech CAN be censored by private entities like Twitter.
“To be a free speech absolutist is “
Despite the information provided to you on the blog about what a free speech absolutist is, your brain remains unable to process it. That is a sign of stupidity.
Musk recognizes the danger of tracking. You fail to realize it, despite the numerous explanations. You will not even acknowledge it or the proof provided. That is another sign of stupidity.
“Now YOU are lying. It is not a crime to share publicly available information. It’s free speech.”
Depending on the circumstances, that can be reckless disregard. You will not understand what I am saying because you do not think more than one level deep. That lack of intellectual development exists in lower-level species. Sometimes I think my dog had more intelligence than you, but he didn’t know how to type.
“Now you are engaging in pure slander”
Not at all. Your desires could lead to violence for any prominent person. You are intentionally facilitating violence when there is no other reason than a desire to place another human being in danger. Your desires are evil.
You are known for supporting the sexualization of children. No one who has listened to your remarks on sex in schools has reason to think differently. Finally, you are a fascist, but for me to explain how, you have to learn what fascism is. You have proven not to have the brainpower to understand such concepts.
“Doxxing is NOT illegal.”
It is hard to imagine a clearer example of the Left’s moral agnosticism.
Whether something is immoral or not. is irrelevant. There are a lot of things that are immoral but legal and conservatives and republicans engage in them all the time because they are legal. It’s not just a “left” thing. It’s a “right” thing too. Hypocrisy runs deep on the right when it comes to immorality. Just look at the catholic church and its pedophile problem.
Svelaz, why not tell us where you are or where Pelosi is? Because doxxing Nancy Pelosi, or any other person, would be wrong. Come on hot shot, where are you located?
If you were smart enough and resourceful enough you would be able to find out on your own. There is literally a world of resources at your fingertips. I already know where you are BTW, but I won’t divulge it out of courtesy.
Because something is not illegal does not mean it’s appropriate. The first time my friend’s 8 year old son saw a ‘little person’ he yelled out with glee, “Look mom, my first midget!” A true statement but decidedly inappropriate. He grew up…did you?
Professor Turley notes, “Now that such involvement is confirmed, they [media] are simply not covering the story.” He is most likely referring to discovery already gained, and for those interested in reviewing the SCOPE of pending discovery in this matter, what is up for grabs is the compelled discovery/depositions of ten persons (see court case filing, below), following initial discovery confirming their collective knowledge/involvement.
Media has lightly mentioned pending depositions of a few (Fauci, Psaki) but personally, I have seen no coverage of the actual allegations or the already-discovered involvements.
For those interested, at issue are (excerpted from court order, cited below):
“… 1) the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election;
2) speech about the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origin;
3) speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns;
4) speech about election integrity and the security of voting by mail;
5) censorship and suppression of speech by Plaintiffs Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration;
6) censorship and suppression of Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit, on social-media platforms; and
7) censorship and suppression of Jill Hines, co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana and
Reopen Louisiana on social-media platform.”
Plaintiffs in this case alleged that Defendants “…colluded with and/or coerced social media
companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social media platforms by
labeling the content “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-information…”
They also alleged “… the suppression of disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and contents constitutes government
action and violates Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.” (see court order, below)
The ten compelled depositions include Dr. Fauci and former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki, the Surgeon General, as well as FBI supervisory agent (Chan) and Deputy Assistant to the President and Director
of White House Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23309721-ruling-in-missouri-v-biden
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.90.0.pdf
Apologies for the length of this posting, but I want people to read the court’s justification for compelled discovery, based on confirmed information indicating their potential involvement (as alluded to by Turley), and listed separately for each prospective deponent.
Thank you, Lin. I was unaware of this case.
“Apologies for the length of this posting . . .”
Please do not apologize. It’s an important list that shows the breathtaking scope of censorship. Thank you for it.
Lin, the FBI, and other government agencies are NOT prohibited from making referrals or pointing out what could be violations of Twitter or Facebook TOS. There is no law being broken here because the decision is always left to social media platforms, not the government. What Turley doesn’t mention or the Twitter files is that Twitter took action a third of the time not all the time meaning they had full discretion in following those referrals. The idea the government is coercing social media platforms to censor certain content is only being reported by right-leaning media outlets portraying a false narrative. They want their readers to believe there is something illegal going on when in fact there isn’t. Turley is part of that and it’s pretty obvious.
Svelaz: ?????
You say, “[T]he FBI, and other government agencies are NOT prohibited from making referrals or pointing out what could be violations of Twitter or Facebook TOS.”
Svelaz, are you saying that the FBI, of its own accord, volition, and independence, scans social media posts and “mak[es] referrals or point[s] out to Twitter or Facebook “what could be violations” of their TOSs?
Lin, The FBI, is not just an agency tasked with investigations. It’s also a counterintelligence agency. They DO look for things that can threaten national security and they DO monitor social media. Nothing says they can’t when social media is literally publicly available for anyone to look into. They don’t need a warrant for that. They do monitor white supremacist Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts. and even foreign government accounts. If they see something that can be harmful or possibly a sign of violent rhetoric they CAN refer it to the platforms. The decision to ban or censor the content or person is still up to the platforms. That is not illegal or unconstitutional.
Svelaz: I regret that you fail to comprehend or appreciate that the issue being discussed in this blog is not what the FBI and other federal agencies/departments may legally do,-but rather, the intent/purpose/and motivation for so doing, which may or may not be legal or proper.
This is precisely, as I cited earlier, why a federal court has ordered compelled depositions and additional discovery of several federal figures. Do you get it, buddy?
(I’m moving on now, so you’ll have all the time in the world to carefully plan your response, thanks anyway.)
Lin, compelled depositions are not evidenced that they are doing anything illegal. The intent is already known. The FBI is also a counterintelligence agency. Referring to certain posts or information is not “telling” them to censor or ban. Turley makes a lot of implied false narratives just to keep readers in suspense on possibilities that are rampant in conspiracy theory circles. People tend to believe them when they are being enabled by the professor’s false narratives and hypocrisy.
Twitter’s top ranks were riddled with ex-FBI agents and executives, stitching the company even closer to the federal agency now under fire for leaning on Twitter to meddle in the 2020 elections.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/twitter-leadership-full-of-former-fbi-agents-linkedin-records-show/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20221217?&utm_source=sailthru&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20News%20Alerts
The FBI is a FOREIGN counter intelligence agency.
No part of the US government may legitimately engage or even participate in politics or censorship of americans outside a very narrow domain of actually criminal speech.
You really never thing through anything you say.
If there were people on Twitter plotting to blow up Penn Station in New York – would it be the job of the FBI to take down their posts ? Or to monitor and arrest them ?
There is no role in the US government EVER for supressing speech.
We do not attempt to silence the mafia, we seek to catch them in crimes, arrest them and jail them.
“ The FBI is a FOREIGN counter intelligence agency.”
Wrong. The CIA is a foreign counterintelligence agency. The FBI is a domestic counterintelligence agency. They deal in matters of internal issues of foreign or domestic threats. They monitor domestic terrorism and white supremacist groups threatening government.
“ No part of the US government may legitimately engage or even participate in politics or censorship of americans outside a very narrow domain of actually criminal speech.”
The FBI is not prohibited from sharing information with SM concerning misinformation or threats. It’s up to SM to decide what to do. Not the FBI.
““ The FBI is a FOREIGN counter intelligence agency.”
Wrong.”
Incorrect. The FBI is “mostly” limited to foreign counter intelligence conducted inside the US.
“The CIA is a foreign counterintelligence agency.”
The CIA is prohibited from spying inside the US.
“The FBI is a domestic counterintelligence agency.”
False and Word games. FBI counter intelligence may not be used against US Persons without a FISA warrant.
FBI warrantless Domestic counter intelligence is only against foreigners.
” They deal in matters of internal issues of foreign or domestic threats.”
Nope. Counter intelligence is strictly Foreign Threats. That can include foriegn threats on US soil that include US persons.
But they must be foreign directed.
Domestic threats by US persons not involving foreign powers are entirely within the FBI’s Law enforcement, not National Security role.
These distinctions are important as constitutional protections do not apply to foreign persons outside the US.
Have limited application to foreign persons inside the US
And fully apply to US persons inside the US.
“They monitor domestic terrorism and white supremacist groups threatening government.”
Unconstitutionally.
“” No part of the US government may legitimately engage or even participate in politics or censorship of americans outside a very narrow domain of actually criminal speech.”
“The FBI is not prohibited from sharing information with SM concerning misinformation or threats.”
Of course they are – that power is not given the the Federal government within the constitution.
Nor would our founders have ever done so.
“It’s up to SM to decide what to do. Not the FBI.”
Incorrect and not relevant.
Please bone up on case law regarding what constitutes a government actor.
There are myriads of ways in which the Government uses people that are not part of the government to act on their behalf.
Doing so makes them government actors. the govenrment can not through a thrid party accomplish what it can not do directly.
The FBI can not Ask, hint or suggest that someone censor – except where the speech involved is criminal.
In which case they should arrest.
Here is some information from the Federal LAw Enforcement Training Center.
There are several ASK examples.
As a rule of thumb when BUT FOR the involvement of the government it is not likely the action would occur,
i.e. if A private party acts entirely on their own and THEN contacts law enforcement – constitutional rights are not implicated.
I can search your home – if I have legal access and call law enforcement and share what I found.
But if Law enforcement ASKS me to do so – I am a government actor and constitutional rights apply.
https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-under-4th-amendment-mp3
There is no part of counter intelligence that involves suppressing disfavored speech of Americans.
Counter intelligence is information gathering not suppression.
Typically left wing nut idiocy where you use worlds to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
“ There is no part of counter intelligence that involves suppressing disfavored speech of Americans.”
They are not doing that. Your misconceptions are borne out of unfounded allegations.
“ Counter intelligence is information gathering not suppression.”
Correct, however that doesn’t preclude them from sharing it to SM so they can decide if that’s what they want or violates their policies.
““ There is no part of counter intelligence that involves suppressing disfavored speech of Americans.”
They are not doing that. Your misconceptions are borne out of unfounded allegations.”
Not only is that precisely what they are doing, but it is the only possible thing they are doing.
There is no reason to bring up a specific tweet or person except to supress disfavored speech.
““ Counter intelligence is information gathering not suppression.”
Correct, however that doesn’t preclude them from sharing it to SM so they can decide if that’s what they want or violates their policies.”
The constitution does.
This is outside what the FBI may legally and legitimately do.
There is no legitimate purpose of the FBI that is served by pushing censorship of constitutionally protected speech
“The FBI, is not just an agency tasked with investigations. It’s also a counterintelligence agency. They DO look for things that can threaten national security”
All the above is true – it is also all investigations.
“they DO monitor social media. Nothing says they can’t when social media is literally publicly available for anyone to look into. They don’t need a warrant for that.” That is more squishy. Post the Church commission there are both laws and DOJ/FBI rules governing what FBI can do under what circumstances These were relaxes – unconstitutionally by Executive Order by Bush post 9/11, regardless, it is unlikely that EO would apply to anything that that FBI/DHS did with the Twitter files.
“They do monitor white supremacist Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts.”
Not legitimately.
“and even foreign government accounts.”
That they can do.
“If they see something that can be harmful or possibly a sign of violent rhetoric they CAN refer it to the platforms.”
Nope.
What they see can either:
Be sufficient to escalate – that would give them permission to take investigative steps that they previously were constitutionally barred.
As an example if some tweet was probable cause that a crime was committed they could get a warrant.
Actually sufficient to be a crime, in which case they can arrest.
There is no refer to platforms option. It there was, that would make the plaforms government agents, unable to censor.
“The decision to ban or censor the content or person is still up to the platforms. That is not illegal or unconstitutional.”
Not in the real world.
Included in the FBI twitter files batch are discussions with the FBI about whether the FBI could provide classified information.
And it was agreed they could – yet, unless Twitter is enterprise classified, there is a FSO and a SCIFF, and the specific people provided classified information are cleared for that information and have a bonafide need to know – determined by the FSO’s at Twitter and the FBI, not be the agent, then the answer is no, in fact it is hell no.
And FBI agent providing classified material to a person without a clearance has violated the espionage act.
At the same time the discussion of classified materials, is just another way twitter employees are government agents and there fore can not act to censor people at the direction of government.
I would note that Kari Lake has prevailed in almost all claims in the First round of her lawsuit against Maricopa County.
Separately her Lawyers were sanctioned by an Obama appointed Federal Judge in a 70 page ruling for making claims that were unsupported by facts. Her most significant claim was that the tabulators used in the 2022 election were prone to failure.
The post election evidence is that 32% of the tabulators state wide had failures.
I would note that evidence is also relevant to Hobbs extortion of the Cochise EB and the bad ruling by the Pima county judge.
While the most significant failures were in maricopa county, and most of those failures were cause by the ODBP printers printing ballots to light,
when a tabulator can not scan an official ballot that is still a tabulator failure, and there were other tabulator failures.
Further despite losing the challenge asking that the votes all be counted by hand, maricopa county as a result of its own election failures had to count over 100,000 ballots by hand.
I would also note there is some evidence – we will have to see how good it is that there are 100K more voters who logged in to the election system in Maricopa County on Election day, that ballots that were counted.
The ODBP system requires a voter to login, and once they have logged in, they are unable to vote elsewhere.
A login means that a blank ballot was printed for them.
So Maricopa country appears to be short 100K ballots from election day.
Election day voting when about 2:1 for Republicans.
Further Hobb’s censoring posts on Twitter regarding the election, while she was SoS is a violation of the first amendment and a possible crime beyond the extortion.
Unless lake prevails in her lawsuit – most people will not hear about it.
But whether you like it or not, polls are showing most people are now distrusting the 2022 election – particularly in AZ.
You can fight over the details – not that you actually know anything.
But the fact is that people watched and they did not like what they saw.
Now they are seeing the Twitter files – and they do not like that either.
The overwhelming majority of voters are not as well informed as those of us here debating you.
But the overwhelming majority of voters are better informed and have better judgment that you.
Between the twitter files and the obvious disaster in AZ, more and more people are losing confidence in this fake story that 2020 (and 2022) were well conducted elections.
It looks like that is effecting the courts. The AZ state judge allowed Lake to get farther than Trump did, even though 2020 in Maricopa county was also a mess. It is not helping that Hobbs and the Maricopa county EB are lying about the election – still claiming there were only minor problems when the entire wold knows it took a full week to count and that there were almost 100K ballots that had to be counted by hand because of machine failures. People saw what they saw.
BTW a local election in GA was just flipped because of tabulator problems.
The twitter files are also effecting people.
Most people may not know the details of the law, but they do know that the party that claimed there was russian interferance in the 2016 election has been doing things in 2020 and 2022 that can only be called election interference.
Most people understand that conspiring with social media and the media to interfere with your political opponents campaign is wrong, and probably ought to be illegal.
Let’s see Svelaz. A guy with a gun who can put you in jail tells you what you should do and your not going to pay attention to his instructions. It’s like the mob making suggestions. Some of the people that the mob made suggestions too were more than happy to follow instructions because they were handsomely rewarded for their compliance. They also understood that their compliance was not an option. I know, you being so brave and all would have just looked the G-Man right in the face and said no I will not do your bidding. Just as you do now you would have said how high should I jump.
TiT, they are not the mob and no it is not the equivalent of a “Let’s see Svelaz. A guy with a gun who can put you in jail tells you what you should do and your not going to pay attention to his instructions.”
They are also law enforcement charged with counterintelligence.
“They also understood that their compliance was not an option.”
That’s pure BS. They always had a choice on whether they ban or censor the referrals offered by the FBI. You’re clearly relying on your fantasies borne out of the conspiracy theories you dwell on. You’re detached from reality obviously. You WANT it to be true because that is what you want to believe absent any real evidence of what you claim.
“they are not the mob”
No they are government.
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun
Mao
All government is a guy with a gun ultimately.
If you think not, try not paying your taxes.
Resist firmly,
wait long enough
There will be a guy with a gun.
“They are also law enforcement charged with counterintelligence.”
aka guy with a gun
“They always had a choice on whether they ban or censor the referrals offered by the FBI.”
Yes they banned 90% of the FBI referals including posts that were obvious satire.
Most referals came with the brand new 2016 FBI elections division, and all those referals were election related posts having nothing to do with “counter intelligence”.
These were – usually correct reports of historic error rates for mailin voting, the error rates actually experienced during the 2020 primary.
Basically anything that cast legitimate doubt on election processes in 2020.
\Pretty much NOTHING that was the FBI’s business.
“You’re clearly relying on your fantasies borne out of the conspiracy theories you dwell on.”
Nope relying on the facts as reported.
“You’re detached from reality obviously.”
Pretty sure reality is very close to what Weis and Taibbi are reporting.
They are reviewing the primary source information.
“You WANT it to be true because that is what you want to believe absent any real evidence of what you claim.”
Does not matter what I want – it is true.
The information is available on Twitter. There are even examples of the things that the FBI wanted taken down.
They got nearly everything they wanted. Twitter staff described the directives as orders.
There was almost no pushback even on obviously satirical tweets
And none of this had anything at all do to with counter intelligence.
BTW DHS was also involved.
This was a political operation. Not a law enforcement operation.
Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms should be treated as common carriers. You can’t censor what someone says on a phone call to one person or multiple people conferenced in. No difference.
I wish I could believe this, Professor, but I’ve seen other polls that suggest almost the entire Democrat base wants speech controls, medical mandates, and witch trials. I just don’t trust polls anymore. The last election told me America is still asleep to the threat.
Here’s how complicated these cases can be:
What if there is a legitimate “suspect” as the primary target? The terms “suspect” or lesser standard “person of interest” – both terms mean “doubt”. There is no conviction by a judge or jury.
For sake of argument, what if the “suspect” is legitimately a bad guy. Did that suspect tell his wife, children, cousins or friends? Maybe the others were intentionally left out of the loop. Those others have constitutional rights. FBI and CIA swear an Oath of Office not to practice “guilt-by-association”.
The “suspect” still has a right to be overtly confronted (not covertly blacklisted). The spouse, children, cousins and friends have even greater rights since their is no individualized probable cause.
In real practice, some of the agencies in the past have deemed all of the above “collateral damage”. The FBI destroys anyone in proximity to the primary “suspect” (which means doubt, nor certainty). The FBI and other agencies have a long history of doing this.
They may go to a judge and the judge deems an entire family or group as fair game. There is no individualized probable cause for these people.
“Covert” activities is the real danger here. When it’s done without confronting the person being censored or blacklisted. Covert activities bypass judges altogether, subverting constitutional due process. The very same th8ngbwe are accusing the January 6 supporters of doing.
WTF is wrong with Musk using the results of “polls” to reinstate twitter users? That goes against EVERYTHING he claims to value about free speech.
Is it too difficult for you to understand what Musk is saying? He is calling you and others like you a jerk for censoring political speech. He is making a mockery of you and you don’t understand it.
… even if they won’t admit to it publicly…. They see his harsh management style as a necessary corrective, and they believe he will ultimately be rewarded for cutting costs and laying down the law…. Tech elites don’t simply support Mr. Musk because they like him personally or because they agree with his anti-woke political crusades…. Rather, they view him as the standard-bearer of an emergent worldview they hope catches on more broadly in Silicon Valley.”
This from a NYT piece.
The tech managers are taking lessons from Musk. They are smart enough not to smear a manager that is so successful across multiple disciplines.
“The Intelligence Community (IC) has six ways from Sunday at getting back at him (the POTUS)” ~ Sen. Chuck Schumer, Face the Nation, 2019
*always thought that was a ‘coup-like’ statement by the Senate Leader.
Tesla’s stock has dropped significantly since he took over Twitter.
Every stock has dropped significantly since he took over Twitter. What does that prove?
If you want to see a bear market, just look at the hyper-woke tech sector.
Many stocks have dropped, but far from all.
Fine. I was being rhetorical. “Most” stocks have dropped this year, especially the tech sector.
These things seem too difficult for you. Tesla has dropped but so did the other car companies, even those that were being helped by Biden. A lot of Tesla stock was sold by Musk and that would affect prices, but people buy and sell all the time. Maybe it is a buying opportunity based on the sale.
Does your brain only function ideologically, so that rational thinking evades you?
And Wall St has been down since Biden took office.
Since Biden took office, gas prices have been up.
Since Biden took office, inflation has been up.
ATS throws so much BS he could fertilize your fields.
@Anon
Duh. Every stock is dropping. Enough with the gaslighting. I’d be more concerned about a company like Apple, their stock is more indicative of the broader picture:
https://macdailynews.com/2022/12/16/apple-stock-breaks-below-key-support-now-what/
“the FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ . . .” (the FBI)
That right there tells you everything you need to know about the lying fascists at the FBI. They in fact censored *domestic* actors — Americans who disagreed with the Establishment.
The FBI’s actions are fascist because they are government control of the media and speech via a private company — what Mussolini called “corporatism”: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
Sam, you are right. The “malign foreign actors” trope is belied by the nature of the accounts they identified.
D: And there are the FBI communications you were wondering about. I don’t know about you, but they’re a lot more damning than I anticipated.
Yes, the important disclosures are just starting. The Covid-19 censorship by the so-called public health authorities highlighted in the Missouri/Louisiana/Bhattacharya et al law suit should also be revealed soon.
Good points, Sam. Beijing is basically a communist state re-founded on “corporatism.” They now engage in exactly the kind of jingoism one would expect from a fascist society. What an irony. The only “successful” communist party is the one that borrows from fascism.
Nothing is going to change until people giving illegal orders and people following illegal orders start showing up in jail cells for long periods of time. Best way to do that is make sure all such charges are filed and trials are conducted outside D.C. and New York. Anything remotely run by the federal government that gets tried in D.C. has an automatic non-conviction waiting. It’s a jury pool where you don’t even have to question the jury to know how they will vote. Start moving the trials to mid size cities where people are still sane. Could help
GEB, I love your comment!
If one reads the full results, one sees that respondents believe some things that are false and also have inconsistent beliefs (e.g., “two-thirds of voters think that banning certain tweets is a First Amendment violation,” which is false, and a majority also believe that some kinds of legal tweets — for example, Holocaust denial — should be banned). That people believe something doesn’t make it true.
“There has been a full mobilization of media, political, and business interests against Elon Musk and Twitter to oppose the restoration of free speech protections at the company.”
The company is not restoring “free speech protections.” For goodness sakes, this week Musk suspended the accounts of multiple journalists for simply reporting public information, and there’s lots of other legal speech that Twitter doesn’t host (consensual nude photos, for example).
I don’t think Twitter has the constitutional authority to restore “free speech protections”.
*the issue is government censorship .. . by media proxy/surrogates.
SCOTUS is quite clear that absent coercion, the government asking private companies to act is legal. You believe that it’s government censorship. I’ll wait for SCOTUS to rule.
“SCOTUS is quite clear that absent coercion . . .”
The FBI by its nature is a coercive agency — you know, men with guns.
Apologists have a fantastic capacity for mental contortions and evasion.
Simply carrying a gun — but not taking it out, much less threatening with it — is not legally coercive.
Perhaps you don’t understand SCOTUS’s standards for government coercion.
“Simply carrying a gun — but not . . .”
Said the Mafia bagman.
If I’m a Mafia bagman, you’re the Don.
“If I’m a . . .”
That wasn’t my point.
LOL. You literally quoted me and added “Said the Mafia bagman.”
“LOL.”
Your defensiveness is showing. It’s the kind of thing a Mafia bagman would say to evade his crime.
suspended the accounts of multiple journalists for simply reporting public information,
Prof Turley addressed this bit of idiocy in his post. That the leftist trolls repeat the lie, is just what leftist trolls are forced to do, because the facts don’t advance the phony narrative.
And the internal communication prove that the FBI, and other alphabet agencies worry openly acting to ‘craft a narrative’ with their 80 FBI agents and direct portal to Twitter censors.
Wrong again.
Aaron Blake: “Now that the journalists’ accounts are back, you can see which of their tweets were flagged as violating Twitter rules, ostensibly for “doxxing” Musk.”
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1604100275345788935
Look at the actual tweets.
Look at the actual tweets.</i
Before Musk, lots of accounts got suspended or ghosted…just for linking a story
Those that got suspended, linked the Musk plane tracker…doxxing his family, putting their lives at risk
Again: the comment I linked to shows several of the actual tweets.
Also, the airports that planes fly in to and out of is already public information, not doxxing.
You are not looking at things correctly. The reason for preventing tracking is safety. I assume you understand that.
One person invests time and resources tracking Musk individually. That risk isn’t very high.
One person invests time and resources tracking Musk for millions of people. This presents a significantly higher risk.
Do you see how tracking multiplies the risk to Musk and any high-profile individual?
Doxxing does not require the information to be private.
Just personal and sensitive.
Generally stalkers stay in public. But stalking is illegal.
So show us the actual tweets rather than telling us what someone else says about them.
I will be happy to criticize Musk for not following his own rules.
But I need evidence.
The actual tweets are shown in the images attached to link. If you’re too lazy to click on it, c’est la vie.
I followed your links. I did not find what you claimed.
I followed your links. I did not find what you claimed.
The reason I rarely follow his links, either nothing, or shows the opposite.
So many on the left think a claim is proof, or that adding a bunch of adjectives and opinions to facts changes what they mean
There were 4 attached images of tweets. I see that Twitter has now deleted the primary tweet to prevent people from seeing the images. Quite the commitment to free speech.
I saw all the attached tweets. I did not find what you claimed.
This is common with the left
Articles with tittles unsupported by the text,
And text that is opinion language unsupported by the few facts in the actual article.
You can not prevent people from seeing the image of a tweet by deleting the tweet.
Censorship laws are also nearly impossible to write to silence legal freedom of speech.
Listen to many of the songs from the 1960’s to 1980’s. When government tries to censor, they just invent code-words that can’t be censored. Everybody still understands it but they can’t be legally censored.
As far as images, it’s nearly impossible to write laws for that either. If you write a law prohibiting violence – that law would also ban some parts of the Bible, most Clint Eastwood movies, most police shows on network television, video games, rap music, country music, etc.
If you try to write a law censoring Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl mishap (showing a pasty on her breast for about 1/10 of one second), that same law would also make it illegal for men to appear topless on television or at public beaches. Prior to the 1930’s it was also illegal for men to be topless on most public beaches.
Because effective censorship laws are impossible to write, government censors perform illegal “covert” remedies and essentially become the “Covert Morality Police” using taxpayer dollars. The person censored has no overt appeals process to challenge the legitimacy of the censorship or may not be aware of internet censorship. Censorship laws are impossible to write.
Let’s put some perspective and context to this.
For the likes of the usual suspects that troll here you have to keep it simple….as they are themselves….simple.
Every FBI Special Agent and Management Level Staff ALL swear an Oath to support and defend the Constitution…everyone of them.
They also swear to both enforce AND obey the Law while performing their Duties….every one of them.
I have taken that Oath myself in the past and know what it states and what it demands.
One Law that falls under that huge Umbrella has to do with “Depriving A Person Of Their Civil Rights Under Color Of Law”.
The government Officials, Special Agents, Supervisors, Managers, Lawyers…..the Director of the FBI and every NGO, Private Persons, Contractors….everyone that participated in this Censorship, Banning, Shadow Banning, and suppression of Free Speech by any (if even exactly only one Citizen) are guilty of depriving that person or persons their Civil Right to Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
That includes every Social Media site that colluded with those government agents/officials as by doing so they formed an “Agency Agreement” with the Government and did the Government’s bidding to do what the Government itself is banned by law from doing.
It was done in secrecy, did not allow for appeal or even notification of the actions taken in the majority of cases…..meaning no Due Process…which is also a Civil Right of the People.
If the Intelligence/Counter-Intelligence operations identified foreign actors using social media to interfere or sabotage Elections….then Official but Legal action is permissible .
Were these actions done as a direct result of official investigations….and done by means of Warrants, Court Orders, and other clearly legal means OR NOT?
When the FBI says “Trust Us!”…..one best immediately run the “Bull Shit Flag” up the Flag Pole!
They have lost the trust of the American People because of so many past events that we must never ever take them at their simple Word…..they must prove what they are saying….and as we well know…..that is not going to happen because they cannot because of what they did is not defensible.
We need a bold new leader in the White House in 2024 that will deal with these kinds of problems by cleaning house at every government agency by putting Leaders faithful to the Constitution to head up every agency of the Federal Government Executive Branch….Military and Civilian.
That is something I agree with, but I am afraid that the legislative and executive branches are powerless to effect a massive one time change to unionized, fanatically partisan bureaucravy. To be honest, I fear the government employees far more than I fear an elected representative since we have the means of “firing” them at the next election but the bureaucracy is an entity that has brought about the death of far too many cultures and nations.
Let’s hope openness and transparency will prevail to expose the corruption of the FBI and lead to its defunding and ultimate demise. Hopefully congress can overcome its fear of exposure to the FBI and do the right thing.
While 70% is a notable statistic, I think they asked the wrong question. They might have had an even larger count if they had asked how folks feel about the feds controlling that shadow-banning, etc.