Yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight Committee featured three former Twitter executives who are at the center of the growing censorship scandal involving the company: Twitter’s former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, former deputy general counsel James Baker and former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth. However, it was the testimony of the only witness called by the Democrats that proved the most enlightening and chilling. Former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship. Toward the end of the hearing, she was asked about that standard by Rep. Melanie Ann Stansbury (D., NM). Her answer captured precisely why Twitter’s censorship system proved a nightmare for free expression. Stansbury’s agreement with her take on censorship only magnified the concerns over the protection of free speech on social media.
Even before Stansbury’s question, the hearing had troubling moments. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) opened up the hearing insisting that Twitter has not censored enough material and suggesting that it was still fueling violence by allowing disinformation to be posted on the platform.
Navaroli then testified how she felt that there should have been much more censorship and how she fought with the company to remove more material that she and her staff considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging.
Rep. Stansbury asked what Twitter has done and is doing to combat hate speech on its platform. Navaroli correctly declined to address current policies since she has not been at the company for some time. However, she then said that they balanced free speech against safety and explained that they sought a different approach:
“Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.”
Rep. Stansbury responded by saying “Exactly.”
The statement was reminiscent to the statement of the former CEO Parag Agrawal. After taking over as CEO, Agrawal pledged to regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
Navaroli was saying that it is not enough to simply balance free speech against public safety (a standard that most free speech advocates would oppose as ill-defined and fluid). Instead, Navaroli and her staff would decide “free speech for whom and public safety for whom.”
The suggestion is that free speech protections would differ with the speakers or who was deemed at risk from the exercise of free speech. It takes a subjective balancing test and makes it even more ambiguous and illusory. Free speech demands bright lines to avoid the chilling effect of uncertainty for citizens. The Twitter standard described by Navaroli defies definition, let alone understanding, for anyone posting controversial or dissenting views.
In the hearing, the Democratic members and witnesses repeatedly returned to the statement of Holmes on “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” The hearing shows how this statement has been grossly misused as a justification for censorship. From statements on the pandemic to climate change, anti-free speech advocates are claiming that opponents are screaming “fire” and causing panic.
The line comes from Schenck v. United States, a case that discarded the free speech rights of citizens opposing the draft. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were leading socialists in Philadelphia who opposed the draft in World War I. Fliers were distributed that encouraged men to “assert your rights” and stand up for their right to refuse such conscription as a form of involuntary servitude. Writing for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dismissed the free speech interests in protecting the war and the draft.
He then wrote the most regrettable and misunderstood judicial soundbites in history: “the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” quickly became a mantra for every effort to curtail free speech.
Holmes sought to narrow his clear and present danger test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States. He warned that “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loath and believe to be frought (sic) with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that at an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Holmes’ reframing of his view would foreshadow the standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court ruled that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
However, Navaroli, Stansbury, and others are still channeling the standard from Schenck, which is a curious choice for most Democrats in using a standard used against socialists and anti-war protesters.
Yet, Navaroli’s standard from Twitter makes the Schenck standard look like the model of clarity. Essentially, she adds that you also have to consider the theater, movie, and audience to decide what speech to allow. What could be treated as crying “Fire!” by any given person or in any given circumstances would change according to their “nuanced” judgment.
According to Navaroli, she and her staff would not allow the “safety [of others] to go the winds so that people can speak freely.” It is the classic defense of censorship in history and the touchstone of every authoritarian regime today. Today’s hearing will address the question of when corporate censorship programs become an extension of the government. However, while it is unclear how Twitter’s censorship made us more safe, Twitter’s “nuanced” standard certainly allowed free speech to “go to the winds” of censorship.
You can find the Stansbury-Navaroli exchange around the 5:00 mark below:
Surrogacy is not the issue. The Old Twitter was never a substitute for the government. It didn’t need to be. It was instead too much the willing and able partner politically and philosophically aligned by shared ideology with powers that be. That it was is what led to its demise in the minds of those who firmly hold to the value of free speech.
“It was instead too much the willing and able partner politically and philosophically aligned by shared ideology with powers that be.”
That it had the choice does not change the fact that the constitution does not prohibit the entity from censoring or not show a particular point of view. Plus those who willingly chose to use those platforms are just a guilty of allowing their free speech rights to be abused when they agreed with THEIR terms and conditions. It was personal responsibility to read and understand what they were agreeing to. Not reading the terms and conditions and agreeing to them is entirely the fault of those who signed up and are now critical of having their free speech rights ‘violated’.
The Old Twitter was not prohibited by the Constitution from censoring points of view, but for the sake of the spirit and the social value of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech we can be relieved that the Old Twitter’s terms of service have been left to history.
The new twitter isn’t prohibited from censoring either. They chose not to with the new owner. The fact that they have the choice is the relevant point.
The “new” Twitter also censors (e.g., suspending Kanye West’s account).
Meanwhile, the Democratic president can give speeches in which he puts a target on the backs of certain Americans just because they belong to a different party, and no one on the Democratic side of the aisle ever cries “hate speech”!
The Democrats have it all wrapped up. They believe it’s OK to protect the “safety” of some groups at the expense of the free speech of others. And since they are the “victim” experts, they know who needs protecting just by looking at their gender, race and sexual identity. A very neat scam. They really do live in a bubble.
This blog is a perfect example of the silliness, albeit dangerous silliness, of the effort to censor the speech of others. Here there is a wide range of opinions. Svelaz and Upstate Farmer are about as far apart politically as anyone could get. And, some who post seem to enjoy giving voice to their hatred of certain elected leaders. I am certainly not above the fray. But I’m not aware of anyone who has been hospitalized because they read Svelaz’s comments. I’m not aware of anyone who has resorted to violence, triggered by something Upstate Farmer said. On this blog, as any other, and on Twitter, Facebook and all the other platforms, if you believe something someone has written or said is “disinformation,” all we have to do is ignore it. Besides, as with the Covid vaccine and possibly the Nord Stream pipeline, there’s always the chance that those allegedly spouting disinformation may be onto something.
One upvote tor honestlaywermostly. I concur.
honestlawyermostly,
An excellent point.
And also the center of the Oversight Committee. Whom gets to dictate what is harmful speech? It appears these former Twitter heads believed they did.
TiT calls them the little gods. But is there a God who dictates to them?
During some of the hearing, SC Rep. Nancy Mace questioned former Twitter Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde,
Mace: “Did the U.S. government ever contact you or anyone at Twitter to moderate certain tweets? Yes or no.”
Gadde: “We receive legal demands from the U.S. government and governments all around the world.”
Yep, for example they get legal demands to remove child porn.
Surely you’re aware of people like David DePape who did resort to violence motivated by things he read, right?
“Svelaz and Upstate Farmer are about as far apart politically as anyone could get.”
It’s actually quite easy to find people to your right (like the QAnon nuts and Proud Boys and NeoNazis) and people to Svelaz’s left (like Elie Mystal and the pair of lawyers that threw the Molotov cocktail in the police car).
“Surely you’re aware… ”
Surely you are aware of Byrd who murdered Babbitt and the black female police officer probably responsible for Rosanne Boyland’s death. Surely you’ve heard of the police officers that pushed a man off the pavilion about 30 feet and the man was severely injured. Surely you have heard about Ray Epps the agitator who appears to be a government asset.
Surely you have heard of Nazi groups who call themselves socialists.
Surely you have heard…
I can’t wait for the time when President Ron DeSantis has his AG, Harmeet Dillion, contact Elon Musk to shut down the Times and WAPO. Think Svelaz will be cool with that?
Well Hullbobby, if you knew how to make a distinction you would know I would not approve of that. To TELL them to shut down would be a violation of the 1st amendment. But to SUGGEST that they be shut down would not. Take some time to learn the distinction.
Svelaz thinks he will have no issue with President Ron DeSantis’ AG Harmeet Dillion SUGGESTING that Elon Musk shut down the WAPO and the NY Times. This ladies and gentlemen is what is known as a lie.
Only a fascist would have no issue with the government SUGGESTING shutting down some speech. Of course some of the SUGGESTIONS just happened to be political. Frankly I am really sick of Svelaz and his 200 comments on every story. Hey pig, leave some space for others to communicate.
Hullbobby, they can suggest all they want. It’s not illegal. What matters is that both the Times and WAPO still can choose not to take up their suggestion. If Elon chose to follow that suggestion there’s no constitutional violation.
Clearly you have no idea what fascism is. Hurling insults is all you got.
You must really hate free speech. Demanding I stop posting because you can’t offer a reasonable argument is your failure. I think I’ll post even MORE just for you Hullbobby, we know how much you really enjoy it. 😉
“Only a fascist would have no issue with the government SUGGESTING shutting down some speech. ”
Like the Trump WH asking Twitter to remove Chrissy Teigen’s tweet responding to an insult from Trump by calling him a “p-*-s-s-y @-s-s b-*-t-c-h”?
Is the Trump WH fascist for doing that?
Svelaz: these people don’t want to think about facts or distinctions between government censorship forbidden by the First Amendment and removal of content pursuant to “terms and conditions” in a contract with a private company, even if it is at the “suggestion” of a governmental entity. And, it’s a violation of federal law to allow the site to be used to distribute things like child porn, so once they become aware of it, they have to shut it down. Turley knows better, but he’s paid to fuel the fires of right wing victimhood, all of this relating back, of course, to Trump because he got kicked off Twitter for using it to help incite the Jan 6 insurrection..
Oh come on, man, you don’t think Montel Williams’ former side hoe is gonna be our first woman of color president? It’s her turn, man. hehe.
But, but, but…wasn’t it going to be Donald Trump in 2024, followed by Trump, Jr, followed by Ivanka, followed by Eric, then Tiffany, and then Barron? People like you do not understand that most Americans do not agree with you or want DeSantis in our White House. Republicans know it all too well–they know that the only chance they have to get and keep power is to manipulate the Electoral College, just like 2016. They know they can’t win the popular vote because most Americans do not agree with them. Plus, they have no actual agenda, other than abusing the House to conduct baseless “investigations” in retaliation for Trump’s two impeachments, and also to try to prevent President Biden from passing bills.
You know we have reached critical mass of stupidity when we have Svelaz and Anonymous actually communicating with each other. Two FBI agents that don’t even realize they are embedded by the same organization. Or they do know it but they simply don’t care. Or maybe one is the FBI goon and the other one is just a DNC goon. It’s hard to tell.
Hullbobby, you don’t think two progressives of differing flavors can converse with each other?
You are way too invested in what I say or anonymous says. But hey, that’s just your opinion. Right?
Svelaz, don’t equate yourself with ATS. Though ATS changes positions all the time and uses deception he is mostly able to be consistent in a short singular reply. You write a lot and say nothing for what is said in one sentence is discounted in the next.
I think that you have reached a critical mass of stupidity in pretending that either of us are FBI agents.
if your arguments indefensible, best to shut down debate. I use indefensible in the sense that progressive clowns are not intelligent enough to defend the ideas.
That’s odd since most progressives here ARE defending their ideas. Perhaps you need to substantiate what you are debating instead of complaining.
the clowns are stating their opinion on censorship to avoid defending their ideas.
learn to read.
Learn to comprehend. Stating their opinions IS about defending or supporting their ideas.
Ok clown
Representative Stansbury is dutifully parroting the Left’s hard line on censorship for any speech they declare as “dangerous” and “fueling violence”. Ever notice how Antifa’s and BLM’s hate speech is never a problem for Democrats? Heck, they even bail out rioters. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
The reality is that all of these former Twitter employees add nothing of value to society and never will, and should be disposed of with extreme prejudice because they will never change, and will censor and imprison anyone that breaks their rules if they get their filthy hands on the levers of power.
What? No mention of Trump personally calling Twitter to have tweets removed while he was President? Is the JT narrative crumbling? Well, it isn’t crumbling if you are selective in the “facts” you present. But hey, what are facts anyway? I mean come on, facts, opinions, what’s the difference anyway?
No because twitter rightfully rejected the censorship demands. Clowns trying to think are funny
I caught a small portion o Baker being questioned. He invoked his Attorney, Client privilege
The committee obviously didn’t do their due dilligence and get Musk to release Baker from that obligation. Hopefully they will have him back, with the privilege revoked.
Free speech is always under assault. That is why it is so important. It is essential in any true democracy that you have to have free speech in order for all sides to be heard and matters discussed and decisions made by vote. Governments hate messiness and untidiness and lack of control. All governments! And they always development mission creep to gain more power and control. If they cannot do it one way, they will try it another way. I have no problems with free speech being allowed totally.
Corporations make bad decisions sometimes when they suppress and ignore some of the their most knowledgeable people’s speech and don’t listen to feedback from most of their employees. The corporate headquarters starts to get walled off from the core of the business, just like D.C. gets walled off from the common citizen and only the rich and powerful are heard. That simply leads to more and more bad decisions and the whole structure eventually collapses. That was why Twitter was failing because it became a mouthpiece for one side. Disney is another example of a corporation wavering and possibly toppling. Elitism at its worst. I’m educated, rich and powerful and have all the answers so you (the great unwashed) have no right to be heard, just shut up and stay in line. People have a habit of not staying line for very long.
“I’m educated, rich and powerful and have all the answers so you (the great unwashed) have no right to be heard, just shut up and stay in line. People have a habit of not staying line for very long.” The French Revolution comes to mind. Seems the elites have forgotten the lessons meant to be learned or they believe they can suppress the masses forever. Good luck with that!
Corrupt lying THUG pedo president. Biden’s Legacy, he will be remembered as worst president in history.
If a rogue country or a “Doctor Evil” wants to harm America and cannot get past the constitution and an elected representative government body, they use corporations and government agencies that operate outside these parameters. Then their apologists can say that it is a private company.
This is the heart of the “climate change crisis” movement. If a corporation does not meet the new standards and layers of legal regulations they set, they become pariah and are shunned.
Regardless of the need for stewardship of resources and pollution control, this movement has co-opted any altruistic intentions and are about raw power—pure power.
They despise independent thinking individuals. They despise the family structure. They despise American and freethinkers.
Why can’t they simply retire, spend their fortunes enjoying life and leave the world alone? Maybe do some good.
“Why can’t they simply retire, spend their fortunes enjoying life and leave the world alone? Maybe do some good.” Great question. Narcissists view lust, power, and greed as their own self-redeeming personality traits. They’ll never recognize the harm those traits cause for others. Gates and Soros top that list today.
“According to Navaroli, she and her staff would not allow the “safety [of others] to go the winds so that people can speak freely.” It is the classic defense of censorship in history and the touchstone of every authoritarian regime today.”
It’s Turley’s touchstone and defense too. As Darren Smith said on July 28, 2022 at 7:58 PM:
Jeff Silberman,
Your comment posting privilege is Revoked for a gross violation of the civility policy occurring last week. You gave an implied threat and ultimatum to a website administrator that if we did not perform a task that you demanded, an administrator would be sanctioned by you. The language you posted included, “This is your final warning.”
This decision was made after deliberations. A few months ago, and resulting from removing numerous other comments that you made that were violations for statements made against other commenters, we decided to allow you then to post comments and provide you another chance. After this last demand you made it is clear this is no longer reasonable when looking at the totality of the circumstances between you, the administrators of this blog, and other users who should not have to experience ultimatums sent by you if your demands are not met.
Jeff didn’t put anyone’s actual safety at risk (unlike the death threats that some people post on Twitter, even sharing people’s home addresses). Meanwhile, Darren did NOT give any warnings to the person who kept telling Jeff to kill himself, and didn’t even delete those comments unless Turley was written about them.
Turley complains about behavior from others that he condones for himself.
In another part of the testimony, Roth said that he had to sell his home and move because of death threats and publication of his home address. But Turley cannot bring himself to address the actual threats to people’s safety.
There is an obvious difference in scale and public importance between a personal blog and Twitter.
I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Turley himself engages in behavior that he calls “the touchstone of every authoritarian regime today.”
There’s also an obvious difference in scale and public importance between a private social media company and a government. Authoritarian regimes are governments, not private companies, and behavior that’s illegal for the US government is legal for Twitter.
Turley himself engages in behavior that he calls “the touchstone of every authoritarian regime today.”
Turley= The, Reach, Power, Authority of the most powerful nation on earth.
ATS, Turley does not engage in censorship with regard to political speech. That is your goal. You want to censor political speech of all those who disagree with you.
You are a Stalinist.
Allan the Stupid (ATS), you compare commenters to a mass murderer daily.
You need psychiatric help.
I only call people Stalinists who act like Stalinists. Sometimes the Stupidity of a person makes him deserving to be called a Stalinist as well.
If one advocates killing for political reasons one might be considered a Stalinist.
S. Meyer needs to stop harassing anonymous commenters. His incivility is permitted. He’s not man enough to stop it, so the blog owner should. If civility is a rule, it should be enforced, even-handedly.
Stop whining and start being an honest individual.
If you want him sanctioned, email Turley about it (his email address is here: https://www.law.gwu.edu/jonathan-turley ).
Allan S Meyer is a truly sick man. He fantasizes that liberlas are Mao and Stalin because he’s so hate-filled.
No, I don’t fantasize and I don’t accuse all liberals of being Stalinists. Those accusations almost always go to one person, Anonymous the Stupid. You have filled all the boxes that point to your being a Stalinist. Your lying and deception are just two of them.
I hate few people but murderers and those like you that act as an accelerant to murder are in a category where only a few people reside.
Grow up and get help.
He’s crazy.
Do a check list of what you believe and what you wish to see. Include how easily you lie and deceive. When you calculate the results, even you will find the Stalinist leans that reside in your soul.
Personally, among the things I wish to see are peace in the world, generosity, compassion, and effective treatments for mental and physical illness (including your mental illness). That you interpret that as Stalinist is an example of your mental illness.
You even copy Stalin’s misleading assuring ways that at times captured FDR, but you don’t have his humor.
S. Meyer trips over himself on this blog. as he runs around blabbering abut fascism and Stalinism, neither of which he understands.
And he always has to have the last word.
ATS, over time I have proven I know a little more about Stalin and America’s Stalinist Left and New Leftist movement than most. You have demonstrated that you don’t know the basics about Nazism, fascism or communism.
You are a screw up. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid..
No, there is no difference. The principle is exactly the same regardless of size. Since Turley claims to be a “free speech absolutist” his own blog should be much more lenient in regards to language and the kinds of content one can post here. Cursing and offensive or even overly racists language should never be censored on this blog if he is indeed a “free speech absolutist”.
Yes, in fact Turley has said “I have described myself as an Internet Originalist: The alternative [to some censorship] is “internet originalism” — no censorship.”
Social media continues to be used as the outsourced resource for the government to violate the First Amendment. To read statements by the Dem reps is proof that for now the only thing between free speech and censorship is the razor-thin margin of the Republicans in the House that makes it possible for the light to shine on this frightening saga. In any case, the Orwellian or Randian title of an executive head of the censorship department at Twitter says it all: department of trust and safety. Chilling.
Anonymous, it would be interesting if Darren actually engaged in a discussion about that incident and the relevance it has with Turley’s criticisms towards twitter and facebook.
If that is all it took to revoke the posting privileges of someone on this blog there would be a lot of people gone from this site if those rules were really enforced. Like twittter this blog arbitrarily chooses how to enforce it’s policies. That’s the nature of the hypocrisy regarding Turley’s opinions about free speech.
“Meanwhile . . .”
Meanwhile, meanwhile, meanwhile . . .
More Leftist decoys and deflections.
In the face of this country’s gravest issue, the preservation of free speech — that is a monstrous evasion.
“It’s Turley’s touchstone and defense too. “
The blog is an entity that has a right to be protected. It is privately owned, and Jeff wished to usurp the authority of the owner. Maybe we should go to your house and usurp your authority as the owner.
Though I would not advocate censorship, ATS’s advocacy of censorship would lead to his being banned from this blog. He is dangerous to babies. He wishes to kill them. His justification is that they are embryos. If the blog owner disagrees with that argument (The owner is neutral) then he could rightfully ban Anonymous the Stupid based on this disagreement. Such a ban is in line with ATS’s belief in censorship.
ATS has many opinions that one might find dangerous. According to ATS, he should be banned from those opinions if they differ from the blog’s owner.
ATS wants his ability to speak preserved while allowing only his views to be heard.
ATS is a Stalinist.
“ATS wants his ability to speak preserved while allowing only his views to be heard.
ATS is a Stalinist.”
LOL!!! That’s what conservatives are saying. Good to hear you see them as stalinists.
Too bad you education never taught you who Stalin was and what he stood for. Your mouth is always open, but your eyes and ears are shut tight.
You’re ATS: Allan the Stupid.
“The blog is an entity that has a right to be protected.”
Absolutely!! Turley has a RIGHT to moderate comments as he wishes! So does Twitter! Pointing out that Turley is a hypocrite who says “I have described myself as an Internet Originalist: The alternative [to some censorship] is “internet originalism” — no censorship, ” but engages in censorship, in no way denies that he has a RIGHT to engage in censorship and to be a hypocrite.
As for your delusions about people you disagree with, you need psychiatric help.
ATS, you say very little, but we can see how crazy you get when you are called by your official name, Anonymous the stupid.
You are too Stupid to read what Turley means when he calls himself an Internet Originalist.
Considering that the venue is a public congressional hearing, and that Rep. Stansbury is one of the select few representing her party, I believe it is reasonable to observe that her public position was discussed with the party elders and determined to be in conformance with the position of the Democratic Party on free speech. The Democratic Party has a powerful left of center wing, no moderate members, and has the same respect for the United States Constitution as does the United Federation of Teachers.
“According to Navaroli, she and her staff would not allow the ‘safety [of others] to go the winds so that people can speak freely.’”
We will control you and silence you, in the name of “public safety.”
Those cretins would be right at home during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror.
Sam, they can do that. Because everyone who signs up agrees to their terms and conditions. Those who complain about how twitter or Facebook treats them IF they are regular users they only have themselves to blame. It’s the same story every time. People stupidly, willingly, and ignorantly sign away their rights the moment they click on “I agree”. A lot of people don’t bother reading the terms and conditions at all and when their content is censored, removed, or the account is suspended they express shock and dismay that they are subject to such “tyrannical” actions all the while forgetting that they agreed to allow the platform to have the authority to do that when they signed up.
Trump tried to take twitter to court in Florida to have his account restored, but was not able to due to the fact that their terms and conditions specifically stated that all disputes and suits are to be tried in California. He agreed to it when he signed up. It’s no different when it comes to removing or banning content. People agreed to let twitter to that.
“Sam, they can do that.”
Here, again, is the Left’s moral agnosticism.
That one can do something does not mean that one should do it.
“That one can do something does not mean that one should do it.”
Why not? If they have the freedom to make that choice why wouldn’t they. They clearly tell you exactly what they can do in their terms and conditions and the ask everyone who signs up if they agree to those terms and if they have read it and understand. When those people click on “I agree” they agree. Problem is the majority of people who don’t agree AFTER signing “ I agree” never read what they were agreeing to. Because Twitter or Facebook KNOW many people don’t read what they agree to they can do what they said they can with impunity.
Svelaz, your assessment leaves out a very important factor: the government behind the scenes entities were also the instigator, agitator and originator of the requests for Twitters actions. Therein lies a major difference. Now for consistency with your narrative, I expect you’ll be advocating for the privately owned bakery to refuse service to whomever they choose.
“the government behind the scenes entities were also the instigator, agitator and originator of the requests for Twitters actions.”
Problem is there is no evidence of what you claim. Warning twitter or telling them that something posted on their platform may be in violation of their policy is not unconstitutional or illegal.
Tootsie,
“Now for consistency with your narrative, I expect you’ll be advocating for the privately owned bakery to refuse service to whomever they choose.”
If you were required to agree to the bakery’s terms and conditions before you ordered a cake they could refuse service. But that would allow others to know that they don’t serve gay couples or trans folks and it wouldn’t be good for business, but it would still be their terms and conditions that someone would need to agree to before ordering a cake, right?
“If they have the freedom to make that choice why wouldn’t they.”
Because they have a conscience — or not.
Sam, it’s their choice. If you don’t agree with it. Don’t sign up to use THEIR service. There are plenty of other choices besides twitter and facebook. Right?
“Don’t sign up to use THEIR service.”
You’re using ToS as a cover for Twitter banning opinions they didn’t like. For once, try being intellectually honest.
Sam, the TOS is where they let everyone know exactly what they do when someone chooses to sign up. They don’t force you to agree.
It’s entirely voluntary. Those who are complaining and are using their platforms AGREED TO THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Nobody forced them the agree. The TOS specifically asks “ by clicking “I agree “ I acknowledge that I have. READ AND UNDERSTAND the terms and conditions. If you don’t agree don’t sign up
Where in the TOS did it explicitly state that, “At the behest of government officials with whom we align politically we may suppress, shadow ban, or totally ban individuals from our platform”?
Because that’s what happened.
That didn’t happen. It it doesn’t say government or anyone else can point out policy violations. Even internet Karen’s would be able to.
Using the response of Democrat Members of this committee(Democrats were allowed to seat members they choose? Isn’t that new?) I am revisiting the Football coach that got fired because he would pray after the football game. Again, using the Dems position defending the FBI leading the twitter censorship project, how can a Football coach get fired for praying?
Democrats were not “allowed to seat members they choose” on all committees. The Republicans removed standing Democratic members from both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
For cause
But you admit there was no cause to fire a Coach for praying? IU mean, by using the standards being championed by Democrats on this committee.
LOL that you choose to interpret silence in response to your many stupid questions as agreement. When you’re silent in response to others’ questions, does that mean that you agree with them? If it does, that’s surprising.
ATS, those are the rules you supported. Those people denied were proven threats. You want to dismiss some of the outrageous things done by people who support your lies. You want to deny others freedom of speech but when it comes to justified actions withholding seats on committees to the worst of members, all of a sudden your feathers are rugged.
You don’t want equality. You want servitude to your cause.
You are a Stalinist.
“Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
He had a point. Conservatives are complaining that they have a right to being heard. In a private social media platform they don’t and that’s the problem. Marjorie Taylor Greene stated twitter violated her 1st amendment rights when they banned her. Twitter cannot violate her rights when they don’t apply to private entities. There was a lot of ignorance and whining from republicans who aired the same tired complaints.
Twitter or Facebook are allowed to censor content that violates their policies. Every one of those legislators who complain signed the TOS agreeing to the terms. They really don’t have an excuse and they are only complaining because they literally gave away their right as soon as they signed the TOS.
Not when the government is guiding the censor’s hand.
In testimony under oath, they noted that no one in the government asked for MTG’s account to be suspended.
What about representative Boebert?
You want the censorship’s hand possessed by those in support of tyranny.
You are a Stalinist..
You lie with abandon. It’s one of your favorite ways of trolling.
Boebert was censored and shadow banned by Twitter. You are not smart enough to realize she did not say anything remotely dangerous and she is a Congresswoman. I’d say anyone who wishes to prevent a representative from speaking is leaning towards Stalinism but you have other attributes that make you a true Stalinist.
😊😊😊
Svelez: I think you missed the point of yesterday’s hearing. It had less to do with the idea of free speech and more to do with what exactly did the government ask Twitter to do? This is the gravamen of the case against Twitter. A private corporation loses its protection as such if and when it acts in conformance with instructions or advice received from the government. Because the latter is powerful and in charge, it can exert pressure and influence just by making what might otherwise in a different environment might appear and be innocuous. Today’s hearing should make this clear.
“A private corporation loses its protection as such if and when it acts in conformance with instructions or advice received from the government.”
That depends entirely on what the government is asking. As a simple example, when the government asks Twitter to remove child porn and block the account, that does NOT result in “A private corporation los[ing] its protection.”
The former Twitter execs also testified about requests from the government that they rejected, such as the request from the Trump WH to remove Chrissy Teigen’s tweet responding to an insult from Trump by calling him a “p-*-s-s-y @-s-s b-*-t-c-h.”
when the government asks Twitter to remove child porn and block the account,
In the pursuit of criminal activity.
Its a small fig leaf. Not near large enough to justify all the requests pushed through the dedicated portal used by the FBI to censor content that never breached any law.
Anon: If we assume the child porn is unlawful, then you are correct and, indeed, the government has a responsibility as the chief enforcer of the laws to inform the private corporation that it is facilitating or otherwise making available something that is unlawful. But that’s a very different case from when something is lawful to begin with – speech – and the government asks the private corporation to limit it. This then becomes a constitutional violation of the First Amendment and the private corporation if it obeys the government becomes an “agent” of the government and shares in the violation of law. The FBI that knew for almost a year that Hunter Biden’s laptop was NOT Russian disinformation clearly stepped over the line in suggesting to Twitter that it was, knowing full well that the Bureau’s Twitter allies, friends, and future employer would deep six the Hunter Biden story, which is exactly what Twitter did. It was unlawful for the FBI to do this as well as for Twitter to act as an agent in the commission of the crime. Twitter might have a defense that it was acting as an honorable company responding to a government request that it had no reason to believe was criminal at the time. We would have to establish a timeline for such a defense, including the content and times of Twitter’s hiring of former FBI and intel types who might have known of the cover-up. I think the case is open and shut against the FBI but I’m willing to let Twitter’s fate be decided by a jury of peers after an full airing of the evidence pro and con. You seem far more convinced of facts not yet established as such.
“This then becomes a constitutional violation of the First Amendment and the private corporation if it obeys the government becomes an “agent” of the government and shares in the violation of law.”
Just because the private corporation AGREED does not make it a 1st amendment violation. They don’t “obey”. Simply agreeing to what the government is pointing out does not make them an agent of the government. To be an agent of the government a formal written agreement must be signed and approved. Twitter and facebook have no such agreement.
Twitter recieved payment from the FBI for service rendered. That’s a contract.
“That depends “
Let me finish your statement. That depends on whether you like it or not.
You are a Stalinist.
Svelaz- help me out here. Although I disagree with you philosophically, you sound like an intelligent person. So tell me, please, how it is that at this advanced stage of the facts and circumstances, you are unwilling to acknowledge the concept of censorship by surrogate? Do you recognize this concept? Do you believe it applies here? If not, why?
Quiet conservative, the view that this is censorship by surrogate relies on very thin reasoning. Claims that the government is telling or requesting twitter to censor conservative content require clear and concise proof that there have been request or demands. So far they have not provided any concrete proof. I would not support ‘censorship by surrogate’ if it was actually occurring.
The issue is more complicated than most people realize and there are certainly a lot of nuances and appearance of coordination that leads many to believe that there is ‘censorship by surrogate’. If this were to land in court those nuances and distinctions would be dissected with a fine tooth comb. For example can government tell twitter to take down child porn if it was found in their platform? According to some conservative logic it would be a violation of the 1st amendment for the government to tell a private company to censor it. BUT, realistically such content would obviously be taken down without the need for government to demand action. Right? Now what if they just pointed out to twitter that there is child porn on their platform? Pointing it out is not a violation of the 1st amendment since it is legally not a request or a demand. The wording is important legally because in a court of law it matters a lot.
I respect the fact that you don’t agree with my point and I understand why. But you could also try to accept the idea that the government is just pointing out certain content that they can view as anybody else can and mention to twitter or Facebook that such content does violate their policies. Making suggestions and pointing out things leaves the decision entirely up to twitter or Facebook on whether to act on it or not. They have already refused to take action on content that has been pointed out to them and they did exactly what they are allowed to do. As I said before there may be an appearance of ‘censorship by surrogate’ but that does not necessarily mean it is. It’s all about how certain “requests” or “warnings” are worded because in any legal challenge wording and their relation to intent matters most.
Svelaz, The proof is clear. The FBI had no constitutional power to be at twitter. No operational jurisdiction.
Iowan2,
The FBI is allowed to point out content to twitter or Facebook that may violate their policies. The constitution does not prohibit the government from speaking and it’s their job to monitor for content that may be intended to disrupt our elections by foreign entities. Nothing says they can’t point to things that may be a concern.
The FBI is allowed to point out content to twitter or Facebook that may violate their policies.
Name the rule, policy, statute, etc, that allows the FBI operational authority to involve themselves in in a private companies rules.
Iowan2,
18 U.S. Code § 1038 – False information and hoaxes.
(d) Activities of Law Enforcement.—
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038
Here’s another,
“The most effective weapon against crime is cooperation… The efforts of all law enforcement agencies with the support and understanding of the American people.”
J. Edgar Hoover
This quote from J. Edgar Hoover is prominently displayed on a courtyard wall of the FBI Headquarters in Washington DC. The FBI has for many years recognized the value and the necessity of cooperation between law enforcement and the American people, and among the agencies that serve them. The foundation of this cooperation is mutual respect, trust and the sharing of information both within the government, and between the government and its citizens. As the FBI Chief Information Sharing Officer, my zeal for information sharing rests firmly on this foundation. It is the right of all Americans to be sure that their government is not only providing security to the nation as a whole, but also to each of us individually by guarding our civil rights and civil liberties.
The goal of the FBI regarding the sharing of information is to prevent the activities of those who would do us harm through acts of terrorism or other crimes. Information sharing naturally facilitates this basic FBI mission. Furthermore, the idea that we should have transparency in government underpins the very purpose for information sharing. We absolutely have to be balanced – we must protect some information in our care to safeguard citizens’ privacy and civil liberties, as well as to shield our sources and methods. Our investigative agencies must wait until the activities of the persons under investigation reach a level of validity and clarity before the information is shared. With this sense of steadiness in our approach, we can have the transparency of government that allows our citizens to have greater visibility into the workings of government, reduce crimes and terrorism, and help to produce a greater wealth of knowledge and societal progress.
Reaching for transparency and balancing the responsibility to share with the need to safeguard will result in crime prevention. At the same time, this balance will protect the constitutional rights of citizens, adding the value to our society that the FBI can be proud of.
C. Elaine Cummins, PhD
Chief Information Sharing Officer
FBI”
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/national-information-sharing-strategy-1
Or how about this?
“Information Sharing with Private Sector Stakeholders
The FBI is committed to developing effective and efficient information sharing partnerships with private sector entities. To this end, the FBI will share terrorism-related information on incidents, threats, consequences, and vulnerabilities, as appropriate, to private sector entities while ensuring that all proprietary information is protected.
InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Government, an association of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement, agencies, and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the
United States. InfraGard members communicate with each other and the FBI via public and secure Internet websites. InfraGard began in 1996 with cyber threats and has expanded to cover thirteen critical infrastructure sectors. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division partnered with InfraGard to help protect national and economic security.
The Cyber Initiative Resource Fusion Unit is a fusion center combining the resources and the expertise of law enforcement and the private sector. Experts from federal agencies, software companies, Internet Service Providers, and the financial sector share information and collaborate about cyber threats and security breaches.
The Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), a strategic partnership between the FBI and the US private sector, was established to promote the timely and effective exchange of information. DSAC advances the FBI mission of preventing, detecting, and investigating criminal acts, particularly those affecting interstate commerce, while advancing the ability of the US private sector to protect its employees, assets, and
UNCLASSIFIED
August 2008 7
UNCLASSIFIED
proprietary information. Following the model built by the DOS Overseas Security Alliance Council (OSAC), the FBI stood up DSAC within the Criminal Investigative Division in 2007.
As you can see it’s actually the mission of the FBI to share information and that’s exactly what they did with social media.
Child porn is a crime. What crime is someone committing talking about a medication that is perfectly safe to use or to question a medical procedure redefined as a vaccine?
Svelaz- your comparison of child pornography with the statements of conservative Twitter users and physicians who differ with the CDC position on Covid are apples vs oranges; one is illegal in every sense of the word and the other is the exercise of freedom of speech.
This may not be as complicated as you suggest. If a government law enforcement agency directly contacts someone and informs that they think it is a good idea that you do this or that, you do not need prompting to comply with their suggestions. The coercion factor cannot be ignored. There is no freedom of choice when the FBI knocks on your door and wants you to perform. Respectfully, calling these “suggestions” that are “leaving the decisions entirely to Twitter or Facebook” is naive.
I’m not a lawyer let alone a constitutional scholar, so I won’t opine on what it takes to win or lose this issue in a courtroom, but it sure sounds like censorship by surrogate to me. I would be very interested in the decision made by a fair jury in this situation one which has been provided the treasure chest of information gleaned from the Twitter files. Is it really your opinion that the “suggestions” were being made by an impartial government agency for the benefit of their fellow man and not to eliminate opinions that a partisan organization did not want others to hear?
Quiet conservative,
“If a government law enforcement agency directly contacts someone and informs that they think it is a good idea that you do this or that, you do not need prompting to comply with their suggestions.”
I respectfully disagree. Nothing says that they are required to comply with the suggestion. Just because they are law enforcement is not a prompt to follow their suggestions. The choice is still up for twitter to make. If they choose to follow their suggestion it does not alter the fact that it was still their choice to make. Not the government’s. If they chose not to follow their suggestion ( which they have done as well) is also only theirs to make.
“The coercion factor cannot be ignored. There is no freedom of choice when the FBI knocks on your door and wants you to perform.”
There is always freedom of choice. If the FBI knocks on your door and wants you to perform you have the right to ask why? Right? You don’t just roll over and do what they say, correct? If they had a warrant and probable cause to have one then you would certainly be required to perform. If they just showed up you still have the choice not to comply and ignore them or close the door. They can’t force you are coerce you by merely being the FBI. Twitter has lawyers and legal counsel which allows them to assert those choices if they decide not to follow their suggestions.
“Respectfully, calling these “suggestions” that are “leaving the decisions entirely to Twitter or Facebook” is naive.”
I’m curious, why would it be naive? Why wouldn’t it be plausible to suggest or point out that certain content may be violating their policies? There was evidence of election interference by foreign governments and spreading misinformation that led many to believe certain things regarding our election. You don’t think that at the very minimum since they are in the business of counter intelligence within the country that they be able to point out certain content may be suspect? Should twitter and facebook not benefit from a heads up at the very minimum? It still leaves the choice on what to do about it by both.
The biggest issue I see is this idea that the mere presence of law enforcement is enough to coerce a choice and that is enough evidence to imply that all their choices are not really theirs. That seems to hinge more on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
“Is it really your opinion that the “suggestions” were being made by an impartial government agency for the benefit of their fellow man and not to eliminate opinions that a partisan organization did not want others to hear?”
No, it’s not as simple as you make it to be. I see it as part of their job. You may not agree with that simplistic view, but I also don’t see them as impartial either. I try to be more realistic and not rely so much in speculation and innuendo. That they do not want others to hear some content is the speculation borne out of suspicion being fed by those who just have a certain level of animosity towards government regardless of what the issue is.
I think some people are making it into way more than it is because they want to believe it is. It seems harder to accept that there is nothing more than just pointing out certain content and that lack of ‘ominous’ intent is more suspicious and justifies the views that they are doing something that validates those suspicions. The truth can’t be as simple as that for some and there has to be a reason for their distrust. So they fill that void with notions of government silencing or censoring those that are conservative.
Look, I just see an inability for some conservatives to grasp nuances that give greater context. Because seeing everything in black and white limits understanding that may ease those suspicions or acknowledge the different point of view.
. Twitter cannot violate her rights when they don’t apply to private entities
Censorship by Government Proxy.
Continue to ignore the debate. Most all the readers here, are very aware of your lies, and ignorance of facts.
Iowan2,
No, because the government didn’t ask or point out to twitter that MTG violated their policy. She did that all on her own and twitter acted on her own. Plus private citizens were pointing out that she was indeed violating their policy. You continue to ignore the facts. You can’t have a honest debate when you ignore the facts.
No, because the government didn’t ask or point out to twitter that MTG violated their policy.
No one claimed twitter ONLY responded to FBI requests. A single exception does not excuse thousand of data points proving the FBI made requests that were outside their operational jurisdiction to investigate crime or counter intel work.
Iowan2,
“A single exception does not excuse thousand of data points proving the FBI made requests that were outside their operational jurisdiction to investigate crime or counter intel work.”
And yet nobody has provided a single data point proving that claim true. They were operating within their jurisdiction. They can operate anywhere in the nation.
Except that Twitter was wielding that power as directed by political actors and governmental agencies to silence anyone who disagreed with the party line and narrative, in hope of both swaying an election and permanently sealing an absolute power unearned and entirely undemocratic.
I myself was suspended a half dozen times or more for what I considered relatively benign political comments.
Twitter’s past stance, and Facebook’s current stance, on erotic transgender dancers – just one minor example – who invite children to tip, is particularly telling, typically accusing those who respond with use of the ‘p’ word (which I am thus hesitant to use here) of hate speech and abusive language worthy of an account termination. And yet if a hetero adult were to engage in precisely the same activities they would rightfully and most certainly be glowingly met with community censure.
The government didn’t ask that MTG be suspended. Twitter did that on it’s own and because of public backlash. They were well within their right to suspend her since she agreed to their terms.
What I find interesting is that twitter and facebook were quite accommodating to their rhetoric and shenanigans for a long time. People like MTG and Trump got so accustomed to having a lot of leeway in what they were posting because of their positions of power that when they finally went too far for twitter or they had reached their limit in what they would tolerate they chose to enforce their policy on them. Both Trump and MTG couldn’t accept the fact that twitter had the audacity to hold them accountable for violating the policy both agreed to. It was shocking to them that they were being treated like everyone else.
We currently are experiencing the results of the thinking of these Twitter people and their media pals on the left. This is hardly new. Not long after the printing press was developed, certain political and religious leaders of the time introduced similar concepts to restrict the publication and dissemination of ideas that differed with theirs. It didn’t work back then and won’t work today. Rightfully, the answer to poor speech is more speech. It’s OK to dislike or like someone’s ideas and you should be able, if so motivated, to refute what they are suggesting. Any controls of this, no matter how well-intended by the restricting party, will surely become corrupted over time. The proof of this is sitting before us as witnesses in this committee hearing and the evidence of their wrongdoing sits in the Oval Office and lies daily to maintain the fictitious world these Twitter people and their cronies created in the image and likeness of their false god, the god of Woke.
When the speech is a death threat, for example, or child porn, or perjury, how effective is “more speech” in “refut[ing] what they are suggesting”? Do you accept that some speech is not effectively combatted by more speech, and there’s a reason that some of it is illegal?