Below is my column in the Hill on the recent disclosure of efforts by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) to pressure Twitter to censor critics, including a columnist. This effort occurred shortly after Schiff’s office objected to one of my columns accusing him of pressuring social media companies to censor those with opposing views. While publicly denying that he supports censorship, Schiff was secretly pressuring Twitter to censor an array of critics.
Here is the column:
“We don’t do this.” That response from Twitter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is a singular indictment, coming at the height of Twitter’s censorship operations. Apparently, there were some things that even Twitter’s censors refused to do.
One of those things was silencing critics of Schiff and his House committee.
In the latest tranche of “Twitter Files,” journalist Matt Taibbi revealed that Twitter balked at Schiff’s demand that Twitter suspend an array of posters or label their content as “misinformation” and “reduce the visibility” of them. Among those who Schiff secretly tried to censor was New York Post columnist Paul Sperry.
Sperry drew Schiff’s ire by writing about a conversation allegedly overheard by one of his sources. Sperry’s article, which appeared in RealClearInvestigations, cited two sources as overhearing two White House staffers discussing how to remove newly-elected President Trump from office. The article raised the possibility of bias on the part of an alleged key player in launching the first Trump impeachment, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. The sources reportedly said that Ciaramella was in a conversation with Sean Misko, a holdover from the Obama administration who later joined Schiff’s staff. The conversation — in Sperry’s words — showed that “just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”
Rather than simply refute the allegation, Schiff wanted Sperry and other critics silenced. His office reportedly laid out steps to cleanse Twitter of their criticism, including an instruction to “remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content.”
The date of Schiff’s non-public letter in November 2020 is notable: Earlier that year, I wrote a column for The Hill criticizing Schiff for pushing for censorship of misinformation in a letter that he sent to social media companies. His office promptly objected to the very suggestion that Schiff supported censorship.
We now know Schiff was actively seeking to censor specific critics on social media. These likely were viewed as more than “requests” since Schiff was sending public letters threatening possible legislative action against these same companies. He wanted his critics silenced on social media. After all, criticizing his investigations or staff must, by definition, be misinformation — right?
His office seems to have indicated they knew Twitter was using shadow-banning or other techniques to suppress certain disfavored writers. In the letter, his staff asked Twitter to “label and reduce the visibility of any content.”
Twitter, however, drew the line with Schiff; one of its employees simply wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do this.”
The “this” referred to in this case was raw political censorship. And even a company that maintained one of the largest censorship programs in history could not bring itself to do what Schiff was demanding — but the demand itself is telling.
Not only does it show how dishonest some politicians have been in denying censorship while secretly demanding it, it also shows the insatiable appetite created by censorship. The article in question, written by Sperry, is a good example. Sperry has denied ever supporting QAnon conspiracy theories, as Schiff’s office charged. Yet even if Sperry’s account about Schiff’s staffer was wildly untrue, that should make it easier to rebut publicly.
The move by Schiff to ban Sperry and others on Twitter — and to remove content — is highly ironic. Schiff has been criticized repeatedly for promoting “misinformation” and for relying on unidentified “sources” for his claims of Trump’s criminality. For example, Schiff pushed the false claim that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation; he also was criticized for pushing false narratives of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.
Nevertheless, I would equally oppose any effort to ban Schiff from social media, although that is hardly likely given the demonstrated political bias of past censorship efforts.
As for Sperry, he was later permanently suspended by Twitter, which I also criticized.
Schiff is unlikely to be deterred by the release of these communications. He recently sent a letter to Facebook, warning it not to relax its censorship efforts. His letter, written with Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), reminded Facebook that some lawmakers are watching the company “as part of our ongoing oversight efforts” — and suggested they may be forced to exercise that oversight into any move by Facebook to “alter or rollback certain misinformation policies.”
Schiff’s actions embody the slippery slope of censorship. By labeling his critics as QAnon supporters or purveyors of “misinformation,” he sought to have allies in social media “disappear” critics like Sperry — yet he found that even those allies could not stomach his demands. Given Twitter’s censorship of even satirical sites, it was akin to being turned down by a Kanye West podcast as being too extreme.
With the disclosure of apparent FBI involvement in Twitter’s censorship program, the release of the Schiff files is another rare insight into how government officials attempted to enlist social media companies for censorship by surrogate or proxy. That is precisely why many in the media, political and business establishments have mobilized against Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter who has released these compromising files.
In a recent tweet, Schiff chastised Musk and demanded more answers from the Twitter CEO. While insisting that “I don’t support censorship,” Schiff asked Musk if he would “commit to providing the public with actual answers and data, not just tweets?” Well, Musk just did precisely that.
The “actual answer” is that Schiff has long sought to silence his critics, and Musk has exposed the underbelly of censorship — which is where we found Adam Schiff.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
There is a small thinker on this blog who tells us that Twitter was not coerced by Adam Schiff. Please allow me to present the fruits of Adams Schiff’s “requests” to Twitter. https://nypost.com/2023/01/06/how-democrat-adam-schiff-abused-his-power-to-demand-i-be-kicked-off-twitter/. The Twitter Files reveal that at first Twitter resisted but then gave in to his pressure under the threat of investigation by the committee that Schiff chaired. It’s obvious that Schiff used the something bad might happen to you approach to get what he wanted. Requests from the Capo were not ignored by the precinct captains.
“Perry drew Schiff’s ire by writing about a conversation allegedly overheard by one of his sources. Sperry’s article, which appeared in RealClearInvestigations, cited two sources as overhearing two White House staffers discussing how to remove newly-elected President Trump from office. The article raised the possibility of bias on the part of an alleged key player in launching the first Trump impeachment, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. The sources reportedly said that Ciaramella was in a conversation with Sean Misko, a holdover from the Obama administration who later joined Schiff’s staff. The conversation — in Sperry’s words — showed that “just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.” I see only one misstatement of fact in this paragraph. Obama, Biden, and the deep state begin the attempted coup from the _date DT became the Repub candidate. That has continued down to 1-07-2023. Did S Rice not say, that Biden was to be kept in the loop so to speak? Lipstick will not camouflage these pigs. There has to be some Karma coming.
I would allege Schiff stood in the Well of The House (which shielded him from defamation) and defamed, slandered, and lied about DT. He stated unequivocally, he had evidence to prove impeachment charges against DT. EG Russia collusion, etc. These Twitter disclosures (Thanks Elon) confirm that there is no rule of law in effect with these Dem Socialists’ and the rest of the deep state. That is another reason probably wild never see a good disclosure of the coming John Durham report.
First, many times people confronted with a demand refuse initially, but later give in. Do we know for sure Twitter didn’t give in, just because at first they said “We don’t do this”?
Second, it’s clear who the real insurrectionists are from their plotting to remove duly-elected President Trump from office within days of his inauguration.
Third, this interview with Matt Taibi is revealing as to just how involved the deep state was in pulling the censorship levers at Twitter:
I cannot think of a more disgusting, obnoxious piece of political excrement than Adam Schiff. The man objectifies all that decent people despise about politicians. Nothing could give me more pleasure than to be introduced to the man, but only for the opportunity to spit in his hand when offered for a shake.
I can easily think of several more disgusting, obnoxious pieces of political excrement, including Trump, Boebert, Jordan, Gaetz, and MTG.
Yawn…
Found the identitarian warmonger.
PS: You didn’t think of those people on your own, you were told to think that way, by stupid people.
It’s very easy to think of those people oneself, just as Canuck Sailor presumably thought of Schiff himself.
Sorry Anonymous, Trump, Boebert, Jordan, Gaetz and MTG didn’t go to Twitter and demand that a reporter should be banned from Twitter. None of these people started a four year insurrection through the use of the fake Steele dossier. On a scale of despicable none of the people you have mentioned come anywhere close to Adam Schiff. We should remember that he said that he would provide evidence but he never did. He knew from the start that no such evidence existed. When assessing the workings of the mind of such a man what conclusion should one come to? The conclusion should be abhorrence. That is for an honest thinker.
I’m sorry you apologize for a man who feels free and easy asking for censorship. You don’t have to do that. You aren’t obligated.
Anonymous, odd that you name all Republicans and not one Democrat that you don’t like? I don’t like Boebert, Trump or Gaetz, but I do like Jim Jordan and I find it funny that you would lump him in with the others. Now do you like Omar, Tlaib, AOC or Maxine Waters? How about Schiff or Swalwell? Please try to actually reply to my point without attacking me. Just answer the darn question. DO you have any problem with Tlaib, Omar, Schiff, Waters or Swalwell?
Amazon deleted all documentaries (videos) critical of the overuse of vaccinations. They denied they were forced to do it by Schiff! The video distributor learned otherwise!
Here is my opinion of Rep. Adam Schiff.
In my opinion Rep. Adam Schiff is the worst of the worst in Congress. Schiff’s actions, tactics and behaviors have shown us that he is transparently anti-Constitution. When the constitution gets in Schiff’s way of accomplishing what he wants Schiff simply bastardizes the Constitution into complete obscurity, lies to the public and rationalizes his tactics and behaviors. Schiff is an immoral political hack. I’m absolutely certain that Schiff will be one of the immoral ones that loudly applauds (with that sinister smirk on his pompous-ass face) when the Constitution is bastardized so badly that it’s no longer enforceable.
The Constitution is there to protect We the People” and Rep. Adam Schiff is the epitome of an enemy of the people.
Dear Prof Turley,
When I want to punish Democrats I make them watch Adam Schiff’s closing arguments at the end of the 1st impeachment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecpF26eMV3U
‘We’re sending money over there (Ukraine), so we don’t have to fight the Russians here’
Unlike the 2nd impeachment, clearly Adam Schiff impeached the wrong guy.
*if you can’t impeach Trump, who can you impeach?
I think any objective analysis would conclude that Adam Schiff is a proven serial liar about things that are important to our country’s well-being. It was Schiff who claimed over and again that Russians had manipulated our elections, that the Hunter laptop was “Russian disinformation,” and that President Trump committed numerous impeachable offenses (“I’ve seen the proof!”). Apparently, lying was not enough. We now know that he worked hard to censor anyone who attempted to shine the light on his nefarious activities. Of course, we know that none of what he does is unique in American history. There have been many scoundrels in Congress like him before and there will be more like him in the future. The remarkable thing to me is that in his California district Schiff always receives more than 70% of the votes in each general election. Obviously, Schiff’s constituents approve of this Democrat’s shameful behavior simply because he is a Democrat. In Texas we call them “yellow dog Democrats” because they would vote for a yellow dog as long as he is a Democrat. I wonder if there is a name for them in California?
honestlawyermostly,
“Obviously, Schiff’s constituents approve of this Democrat’s shameful behavior simply because he is a Democrat.”
Interesting observation.
What kind of people are they, indeed.
UpstateFarmer– It is a good question, but I do not know the answer to what kind of people are they. My guess is that (1) they were raised by Democrat parents and so were formed in a Democrat mold, (2) they still believe, as they were taught, that Republicans are evil, (3) they lack confidence in their own abilities to think critically, and so (4) they feel safer believing and doing what they are told, especially since the MSM, which is their source of news, is an echo chamber for what their leaders say. Try as I might, I cannot think of a rational basis for voting for Schiff.
Try as I might, I cannot think of a rational basis for voting for Schiff.
Consider the demographics of his district. Wiki states:
Representative Adam Schiff
D–Burbank
Population (2021) 764,996
Median household
income $89,909
Ethnicity
50.6% White
28.4% Hispanic
12.5% Asian
4.8% Black
3.2% Two or more races
0.7% other
IOW, elite white liberals (aka Democrats) who never interface with people of color, the uneducated, the poor, the suffering. So it follows of course that Schiff virtue signals about people of whom he has no tangible experience.
Smith is a much worse liar than Blumenthal and Santos.
Honest Lawyer, that’s a wonderful objective analysis of Adam Schiff! I would like to make an additional observation here. Adam Schiff is an embarrassment to the legal profession.
He was a federal prosecutor.
I wonder if anyone is interested in taking a second look at cases he prosecuted.
Should Adam Schiff be removed from SM, or censored or cancelled or whatever?
Of course not.
By making these demands, he exposes himself to the level of corruption, hypocrisy he stoops to. He is his own worst enemy.
That, and Musk buying Twitter and giving real, good, objective, investigative independent journalists the Twitter Files.
Without Musk and journalists like Matt Taibbi, the American people would still be in the dark.
Yes Twitter is a private company that can make it’s own rules. But the Twitter files have shown that the government has coerced. Not demanded. Not directly violated the 1st Amendment. COERCED. If the F.B.I showed up at my house every day ” requesting” that I spy on my neighbor because they were precluded from doing so, I would certainly feel that if I didn’t do it I would then feel ” repercussions”.
The government wheels a very big hammer.
As far as ” influencing” Twitter, ” just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.
The new tactic to suppress free speech is to label speech that you disagree with as ” misinformation” or ” disinformation” Total B.S. And weak.
As far as Schiff, harder to find a bigger P.O.S.
Twitter’s rejection of Schiff’s requests shows that Twitter didn’t feel coerced.
Anon, wasn’t referring to just Schiff’s requests. Only mentioned him because he is such a P.O.S. There are numerous other ” requests” by the Biden Administration, FBI and CDC to name a few that Twitter did acquiesce to.
And the fact the Schiff would make such request says something in itself.
That they agree to some requests while rejecting others does not imply that they feel coerced.
Anon, my point is that the government should not be making ” requests” for censorship at all.
What people “should” do is a matter of opinion.
Anon, referring to an entity ( government), a very powerful entity. Not individual people.
Schiff is an individual and was not acting on behalf of the government.
Anon, so if Schiff was a barber, he would have the same power to attempt to influence a billion- dollar social media company? He is part of the government. Both he and his staff are paid with tax dollars. He wasn’t commenting on a restaurant he just ate at. He was trying to squelch comments that could hurt him POLITICALLY.
“. . . does not imply that they feel coerced.”
It is not an issue of anyone’s feelings. It is an issue of fact — that government by its nature is an institution of *physical* force (it’s police powers).
Keep evading that fact, and you can rationalize any tyrant’s urge for power.
Individual members of Congress do not lose their 1st Amendment rights when they’re elected.
You have made a lot of dubious comments above. Unless you can show Schiff’s actions were apart and separate from his government position you are wrong. This was not one action, but many, too many to hide his intent.
Under what constitutional power does a Member of Congress make such a request.
Members of Congress have the same individual 1st Amendment rights as you do.
“Members of Congress have the same individual 1st Amendment rights as you do.”
Trying to convince an Apologist for censorship is a fool’s errand. They have a thousand ways to evade and deflect. Witness Exhibit A.
Anonymous, so if my cop neighbor asks me to do something IN UNIFORM it is the same as my other neighbor, a female first grade teacher, asking me to do something? If my boss asks me to get her a coffee it is the same as my underling asking me to her her a coffee?
Power perceived is power received via impression. That would be applicable from Congresspersons, FBI, CIA, NSI, NSA, etc.
@ Anonymous … >”Twitter didn’t feel coerced.”
Willing partners, for the most part. Evidently, Twitter had built-in its own lexicon for dealing/billing U.S. gov. agencies requests for censorship: FBI (‘the Belly Button’), GEC (‘State Dept. IO projects’), OGA (‘CIA’), ODNI, HS SPI-SIS etc. etc. to help mold and shape public perception.
*see ‘Twitter Files glossary’ by M. Taibbi
@Anonymous
Twitter was coerced and if you read the news, it showed that they responed to Schiff by looking in to it except that it wasn’t what they do.
And if you bothered to read the WSJ op-ed, it doesn’t matter if Twitter took action or not.
The simple act of requesting that they censor someone is enough to have violated that person’s civil rights under the color of the law.
So yes, Schiff is guilty.
Schiff will try to hide behind his limited immunity. Justice Thomas is looking for a case that would allow the courts to determine the extent of the immunity.
If Perry’s civil rights were violated, he should sue. I doubt that a court will agree with you.
Well said
In Norwood v Harrison (1973) the Supreme Court said it was “axiomatic” that state officials may not “induce, encourage or promote” actions by private actors that the state is not permitted to take itself. While that case involved the provision by Mississippi of assistance in the form of text books to private schools engaged in racial discrimination, the principle under the 1st Amendment should be the same. “Coercion” is not necessarily the standard. Jeb Rosenfeld wrote about this recently in an op ed in the WSJ.
They were quoting Lee v. MacOn County Board of Education, 267 F. Supp. 458, which did not say that about state officials acting in an individual capacity, but about the state itself: “[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Schiff was not acting on behalf of the federal government.
It doesn’t matter who they were quoting. By quoting what they did they endorsed the principle. Maybe it doesn’t apply to the 1st amendment; maybe it doesn’t apply to officials unless they speak for the government as a whole. The Missouri/Louisiana/Bhattacharya et al case may resolve this.
My point was to pay attention to the actual quote, which is clearly about the state, not about state officials acting in an individual capacity.
The communication is said to have come from Schiff’s office. How is that Schiff acting in an individual capacity?
Taibbi included a copy of the email, which I’ve now read, and it doesn’t look like it came from Schiff himself. His staffers don’t lose their 1st Amendment speech rights upon his being elected. The request did not come from a governmental agency or a governmental committee, nor from Schiff acting on behalf of the federal government. Are you suggesting that Schiff’s office cannot ask that harassment of a staffer be addressed by Twitter, simply by virtue of Schiff being a member of Congress?
Intent.
It can only be the government’s business if the harassment rises to the level of threats of criminal violence.
Congressmen and women are government employees, when Schiff sent the letters on his letterhead from his congressional office and/or his Congressional email account to Twitter, he was acting as a Congressman, when his office did the same thing, they were acting on behalf of him as a Congressman, Congressmen and Congresswomen are part of the third branch of government, i.e., the legislative branch, any act by Schiff, by his office employees, or by any Congressman or Congresswoman, and their employees, in their official capacity, is an action of the government.
His staffers don’t lose their 1st Amendment rights simply because they work for a member of Congress, and what I saw from Taibbi was an email, not a letter. Please do show a link to “the letters on his letterhead from his congressional office” that you’re referring to. In the email that I saw, the sender’s email address was redacted, so please show where there’s an email from Schiff’s own “Congressional email account to Twitter.” The email refers to Schiff in the 3rd person, which suggests otherwise.
“The State” is a structure, holding officers and representatives….people.
Your pedantry is not a good faith response.
Meyer and Lin and Estovir and others said that also.
That this morally and ethically bankrupt waste of a human being is returned to the House with every cycle speaks more to what he shares with his constituency than their candidate alone.
One could say the same about Gym Jordan.
You have no reputation so you feel able to slime another’s. That is why your reputation stinks.
California really produces some doozy’s don’t they? Schiff, Waters, Pelosi, Boxer. Even McCarthy on the R side. Some of the stuff they do and the way they think is unimaginable to me and probably to many others. Some PHD should get a grant to study what makes them tick and provide their findings to the rest of the country.
Communism REQUIRES censorship. Little Adam Schiff is nothing more than a good little obedient comrade. The double standard is absolutely astounding.
Ballot harvesting of “Last Known Address” ballots helps.
Oh, Professor, you take all the fun out of things! If I were Twitter now, I would announce a permanent ban on Adam Schiff and say it had nothing to do with TOS but was simply a vermin eradication process. After a month and multiple strokes in the Democratic Party, I would re-instate him and say “Just Kidding” and never say another word about him. As the Washington Post Says, let his soul die in darkness. Nothing can kill a political career faster than not being talked about at all, forever.
The Nazis liked to refer to people as vermin.
BTW, the WP doesn’t say that souls die in darkness, much less does it wish death on people. Their masthead slogan is democracy dies in darkness.
Good Moring, commenter Pedantic.
Now, go read up on humor
Lol you obviously don’t understand sarcasm. Nazi” indeed!
To AnonymousTS, I know what the Washington Post screed says, Democracy Dies in Darkness, but obviously they would never mention the soul since they have no understanding of the meaning of that concept, or democracy for that matter. Written sarcasm occasionally requires notification but in this case I think even the Twitter censors under the old regime could figure it was sarcasm. Please, I was actually attributing some intelligence to you, which I obviously overestimated.
It was a nice day until Prof Turley brought up Adam Schiff. .. and left me up Schiff creek without a paddle!
Adam Schiff is as two-faced as anyone can be — there should be consequences for his constant lying and pushing untruthful information – real consequences, legal ones if possible.
I don’t think that the new House should waste a lot of time on investigations, but one thing they should do is censure Schiff for this and all the other “questionable comments” he has spouted. Talk about a danger to the Republic
And I don’t care about that NY Congressman – they can censure him as well
This demonstrates that Twitter was making its own decisions about all of these requests and was not forced to act by anyone in the government.
Read the article by Sperry in the NYP. In Feb 2021 Twitter banned him without explanation, three months after Schiff wrote. He speculates that there may have been further pressure by phone or text, which would not appear in Twitter emails.
Bill and Hillary Clinton caused more damage to American society and politics than any other figures. Adam Schiff comes in third. Their lies, duplicity and greed for power and money sent this country (and the Democratic party) into a tailspin we still have not recovered from. Trump was the unexpected consequence of their crimes, and the “woke” mob was the fanatical response to Trump. Evil people produce nothing but evil.
@Giocon,
Who do you think backed Schiff in his run for office?
He’s always been a Clinton lap dog.
Democrats…EVERY Democrat whether in government, business, banking, media, etc are Fascists!
They HATE America…they are open border, destroy the poor and middle class, anti-cop, pro crime, pro drugs, full on HATRED OF AMERICA
They shower their leaders in millions Clintons, Pelosis, Gores, Obama, Bidens, etc
Lefties lying again.
And watch the usual liars on this blog step up to argue that “it ain’t so”.
Our resident liars engage in whataboutism, TDS, attacks on Turley, and screeds about Fox News.
They just don’t admit the truth.