Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs Secretly Sought the Censorship of Political Critics

Office of the Governor

Various news sites are now reporting that Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) is the latest politician who has sought blatant censorship of political critics by social media companies. Shortly before the 2020 election (when many of us were writing about the expanding censorship calls by Democratic politicians), Hobbs allegedly sought to silence her critics on Twitter. Many were criticizing 2017 posts in which she claimed former President Donald Trump had a “neo-nazi base.” Hobbs considered such criticism to be intolerable and demanded that these citizens be censored.

A conservative site reported that Hobbs said Trump had a “neo-nazi base” while she was serving as a Democrat state senator in 2017. Hobbs’ tweet echoed criticism that Trump praised Neo-Nazi rioters in Charlottesville. (Trump has denied that allegation and pointed to various times after the riot where he condemned those extremist elements).

“The President is on the side of the freaking Nazis. Don’t just say stuff – DO SOMETHING,” she added.

She added: “It took you a day and a half to figure this out? Also if you’re not condemning @POTUS for not condemning nazis, it’s just words.”


It now turns out that Hobbs was irate at being criticized and reached out to Twitter to censor her critics. Fox News reported: 

On Nov. 13, 2020, Hobbs emailed Twitter — using her official Arizona secretary of state email — asking the support team to take action against her online trolls.

Twitter asked for more information and for Hobbs to provide examples for her request, which Hobbs was unable to provide.

Hobbs responded that she was being harassed and abused by the “alt-right.” She added

“I am not sure I can provide the information you are asking for because I reported and then blocked multiple users at the same time,. The alt-right got a hold of a 3-year-old tweet on my account and have been sending harassing, abusive, and threatening tweets and direct messages for the last 2 days.”

That message is chilling in a number of respects. First, it is clearly an abuse of her office to be used for the purposes of censorship of political critics. Second, she admits that she blocked the critics but still wants the company to prevent others from hearing such views. Third, she does not allege that the story is false and admits that it was her tweet. She simply does not want people talking about it.

It is a raw and unambiguous effort of a high-ranking official to censor political speech. It is also an example of what I have called “censorship by surrogate.” Hobbs secretly sought to deny free speech to citizens through allies in these social media companies. The Arizona legislature should investigate these allegations and hold Hobbs accountable for any attack on political speech.

172 thoughts on “Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs Secretly Sought the Censorship of Political Critics”

  1. I enjoy history. And would believe had you been around during our rebellion against Britain, you might have penned the same argument as you did above, as ,many others, such as two of my relatives from Scotland who migrated here did. And the defense of insurrection then may be applied to it against a corrupt, Democrat-run vile government which we have today in Washington DC. Except as others are tring to show you, to no avail, what occurred on Jan 6 was far from an insurrection. But we all know the real reason you cling to that narrative, like a dog to a bone,, which your leaders have drummed into your mind, is that you know there is not other way to defeat Mr. Trump, seeing the candidates who may have to compete with him, who the majority of Americans would reject. That’s why you support the endless nonsense of frivilous attacks by the Deep State courts aond non-Justice System. You can’t beat Trump and it irks you, because you have nothing most Americans want.

    1. Professor Finch: Well, we do have something in common. I am also a descendent of Scot immigrants. But they came here in the 19th century–long after the rebellion against Britain. Beyond this we have nothing in common. See, as a retired lawyer, I was taught to believe in the rule of law–in the judicial system our Forefathers took a long time to craft. As a lawyer I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So it’s sad to see you apparently don’t also support the system Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others created to protect us from authoritarian rule. They would be rolling over in their graves to see what DJT tried to do to overturn the system they created–that no man is above the law, not even a former president.

      1. Dennis is ‘CIA-fake news-programmed’ with “Trump Hate & Derangement” that washed his brain such that THIS ^^^^ is what comes out.

      2. DM,

        What a complete load of horse puckey.

        Yopu are entirely clueless – thank god you are a RETIRED lawyer. God forbid you should still be practicing.

        You have no clue what an authoritarian is.
        You have no clue what the rule of law is
        and you have no clue about our founders.

        Are you entirely ignorant of the malignant conduct that adams jefferson, hamilton, burr and others engaged in with each other ?

        You do know that it took 77 voted in the congress before Jefferson was confirmed as president ?

        The most fundimental difference between our founders and politicians today – is that our founders KNEW they were not trustworthy and crafted a constitution they hoped we keep themselves in check.

        Trump’s conduct is Tame in comparison to theirs.
        Trump was NOT actually constantly polotting against his political enemies – unlike Jefferson, Hamilton. Burr, Adams and many of the rest of our founders – and more recently Clinton, Obama, Biden.

        Adams signed the Alien and Sedition act – one of the most egregious violations of the first amendment in US history that fortunately did not last long. Obama was the first american president to spy on journalists, and members of congress – including his own party, Trump did what ? Said mean things about some journalists – and in your eyes that makes him a tyrant ? Biden has doubled down on the abuses of Obama.
        Obama is the first american president to preside over investigations into his successor with the intent to handicapp or remove him – KNOWINGLY started as a HOAX by his opponent.

        What are these violations of the rule of law that you claim Trump has performed ?

        4 indictiments so far – and not a crime alleged in one of them.

        If the law has never been applied as you are trying to do – the violation of the rule of law is with certainty YOURS.

        If you started going after someone based on a KNOWN HOAX and have NEVER relented – YOU are the lawless tyrant.

      3. Dennis, it is fortunate that there are tens of millions of working class americans with more common sense, more understanding of tyranny, more understanding of the rule of law than you have.

        Whereever you got your law degree from – demand your money back – you were ripped off.

        The reality is that the collusion delusion was a HOAX, the Biden family corruption was real.
        Government covid information was misinformation, alleged covid misinformation was nearly all true.
        Trump was not a tyrant – Biden is, Trump did not violate the rule of law – democrats as a whole are doing so with pleasure.
        The FBI/DOJ/DHS did coerce social media into censor the truth to get Biden elected. Biden Lied repeatedly during the election. Trump repeatedly told the truth.

        And you expect all of us to beleive that those who have ACTUALLY lied and cheated and abused power at every oportunity have magically followed the rule of law and are to be trusted – About anything ?

        Sydney Powels claim that DVS machines rigged the election was the weakest of the claims of election fraud.
        Yet today given what we know about the conduct of the Biden’s the FBI,DOJ/DHS/CIA Democrats, over the past 12 years.

        It is 10,000 times more likely that DVS rigged the election than that Joe Biden was an honest vice president.

        When you Lie over and over, when you double down on lies over and over – no rational person should trust you.

        Turley constantly asserts that it is gfoing to be nearly impossible to prove that Trump did not beleive the election was stolen.

        Of course it is going to be impossible – because it WAS. Beyond any doubt at all.

        The only question today is WHICH claims of election fraud by the left are true.

        When DOJ/FBI/DHS/CIA are engaged in unconstitutional conduct to rig an election. the question of WHETHER Fraud occurred is already answered. The only remaining question is what further Fraud would those who are willing to use the power of government to suppress first amendment rights to rig and election. would engage in.

        You know absolutely nothing about the rule of law, our founders, or tyranny.

      1. In Las Vegas, former Democratic elected official Robert Telles is scheduled to face trial in November for allegedly fatally stabbing Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Jeff German after German wrote articles critical of Telles and his managerial conduct.

    1. They made a huge mistake associating me with the Nazi MEME as it triggered a deep dive; what was found was mostly people from her tribe LARPING as ‘violent white supremacists’ when they’re not even ‘white’!

      What started as ONE (((Canadian))) NotZi LARPER find ended up with an entire page of (((Larpers))) defaming actual ‘white’ people; two even got Tila Tequila beaten up!
      I hope what goes around comes around to these two psychos attacking Tila, complete with photographer, in their classic layered attack to ritually SMEAR Tila in the media transforming her into an ADL Pinata!

  2. Jonathan: The Q many are wondering is why Jack Smith didn’t charge DJT with “seditious conspiracy” in his indictment over Jan. 6. Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, was convicted of that charge as were others. As I explained in another comment Smith didn’t want to muddy the waters over “free speech” issues relating to DJT’s speech at the Ellipse. That was a smart strategic move by Smith. But there are others now saying DJT’s little “insurrection” is grounds to prevent DJT for ever running for public office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

    Two law professors have written a 126 page article, addressing this very issue, that will appear in the University of Penn. Law Review next year. The authors, William Baude, law professor at the U of Chicago Law School, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, who teaches at the U of St. Thomas–both constitutional scholars who address “an important constitutional question”–whether DJT is prohibited from ever holding public office under the 14th Amendment. They conclude he is. They say: “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid and comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment”.

    What is interesting is that Baude and Paulsen are not wild-eyed “liberals–out to get DJT. They are both strong and respected conservative “originalists” and members of the conservative Federalist Society. And both say Section 3 is “self-executing” and the prohibition can be enforced by any election official “whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office”. Baude and Paulsen conclude a ban on DJT from running for office can only be lifted by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate.

    So what happens next year if a jury finds DJT guilty, before the election, of all or some of the charges brought by Jack Smith related to Jan. 6? As I read the article by Baude and Paulsen, an election official in any state could refuse to put DJT on the ballot. No doubt DJT would appeal such a decision to the SC. How would Thomas and Alito come down–when two of their own respected conservative “originalist” brethren say DJT is barred from running? You might see a 6-3 or 5-4 decision upholding the prohibitions in the 14th Amendment prohibiting DJT from ever holding public office. Interesting to contemplate.

    And what would Judge Chutkan do if DJT is convicted before the election but is prohibited from running under the 14th Amendment? What a dilemma. If I were Judge Chutkan I would sentence DJT to home confinement for 5-10 years. Just to show I am not vindictive. Why put him in prison? Let him enjoy the amenities of Mar-a-Lago but not allow him to play golf at Bedminster or travel to all his other golf resorts around the world. Not being able to play golf every day would be the ultimate form of punishment for the Trumpster!

    Now in your column(“Too Right to Write”, 8/11) you claim conservatives have been “purged” from law school faculties. Then how do you account for Baude and Paulsen–two respected conservative law professors? They have not be “purged”. And what about former conservative and respected federal judge Michael Luttig? When consulted on Jan. 5 he told Mike Pence he could not lawfully stop the counting of the Electoral College votes. Seems there isn’t a lack of legal conservatives after all.

    1. Dennis, the yellow-brick road is to the right. You’re all heart and courage, but you still need a brain.

    2. Your nonsense, and the nonsense of Paulsen and Baude, was already dealth with by Professors Eugene Volokh and Michael McConnell in an article at the REASON website which you could have easily located if you also located the Paulsen and Baude nonsense.

      To that article I would add that when engaging in “insurrection,” the alleged insurrectionists rarely decide to peacefully go HOME a few hours after the alleged “insurrection” begins — to say nothing of the many federal officers that participated in the “insurrection” as undercover agents provocateur.

      In short, whether you like it or not, words have meanings, and only the most tortured definition of “insurrection,” applied by the most warped minds, would claim that what happened on January 6, 2021 fits a REASONABLE definition of “insurrection.” What actually happened was that after a bit of civil disturbance — disturbance that wasn’t NEARLY as violent as numerous BLM/antifa RIOTS that occurred prior to the 2020 eledtion but were NOT called “insurrection” — Capitol Police INVITED the crowd into the Capitol Building, where 99.9% of them milled about peacefully like tourists, and then went home. Those who try to fit that into the definition of “insurrection” only embarrass themselves by bastardizing the English language.

      1. Ralph de Minimis: Thanks for providing a link to Prof. McConnell’s comment about the article by Baude and Paulsen. McConnell admits “I have not done the historical work to speak with confidence”. That’s why I prefer their historical analysis over his. That said, McConnell’s only point is that giving state officials the power to disqualify a candidate denies the “voters of the ability to elect candidates of their choice”. But isn’t that the point? A candidate who engages in “insurrection” doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot. That’s the whole purpose of Section 3 and why the Founders put it in the Constitution.

        Second, you seem committed to the right-wing conspiracy theory that Jan. 6 was just a “bit of a civil disturbance” and that “federal officers…participated in the ‘insurrection’ as undercover agents provocateur”. And that even “Capitol Police INVITED the crowd into the Capitol Building”. Do you really believe in that nonsense? If you do you are hallucinating and you didn’t watch the attack on the Capitol I watched on TV with millions of other Americans. You need to take off your MAGA rose colored glasses before they make you completely blind!.

        1. There is video of the so-called insurrectionists getting a peaceful tour inside the Capitol, accompanied by Capitol Police as their tour guides. Pelosi didn’t want this footage released, as it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no violent insurrection. Rather than embarrassing yourself with childish name-calling, you should do some research about this. There is much new info coming out, including an interview with former Capitol police chief Steven Sund who said Pelosi turned down requests for National Guard support.There were intelligence reports about the potential for violence was withheld from him.
          The attack you watched was a staged event on the outside of the building. It was a mob that got out of control, with encouragement from under-cover FBI agents. Ever heard of Ray Epps? There is video of him telling people to breach the Capitol building. Why is he not in prison with the other people being held unconstitutionally at Riker’s Island?

          1. Kerry Anderson: Nice to see some else uses their real name–if that is your real name. You are in good company on this blog–believing that the MAGA crowd was “invited’ into the Capitol, that it was just a “tourist visit” by fun-loving people who just wanted to visit the offices of Nancy Pelosi and sit in her chair and have their pictures taken. Another conspiracy theory put forward by such MAGA supporters like MTG and Matt Gaetz and others is that Jan. 6 was a sinister plot by the government, by the FBI, to infiltrate the MAGA with agents provocateur to encourage the crowd to attack the Capitol. None of those claims have held up under scrutiny.

            And, yes, I know about Ray Epps. He owns, or owned a wedding venue outside Phoenix and was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was outside the Capitol encouraging the crowd to enter the Capitol building. When asked later by a Arizona newspaper he said: “The only thing I meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in”. As part of their investigation the Jan. 6 House Select Committee interviewed Epps and he told them “he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on Jan. 5th or 6th or at any other time”.

            Epps has not been charged with any crimes in connection with Jan. 6. Why? The most common charge against those involved in Jan. 6 has been trespassing and remaining inside a restricted federal building after being ordered to leave. And the charges and convictions have been based on video inside the Capitol. The FBI could find no video clips of Epps inside the Capitol. There was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to charge him. The FBI investigation is continuing so they might find other grounds to charge Epps.

            So all your conspiracy theories have gone up in smoke. But I don’t think anything I have pointed out above will change your mind. When confronted with the FACTS you simply double-down. So, you, like others on this blog, live and thrive in a world of unfounded conspiracy theories. You have also definitely overdosed on the MAGA cool-aid!

        2. did you see the interview by Tucker of the former capital police chiefd Steven Sund? I cannot believe people are not out in the streets looking for Pelosi and Cocaine Mitch’s heads.

      2. It demonstrates WHO controls the media and the magnitude of their chutzpah at lying.
        The first unarmed ‘insurrection’ in the history of mankind! It’s such equine excrement!

      1. Gigi suckling at the Dennis teet again, yea!

        Hey Gigi, do u still think Texas uses crude oil to generate electricity??

  3. Ya’Know the Think Tanks got it wrong.
    When Americans will not rally around Their own Country, why would they rally around another (Ukraine).
    Similarly, When Americans won’t rally around Politics, why would they rally around a Candidate – The political scene has become a Joke and Politics has lost it’s efficacy. Force Feeding (Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs) is counter productive.

    But here We are. Force Fed:
    Wars (Ukraine)
    State & Local Politics
    Governorships (Hobbs, Newsom, etc.)
    Racial Normalities
    Global Mandates

    Enough of your Agenda, I’m concerned with my Own.

Leave a Reply