“We Don’t Do This”: Adam Schiff and the Underbelly of American Censorship

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.

193 thoughts on ““We Don’t Do This”: Adam Schiff and the Underbelly of American Censorship”

  1. Censorship is not the solution. Some people simply love to hate and love to be divisive. That is the issue to focus on.

    For people that love to hate, they will just find another avenue for their hate and pettiness. All this divisiveness only helps our foreign enemies.

    If Congress is going to assume the role of “grown up” censoring us little people, maybe Congress needs to lead by example? Maybe Congress needs to be more civil and less divisive, setting a better example for us little people to follow?

  2. “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.”

    Adam Schiff was found under a rock where he lives with the rest of the slugs and parasites. If there is a most pathologically dishonest member of Congress, I’m unaware of who that might be.

  3. The refusal by Twitter to carryout this particularly absurd request appears to be the exception to the norm. There are so many more examples going the other way to give this example any more weight than it deserves, which is none.

    1. You nailed it sam!….I always suspected they were carry on govt ops…..so I tossed govt ops I. The mix…..with the caveat “do you have a warrant’…….. Just preface anything you post with “do you have a warrant”….. If you preface all you post with that….then they can’t parse words later. Just preface it so with do ‘you have a warrant’ everything you post.And they have to tell you exculpatory evidence!! Start all your messages with…do you have a warrant. Period.

  4. Savage takedown by an intelligent woman emasculating Adam Schiff on national TV:

    Adam Schiff: None of that serious misconduct is in any way diminished by the fact that people lied to Christopher Steele.

    Morgan Ortagus: “No. I think just your credibility is

    1. This is an excellent video clip posted by Estovir, and thank you. I just watched/listened to it and call attention to the timeframe of 3:54–4:14, wherein it is noted that Schiff repeatedly and excessively appeared on certain media sites (you guess) but was never challenged…so the visibility and excessive repetition of his view became highly-visible, excessively-repeated, national news material.
      That, indeed, is the problem here in America, -when widespread, national media (MSM) is controlled by one political ideology.

  5. Jonathan: Say what you will about Adam Schiff but I doubt he can get Twitter to delete any misinformation–not under Musk’s ownership. That’s because Musk is promoting misinformation. Musk is allowing Michael Flynn back on Twitter. Flynn is one of the most notorious 2020 election deniers and supported the insurrection 2 years ago. He pushed the conspiracy theory that Covid-19 was a hoax created to steal the 2020 election from Trump. He wants Christianity to be the official religion in the US. If you want misinformation on Twitter you will get it in spades with Michael Flynn. Spreading misinformation is now the hallmark on Twitter. But this creates a big problem for Musk in Europe.

    Earlier in the month German Digital & Transportation Minister Volker Wissing met with Musk and laid down the law. Under the EU Digital Services Act Twitter must agree to fight misinformation. Failure to do so could result in Twitter sanctions and fines. If Musk refuses to comply Twitter’s future in Europe looks bleak. With all his other problems trying to keep Twitter from imploding Musk can’t afford to ignore the UE rules.

    Adam Schiff may not have to worry about “censoring” Twitter. It may soon just disappear as a social media platform no one pays attention to any more. Twitter will join Trump’s “Truth Social” as the least likely places to go for accurate information..

    1. Who are you? You blather on as if you are the person in charge. You’re not, so get over yourself.

      1. Simon 77047: Yes, actually, I am the “person in charge” in trying to bring some sanity to this blog–to point out things Turley doesn’t want to address. You may not like to hear what I have to say but, hey, that’s the price you pay for “free speech”. You have a choice. You can ignore my comments or add some constructive criticism. Judging from your comment you would rather just “blather” on with nonsense!

        1. What absolute arrogance.

          No you are not the person in charge.

          Nor do you bring sanity to this blog.

          Tulrey is perfectly capable of deciding what he wants to address.

          You are free to address whatever you want – as is every other poster here – none more or less than others.

          But you speak for yourself ONLY.

          I have no interest in nearly all the things you think Turley should write about.
          It does nto appear that others do.

          You suffer from the typical left wing nut derangement of self importance.
          And the delusion that others find you interesting, or that they would want you to “help” them understand anything.

          1. John Say: You should be embarrassed by al the nonsense you spew out every day on this blog. Yes, Turley is “cable of deciding what he wants to address”. It’s his blog and he gets to choose the subject. And I am entitled to point out the fallacies in his arguments, to add additional facts or to even address subjects he doesn’t want to address. That’s my “free speech” right on this blog and I intend to exercise it. Call it “typical left wing nut derangement of self importance” or any other non-sensical pejorative you choose but that’s what I do best. I provide an alternative to all the wacky stuff you and others on this blog seem to think is important.

            Instead of labeling people why don’t you actually try and address the issues. If you think I have misstated the facts or you have an alternative to my POV fell free to disagree with me. That’s what this blog is for. But it serves no useful purpose to waste space resorting to ad hominem attacks that only show how little of substance you have to offer.

            1. I am not the slightest embarrassed by repeating ideas, philosophy and economics that are hundreds of years old, espoused by the freatest minds of history and have stood the test of times.

              Are you embarrassed by spewing ahistorical antifactual garbage that has failed everytime it has ever been tried ?

              Regardless, if you think there is something I am wrong about – lets actually debate it ?

              I have been here for years waiting for an actual leftist to stand up and put their values and beleifs to the test.

              I am constantly disappointed. With rare exceptions all we get from the left – hear and everywhere is the same long ago refuted nonsense naratives – and the same 5th grade childish insults.

              Do not tell me I should be embarrassed – actually make an argument – a good one that actually embarrasses me – if you can.

              “I am entitled to point out the fallacies in his arguments”
              You are – and all of us are still waiting for the day that occurs.
              Do you even know what the word fallacy means ?

              “to add additional facts”
              Again you are free to do so – and again we are all waiting for the day that occurs.

              “or to even address subjects he doesn’t want to address.”
              You may address whatever subject you wish. You are even free to try to read Turley’s mind to figure out what subjects he does not want to address. But your not very good at mind reading and the subjects you want to address rarely make the point you think they do.

              Regardless, You are free to do all the above.
              You are even free to beleive you are the self appointed counterpoint for the entire blog.

              Your freedom to do something does not make you immune for criticism, and certainly not free from error and arrogance.

              People sometimes Accuse me of what you openly admit to.

              Your arrogance is as boundless as your ignorance.

            2. I insult you – because pretty much all you do is post insults.
              Like everything else – your not very good at that.

              The appellation “typical left wing nut derangement of self importance” is perfectly appropriate.
              It accurately describes your own post.
              I am not the one of engaged in stupid puffery.

              “I provide an alternative to all the wacky stuff you and others on this blog seem to think is important.”

              No you do not. You are not the craziest left wing nut here. Nor are you the most rational – even on the left.
              Your an average run of the mill poorly informed left wing nut.
              You are entirely unexceptional – except possibly in your arrogance.
              You are stupid – but not exceptionally stupid – several other left posters earn that distinction.
              You are ill informed – but not exceptionally ill informed – several other left posters earn that distinction.
              You are intolerant – but not exceptionally intolerant – several other left posters earn that distinction.

              You are a mediocre left wing nut, pretty much undistinguished in any significant way.

              You are not some correcting force for this blog. Turley is center left, but slowly getting red pilled – not by those in the comments sections which I doubt he reads, but by the limitless stupidity and arrogance of those in left who gain power.
              Regardless, Turley needs no corrective from the left.

              Your alleged attempts to bring balance – not only lean the wrong way to acheive balance, but should embarrass you.

              Your arguments are poor, they are poorly thought out.
              You constantly compare apples and oranges. You are blind to your own enormous hypocracy.
              And you constantly see the trivial as important and the important as trivial.

              And for all the above criticism – you are not even exceptional at what you are so proud of an so bad at.

            3. “Instead of labeling people why don’t you actually try and address the issues.”
              I have tried that constantly.

              It is nearly impossible to get those of you on the left to discuss the actual issues.

              “If you think I have misstated the facts”
              You have and I have wasted thousands of words addressing that only to get arrogance and insults from you.

              It is you and your cohorts on the left who do not ever actually address issues.

              “or you have an alternative to my POV”
              I am not interested in your Point of View. Nor do I offer an alternate Point of View.

              I actually do what you are saying you want – I address your arguments demonstrating with facts, logic, reason how pathetically bad they are.
              And you go away or respond with insults and fallacies – though mostly insults.

              “But it serves no useful purpose to waste space resorting to ad hominem attacks”
              That is correct, so lose the chip off your shoulder, quit pretending to be something you are not.
              And actually do what you claim you want from me – which you get and ignore – and address the issues.

              You have an ideology that fails ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE. Yet, you continue to sell it.
              You have no explanation for why something that has ALWAYS failed, and nearly ALWAYS ended in copious bloodshed, will somehow work better this time.

              Modern leftism – of which you are a typical if mediocre representative, is just retread Marxism, using a broader definition of oppressed and oppressors. Is it beyond you to grasp that if you divide the world into oppressed and oppressors – that is going to end in violence ?

              We have thousands of books, by people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who will tell you where this always ends. Or you can look on the past 200 years of history.

              I will be happy to address most any issue you want.
              As I noted before – you are not even an exceptional left wing nut. You are pretty mediocre in every way imaginable – except your impression of your own self importance.
              Dealing with the few poor arguments you make is pretty trivial.

            4. “But it serves no useful purpose to waste space resorting to ad hominem attacks”
              Then don’t.

              I am not going to refrain from calling obviously stupid arguments stupid.
              But I do pretty much always directly address any actual arguments you make – in the rare instances you make them.

              The current Topic is Adam Schiff’s repugnant, and unethical efforts to censor.

              Inarguably Schiff’s efforts are immoral and unethical. That is true whether he is a democrat or a republican.
              I criticized Trump when he said “someone should do something about ….” implying that others should be censored.
              There is no evidence that Trump actually acted on those ambiguous public remarks.
              If you have such evidence – regarding Trump or other conservatives – I will condemn it.
              Sen. Joe MacCarthy was immoral, unethical and shameless – and he was a republican.

              Democrats, those on the left, and YOU should be condemning your own for the same vile actions.
              But you are not.

              Because of Schiff’s position, and because of his threats to use government power – his actions are indistinguishable from those of MacCarthy 70 years ago.

              If you have a relevant example of Republicans doing the same – I will join you in condemning that.

              Parents demanding a voice in which thousand or so books out of the millions of books published belong in elementary school libraries – is NOT within 10,000 miles of a relevant counter example, and if you were half as intelligent as you claim to be that would be obvious.

              I will be happy to adress anything meaningful you raise.

              Your arguments will get the respect they deserve.
              Here to hoping you will surprise me an make an argument worth some respect.

              1. To Dennis: “I will be happy to adress anything meaningful you raise.”

                John, Dennis specializes in nonsensical answers and never responds with facts. Additionally, he has difficulty remaining on topic.

                I am still waiting for Dennis to apologize to those who suffered deeply from the Nazis when he equated their suffering to a trip to Martha’s Vineyard for recently arrived illegals.

                I also await Dennis’s reply to my answer on social security. Dennis changed the subject from student loans to social security. He is unable to debate anything he says. He is like Gigi.

                Good luck.

    2. Dennis, misinformation is in the eye of the beholder. If Flynn wants to post that the 2020 election was stolen SO WHAT? If Flynn wants to say that Covid was a hoax SO WHAT? If an individual wants to put forth the proposition that the pyramids were built by aliens, SO WHAT? People are free to put forth stupidity should they so desire. How about a counter argument? Accusations of misinformation is a response of the weak. I doubt that Musk will cave to the German government. Twitter is a public forum. Designed to spur debate. Not unlike this blog. If you are going to a social media site for let’s say, ” accurate information” regarding medical information( Covid) you are an idiot.

      1. Not unlike this blog. If you are going to a social media site for let’s say, ” accurate information” regarding medical information( Covid) you are an idiot.

        I go to social media to get multiple opinions. I look at the links cited, follow those I have found credible. Twitter evolved into a media clearing house. All most ALL writers/reporters (yes, its a stretch using those descriptions) used twitter to link to their content, in hopes of amplifying their work.
        Twitter at the behest of the Govt, silenced lots of content that challenged the official govt narrative.
        Covid informantion is the best example of this. Question mask mandates and link to Scientific studies that proved masks don’t work? The govt told twitter to ban or de-amplify. It cant be claimed they are rooting out that nebulous “mis information” Sharing scientific research is not misinformation.
        The govt response to covid ushered in a whole host of of firsts, Measuring case rate, rather the infection rate. ignoring co morbidity, eliminating immunity due to being infected. Virologists that tried to debate the new protocols were targets of the govt on who to silence.
        And of course, the Great Barrington Declaration was a target of ridicule, despite the fact hundreds of Dr’s signed onto the document.

      2. I agree with what you are saying to a point. People should be able to post their opinions, but if we have to spend all of our time disputing ridiculous claims and theories, then we are not spending time coming up with new ideas and real solutions to problems.

      3. Emotional Italian: I agree up to a point. Yes, people are entitled to express all sorts of “stupidity”. The problem is that misinformation can have harmful consequences. During the initial stages of Covid-19 Trump went on Twitter advocating all sorts of quack remedies. We don’t know how many people died because they took his advice. That’s one of the reasons Trump was banned. And I don’t think Musk’s Twitter is “designed to spur debate”. It’s strictly Musk’s vehicle to try to dominate the social media conversation. Leo KoGuan, a chinese investor and Tesla’s third largest shareholder, expressed it best: “We want Elon Musk back to Tesla, but [he] has new seductive beauty named Twitter. Twitter is giving him ‘dear leader’ power that he craves to decide who wins, loses and dies”. If Musk really wants to “spur debate” why has he banned journalists and others who criticize him?

        1. Dennis, even if Covid “misinformation” had harmful consequences because of what Trump said on Twitter SO WHAT? As I said before, if you are taking medical advise from someone on Twitter, especially an individual who is not a doctor you deserve whatever ” harmful consequences” that are a result of such stupidity. It is not the job of social media and certainly not the government to protect you from your own choices. Even if they are stupid or induce self- harm. Smoking cigarettes has been known to cause cancer since the late 60’s. But cigarette companies are still around. And the government cannot ban them. Unlike some of the Covidians, I never heard anyone say that smokers should be triaged when needing hospital care.

          As for Musk’s ” vehicle”. I have been on Twitter since 2018. And when their TOS caused someone to get banned or suspended it didn’t sit well with me. But I agreed to the TOS just like everyone else. If I heard ” if you don’t like the rules, quit using it” or ” start your own site” once I heard it dozens of times. And they were right. What changed? Someone who wasn’t in the Left’s pocket bought Twitter. And if your supposition that Musk bought Twitter to dominate social media conversation, SO WHAT?

        2. We don’t know how many people died because they took his advice.

          That is beside the point.

          Nobody in government ever asked Twitter to take down the #HandsUpDontShoot misinformation.

      4. This is the “yelling fire in a crowded theater is perfectly fine” argument.

        Or the “Convincing someone to kill themselves is perfectly fine” argument.

    3. …said the leftist tool who believed without question the outpouring of total BS from twitter and facebook during the 2020 election, which has now been shown to be total lies….50 ‘former doj officials’ claiming that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation was good enough for you, wasn’t it mr ‘i know where to go on the internet for accurate information and you don’t’. You couldn’t be a better example of a classic leftist tool with your head up your arse and a beyond arrogant, condescending personality that is typical of all the leftist know it all’s like yourself.

    4. Defending Adam Schiff is so sad. If you haven’t put that man in his bucket to Hell by now, you’re not listening to what he says. Your deaf.

    5. I see Dennis is all jacked up on booster shots and showing off his liberal AIDS brain. I see you put in the extra work to get this indoctrinated & brainwashed! I’m sure Satan and the squad are proud of you

    6. “German Digital & Transportation Minister Volker Wissing . . .”

      Leave it to the Germans to not learn anything from their totalitarian history.

    7. It is not the govermnment’s business if Musk chooses to allow misinformation on Twitter.

      It has a block button. People who have a problem with misinformation (such as denying that god exists) can simply block users who post or retweet misinformation.

  6. This is by Paul Sperry in today’s NY Post. Worth a read.


    Excerpt: Why would a congressional leader sworn to protect the Constitution and First Amendment want to muzzle a veteran journalist? Like authoritarians everywhere, Schiff did not like critical reporting. The man who vowed to “protect our Democracy” from Donald Trump wanted to censor a free press.

    Also details the blatant lies Schiff was telling to promote the Russia collusion hoax (which he knew to be a hoax).

  7. The letter from Schiff’s office contained no threat of legal action. Professor Turley, legally do you think a court would agree with your unsubstantiated claim that Twitter felt threatened into taking action?

    (This is obviously undercut by the fact that they did not take action here anyway! Why would Taibi not show us the actual communications surrounding the incident where the journalist was censored?)

    It is astonishing that anyone would take the “Twitter Files” as anything other than cherry picked propaganda. If Musk really cared about the truth, he would allow others to view the primary sources that we are supposed to believe are verified by the only journalist given access to them.

    Musk and Taibi are basically Chinese state run media at this point. Do you trust the Chinese Communist Party when they pull the same stunts?

    1. The letter from Schiff’s office contained no threat of legal action.
      Under what enumerated power did Schiff send the letter?

      It is astonishing that anyone would take the “Twitter Files” as anything other than cherry picked propaganda.

      Astounding coming from a person that takes the Jan 6, (100% Democrat seated) Committee is unassailable.

      1. Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans. You may not like them, because they are too smart for you and Turley, but they are hard right GOPers. Keep flailing.

      2. I don’t take the J6 commission as unassailable. Why did you assume that?

        Also, it wasn’t 100% Dem…

        Folks on this blog seem to think it impossible to have opinions that do not always align with a political party. I question any news that cannot be fact checked and independently verified, regardless of whether the news bolsters a particular party’s narrative.

      3. Congress has an investigatory power and can use that power to inquire into the lives of private businesses to aid in its powers under the Commerce Clause.

        This is no different than a member of Congress asking a steel company about its labor practices to inform its drafting of a labor law.

        Without a quid pro quo/coercion, this is a nothingburger.

        1. Oh yes, the catch all clauses of the Constitution. Commerce and the 14th amendment.

          Neither apply. Schiff on congressional letter head told twitter who to silence. Named names. Go ahead, draw that line to writing legislation.

        2. Congress has an investigatory power and can use that power to inquire into the lives of

          A properly constituted Congressional committee does. A Congress person does not. Schiff used his congressional letter head to identify accounts he wanted silenced. That is not an investigation. It is censorship.

        3. Anonymous- your comparison with a congressional investigation of labor practices is misplaced. You forget that the issue at hand involves the 1st Amendment, a sacred area in American law. Prior restraint is not acceptable in the USA.

    2. Anonymous- your position is at best naive. When a congressman or federal agency comes to you and says “we’d suggest you do this or that,” you will usually do it to avoid angering the gods. I’ve read this sort of explanation from your side before and it is very weak sauce. Quite frankly, I think you know better.

      1. First of all, a Congressman’s request means nothing if he has no power to “make” you take the requested action. If you capitulate because you didn’t lawyer up and didn’t know better, that is your problem. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

        Secondly, I assume you are equally upset with the long list of GOP representatives that engage in the same tactics. For example, 18 House Republicans demanded Twitter’s Board preserve all records related to Elon Musk’s offer to buy the company back in April 2022. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/22/republicans-demand-twitter-board-save-records-on-musks-bid.html

        Third, I assume you were equally upset with DeSantis doing the same thing with Disney, Paypal, etc.?

    1. Could’a proved the same thing by having an asteroid crash into the Capitol Building last night.

      1. God likes fake wrestling just like the rest of us, but He especially enjoys watching pigs go flip flop in mud, which is why an asteroid did not hit the capitol bldg. When you are busy creating life, providing miracles, and listening to hypocrites pray for retribution on their perceived enemies, watching Members of Congress act as they do is comedic relief, thus spaketh the Lord

        1. Estovir,
          I am not religious, but that was dang funny.
          For some reason, if God was watching CSPAN last night, I think he would of changed the channel to WWE.

    2. Musk buying Twitter is proof that unfettered competition in the free markets of the private sector is always the answer to everything.

      Musk buying Twitter is proof that governmental interference is contraindicated, counterintuitive, counterproductive, detrimental and economic suicide.

      Musk buying Twitter is proof that communism is invalid, illegitimate, ineffective, deleterious and inexorably a failure.

  8. “His office seems to have indicated they knew Twitter was using shadow-banning or other techniques to suppress certain disfavored writers.”

    Is the professor even aware that Fox and the NY Post — two Murdoch media outlets at which he often reminds readers for purposes of full disclosure he is a columnist — also engage in shadow-banning?

    And while Schiff is a well-known liar, fraud, and all around bad guy whose questionable conduct is legendary, one wonders whether the professor is aware that gangster Swampy McCarthy — the newly installed third in line to the presidency — was RECORDED via phone conversation saying that his fellow House republicans should be BANNED from social media.

    So while any potential evidence of gangster Swampy McCarthy taking action to secure that unconstitutional suppression of free speech hasn’t yet been disclosed via the “Twitter Files,” he nonetheless has no ethical or legal objection to unconstitutional censorship that includes silencing memebers of Congress and members of this own party.

    There have always been bad guys, and there will always be bad guys. But the worst kind of bad guys have always been the ones that PRETENDED to be on your side while working against you — the crooked cops that give the good cops a bad name — the bank guards that were actually helping the robbers rob the bank — the FBI agents that were actually instigating the j6 riot at the Capitol — the Maricopa Count “republicans” that had an anti-Kari Lake super pac — the Speaker of the House that is actually a lobbyist affiliated with the WEF — etc.

    1. Is the professor even aware that Fox and the NY Post . . . also engage in shadow-banning?

      Since they’re not social media companies, would you kindly explain what you are referring to?

      1. Both “news” orgainizations have comment sections which, aside from being infested by trolls — many of whom have traits suggesting that they are actually employees of those “news” organizations — engage in two forms of censorship — one being removal of comments that violate commenting politicies, with the offending comments being replaced by a statement, “this comment violated our policy” (or words to that effect), and the other being that the comment is visible to the person that posted the comment but is NOT VISIBLE to others. That second method of censorship is what’s commonly referred to as “shadow banning,” because there’s no notice to any readers that a comment was posted that is not visible, and no notice to the person who posted the comment that only he or she can see it.

    2. Ralph, Fox can get sued, can Facebook? It really is pretty simple isn’t it? Kind of like you!

      Ralph, can the phone company “lower someone’s profile”? Can the MBTA or any cities Metro lessen the ability of someone to use their service? Can Schiff ask a hotel to not let a company or an individual use their hosptiality?

      Ralph, is your name de minimus or is that your brain?

  9. As a hypothetical: Jill, a public actor, is brazenly attempting to abuse her position of power to silence her critics and suppress freedom of speech. This is a clear violation of fundamental human rights and a blatant abuse of authority. Jill has also threatened to use her oversight powers to punish a private actor if they do not comply with her unconstitutional demand to censor. These actions are utterly reprehensible and must not be tolerated. If Jill is found to have taken these outrageous and potentially criminal actions, she must be held accountable through all available legal means, including impeachment, and it should be pursued without hesitation if Jill’s actions warrant her removal from office.

  10. Among the many “gifts” of the internet is that eventually everything leaks. I hope people are looking ahead as to how democrats will run America once they take it all.

      1. “They already did that.”

        – oldmanfromkansas

        “They,” the Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs), didn’t do that. The Supreme Court did. Judicial Review has been utterly absent since 1860. The principles of communism, central planning, control of the means of production (regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering, are illicit, illegal and unconstitutional.

        The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        U.S. Department of Justice
        Office of Justice Programs

        Judicial Review in the United States

        The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.

        The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.

        Marbury v. Madison

        Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States.

        – Wiki

  11. Unless something posted on Twitter is an actual crime against people, or evidence regarding a criminal investigation, governments have no business as to what is posted there.

    Hell, if the sole moderator of a discussion forum on a Holocaust education web site becomes addicted to spanking it to online porn, and fails to kick out neo-Nazi and militant Islamist trolls who regularly deny the Holocaust and defame the Judenvolk, that is none of the government’s business either.

  12. “Schiff was sending public letters threatening possible legislative action against these same companies.” (JT)

    Nice company you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it.

    But, by all means, censorship Apologists — continue with the fiction that government agents were merely making “suggestions” and “requests.”

Leave a Reply