Banning James (Well, Sort of)

The latest Twitter offender is James O’Keefe of the non partisan watchdog organization Project Veritas. Yesterday Twitter suspended his account for reasons yet disclosed. They most likely had to do with the release of the following videos, none of which look too good for The Smiler or her favorites.

That first video shows Wylie Mao, a Clinton staffer discussing how “all bets were off” with regards to how he could act towards women in their office.  Specifically, he mentions he could “grab Emma’s ass like twice and still not get fired.” When confronted about his comments, Mao remained silent and embarrassed before leaving the scene.

There’s also talk in the video of Clinton staffers giving those who register for Clinton the option to vote by mail, but omitting that option for those who register to vote Trump.

Next we go back to Wylie Mao, who says he could rip up twenty voter registration ballots before he got reprimanded. An undercover staffer then asks Trevor LaFuci, a Hillary campaign staffer, saying it’s perfectly fine to rip up voter registration ballots “as long as you don’t make a habit of it.” When confronted, LaFuci walks away.

That’s video one. The next should be a fun view for those who keep and bear firearms.

That’s Senator Russ Feingold, one of Hillary’s ardent Wisconsin supporters as well as some of the elites attending one of his Silicon Valley fundraisers discussing how Clinton might get rid of guns or enact stricter gun control laws via executive order. It goes into even greater detail through an examination of the WikiLeaks emails outlining Hillary’s stance on “closing loopholes” at gun shows and more. More disturbing is the event organizer proudly claiming President Meemaw’s ability to get rid of everything and blast away gun owners’ rights “but for” that troublesome Second Amendment.

As they say in those late night infomercials, “But Wait, There’s More.”

Meet Alan Schulkin, the New York City Commissioner of the Board of Elections. In this video he discusses the concept of voter fraud and how people are bussed from polling site to polling site in order to get people to remain in office. Schulkin also laments the lack of voter ID laws in New York, and suggests one would be a good idea. There’s also information about Bill de Blasio offering ID cards “you can use for anything.” Finally, there’s a rather frank discussion on how easy it would be for someone to “pretend to be a Muslim,” show up to the polls in a burqua, and vote a second time as a different person.

These are all pretty damning indictments of the Democratic party, the contempt for which they hold the voting public, and how little these new “moral” standards regarding women, sexual assault and sexual harassment mean within the Clinton campaign. As long as you’re #WithHer, you can assault women as you please. It’s almost like being famous.

For his egregious sins, James O’Keefe was locked out of his Twitter account for twelve hours. This caused a shit storm of epic proportions on Twitter, with people relentlessly mentioning @Jack regarding the situation, calling Twitter headquarters, and more. Eventually O’Keefe was told if he deleted one tweet on his account they would lift the suspension. The tweet was one mentioning Wylie Mao and referencing his “locker room talk.”

It’s becoming pretty clear with every new ban Twitter is not the “free speech wing of the free speech party.” They know which voices they want amplified, and they know which voices they want to go away. And it’s increasingly obvious the voices Twitter wants most are those who toe the progressive, liberal, Democratic party line lock step. Those are the accounts with the blue verification “tick” marks, while the conservatives are un-verified, shadow banned, and then eventually suspended or banned as the platform pleases.

It’s perfectly acceptable for Twitter to censor some users and laud others. They are a private company, and can do as they please. With this latest attack on a non-partisan organization and a man whose stated mission is to bring truth to the world where others would not see it, Jack and Twitter can no longer lie about their alleged “care” for conservative thought.

 

Banning Glenn: Silencing Law on Social Media (Update x2)

Glenn Reynolds wears many hats.  He’s a professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law.  He blogs at a site called “Instapundit.” He’s a columnist for USA Today.  As of this morning, it appears Glenn gets to add one more bullet point to his already impressive resume.  He’s banned from Twitter.

What justification does Twitter have for placing a law professor in the ranks of those once deemed internet trolls, “monsters,” and purveyors of “hate speech?”  Did he send his followers to harass a celebrity on the social media platform?  Did he make a direct threat to someone?  It was none of these, actually.  Glenn’s egregious sin was expressing an opinion on self-defense in regards to the violence occurring in Charlotte.

At 8:51 PM last night Glenn retweeted this tweet from WBTV News in Charlotte, North Carolina regarding the violent protests in the wake of another police shooting.  It encouraged those on Twitter to avoid I-277 as protesters were surrounding vehicles.  At least one news report from the news station’s website confirmed protesters were throwing rocks at vehicles on that section of the interstate.  Glenn’s response was simple.

cs9hazewgaajraa-jpg-large

That tweet was enough for someone at Twitter, most likely a member of their Trust and Safety Council, to throw the “suspend” lever on Glenn’s account.  A glance at Twitter’s Rules could justify Glenn’s ban from the site on the basis of either “Violent Threats (direct or indirect)” or “Hateful Conduct.”  The former prevents you from making threats of violence or promoting violence, the latter adds in “directly [attacking]” people based on their race, sexual orientation, nationality, and a whole host of other factors by which most choose to express their current victimhood.

On face value, though, Glenn did none of these things.  It appears as if he expressed his opinion on what those caught in the mobs of protesters should do if they found their car surrounded.  It may not be the most palatable opinion for some, but it’s not threatening anyone specifically or directly attacking them.  Glenn’s three word tweet apparently summarized his views on self-defense if someone found themselves caught in a situation like that on I-277.  Those three words were enough, though.  No more justification needed.  Throw the switch and ban him.

The ban, in less than twelve hours, has strangely amplified Glenn’s voice more than before.  #RunThemDown and #FreeInstapundit are both now trending on Twitter.  More people are talking about the violence in Charlotte and what they would do if needed to defend themselves and loved ones.   It’s almost as if a certain “Dangerous Faggot’s” remarks on how attempts to silence someone just makes that voice louder universally applies.

The downside to all this is Twitter’s image continues to worsen at a time when they need some positive uptick for their social media platform.  Banning anti-feminist Robert Stacy McCain almost immediately after Jack founded his “Trust and Safety Council” started serious whispers about the “Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party” only caring for ideas with which they agreed.  The ban of Milo Yiannopolous led credence to claims Twitter didn’t care for conservative voices.  Now with the ban of Glenn Reynolds, Twitter’s new image is they can and will ban whoever they like, whenever they like, for whatever words hurt someone’s feelings at any given moment.

And yes, there will be people who reiterate the numerous tropes and fallacies surrounding free speech.  They will also point out Twitter is a private company, free to censor and ban those they wish with absolute impunity.  These are the people Twitter will come for next.  As soon as the latest wrongthink echoes from their account in 140 characters or less, that person will find themselves wondering how it all happened.  Here’s a hint: it happened because you did nothing, you refused to raise your voice when others were silenced, and you were complicit with every aspect of the censorship of those voices you didn’t like and deletion of the nasty bad words that hurt your feelings.

Another scary aspect of this is Glenn’s status as a law professor and USA Today columnist.  A Twitter ban for Glenn signals his views on the law as less important than someone like Mary Anne Franks or Danielle Citron.  It chills the concepts of teaching the law as it stands, in a fashion that some might find uncomfortable, “triggering,” or lacking safety.  It also actively encourages stupidity, and promoting the cardinal sin of making people dumber when they encounter a legal professional.

The gig is up for Twitter, and they know it.  Now that we’re past justifying suspensions and bans on the basis of “promoting hate speech,” and Twitter is perfectly ready to censor academics with truly intelligent voices in their field, this realm of the information superhighway where people interact more on a daily basis with each other loses a bit more credibility.  If Glenn’s ideas were horrid, let them be exposed and ridiculed as such.  They weren’t, though.  This ban wasn’t even close to justifiable.  It’s silencing a much needed voice.

If you’re interested in learning more about what “free speech” truly looks like in America today, check out “Silenced: Our War On Free Speech.

UPDATE: Glenn’s account was reinstated after he deleted the offensive tweet pictured above.  He’s also posted his view of the situation on the Instapundit blog, which deserves a full read.  I quote one portion of it here to show my initial analysis was a little more on point than I expected.

I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years.

But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.

“Run them down” perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.

UPDATE x2: Apparently even Glenn’s nuances aren’t enough for the University of Tennessee School of Law. Now, with the full support of Chancellor Jimmy Cheek, there’s an “investigation” into Glenn’s nasty, hurtful words.

“I am aware of the remarks made last night on Twitter by Professor Glenn Reynolds and of the serious and legitimate concerns expressed by members of the UT Law family and the University of Tennessee community, as well as concerned citizens across the country. Professor Reynolds’s comments do not reflect my views and opinions, nor do they reflect the values of the college and university.

University administrators, college faculty, and I are investigating this matter.

The university is committed to academic freedom, freedom of speech, and diverse viewpoints, all of which are important for an institution of higher education and the free exchange of ideas. My colleagues and I in the university’s leadership support peaceful civil disobedience and all forms of free speech, but we do not support violence or language that encourages violence.

Professor Reynolds has built a significant platform to discuss his viewpoints, but his remarks on Twitter are an irresponsible use of his platform. (emphasis added)

Banning Milo, Redux.

A quick follow-up to a post from last week regarding Twitter’s “permanent suspension” of Milo Yiannopolous follows.  If you’re so inclined, you can read my original thoughts before continuing.  It’s cool, I’ll wait.

I was surprised at the reactions Milo’s ban received.  Many people responded with “I’m glad he’s gone” and outlined the “horrible” ways this “monster” had treated people.  Funny enough, most people couldn’t identify a single way Milo treated them horribly.  It was all anecdotal stories they’d either read about or heard from other people.  More tellingly, no one could justify Yiannopolous’s Twitter ban beyond the standard tropes involving the First Amendment, free speech, how Twitter was a “private company,” and so on.  Evidence, or the lack of evidence, regarding the “Dangerous Faggot’s” alleged coordinated attack against Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones, didn’t matter one bit.  It was all about the narrative.

That narrative ignored a basic understanding of what phrases like “targeted attack” means, as well as “hate speech (quick hint, there’s no legal definition of “hate speech” in America.).”  It also indicated a bizarre line of reasoning that retweeting “racist” comments on line and “exposing” said thoughts for the world wasn’t the same thing as directing a targeted attack against another user’s account.  Those who prattled such tripe in my direction seemed a touch blind to statements like “Get her” and “I’ll blow you up.  If you tweet hateful things at me I’ll retweet it so all of my followers see it and come after your punk…”  None of this surprises me, after the work I’ve done for a couple of months now.  What did surprise me were the people who came rushing to the defense of censorship.

Those who spoke in favor of silencing Yiannopolous were arguably people who depend on free speech the most.  There were performance artists, musicians, and stand up comedians all telling me “words can and do certainly hurt people” and that being pro free speech was only a good thing “during the days when you could beat a man within an inch of his life.”  People whose very livelihoods depend on pushing the boundaries of what you can and can’t say in public flocked to the side of silence.  The display absolutely confounded me, until I started to think about the deeper issues behind this pro-censor stance.

There’s an element of profit at stake, for starters.  The only way you’re really guaranteed a steady income in the entertainment industry is if you display to the public your commitment to the “correct” way of thinking. Any question of authority, any attempts at dissidence will only cost the artist money.  Even if the dissident position is one with which the artist actually agrees, they will deliberately silence themselves to make sure that extra paycheck is available while establishing a name and brand recognition for their work.

Worse still, there’s an implicit tone of rejection for those who dare express wrongthink as artists.  All it takes is one incorrect statement that doesn’t jibe with the current buzzphrases of “diversity” and “inclusion” and you’re squarely in the crosshairs of the Internet Outrage Machine.  Once you’re a target for the digital mobs ready to scream their offense, you’re done.  Your career is finished, or you’re going to at least lose out on the possibility of millions in the process.

In that sense, you might be able to forgive the artist for choosing a life of self-censorship.  The businesses that stand to benefit the most from an open, robust exchange of ideas are the ones that stand to lose out the most when the content creators actually express ideas outside the mainstream views of normalcy.  It’s only good capitalism at work, then.  Everyone likes to own nice things, and many artists have families to feed.  The biggest issue with the “anti-Milo” stance, especially when it comes to the arts, is by limiting the “free speech extremist” you’ve officially shifted the Overton Window on your own work to a position with which you might not be entirely comfortable.

Love him or hate him, the “Dangerous Faggot” always stood on the side of free speech and free expression.  His outlandish stunts on college campuses designed to poke fun of speech codes and grandstanding with people ranging from Christina Hoff Sommers to Dave Rubin all serve a point.  If his ideas and speech aren’t acceptable at the most outlandish of times, then there’s a good chance your “moderate” or “nuanced” view won’t stand the test of time as the politically correct “regressive left” comes to shout down any opposing voice.  Once the modern “Nero” is eliminated from the public’s discourse, then your more “principled” view might very well be next for elimination.

Worse still, eliminating Yiannopolous’s “hate speech” from the digital domain doesn’t make the web any “safer” than before.  It just allows newer forms of hate to fill in the cracks, ones the mobs of “social justice [insert Dungeons and Dragons class of your choosing]” deem appropriate.  Shortly after Twitter smacked Yiannopolous with the Banhammer, a post appeared on Medium, the Twitter owned “platisher’s” Daily Digest slamming Milo, calling him part of the “A-List con men” at the Republican National Convention.  It didn’t serve any purpose than acting as the new official stance on what form of hate was acceptable for modern society: a hatred of those who stood for free speech.

The dangerous line we tread when eliminating people like Milo Yiannopolous from the public eye is choosing a life of hedonistic, intellectual comfort over a forced examination of the ideas and people with which we disagree.  So many of us already engage in this practice daily with block buttons and lists.  The creation of those echo chambers leads to the treacherous line of reason where we automatically assume we’re right, and those who express a different view are guilty of the sin dubbed Wrong On The Internet.

When self-inflicted, it does little harm to the rest of society.  The public elimination of figures like Milo Yiannopolous through outside third parties with massive amounts of power, like Jack Dorsey and Twitter, is a more egregious sin as we’re told by those with the real technological power what to think, absent suffering penalties.

Banning Milo

It was nice while it lasted, but the ruse is over.  The “free speech wing of the free speech party” dropped their ruse of holding a platform for all voices when Twitter, late last night, permanently suspended “conservative provocateur” Milo Yiannopolous’s @Nero account.

It didn’t take Twitter long to let the world know following the formation of their Trust and Safety Council that Yiannopolous, an editor for Breitbart, was a marked man.  They took away Milo’s precious blue “verified” check mark, a sign letting the world know the account was his and not one of the numerous fake accounts bearing his name.  The last straw in Yiannopolous’s antics, apparently, was his bashing of “Ghostbusters” star Leslie Jones.  Some called Milo’s work an “organized campaign of online harassment” eventually leading to Jones quitting Twitter.

That didn’t last long.  Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, eventually reached out to Jones, and the two conversed via DM.  Then, last night, Yiannopolous joined the ranks of the Twitter Banned, standing beside people like Robert Stacy McCain and Got News’ Chuck Johnson.  This banning is different, though, and it’s one Twitter might regret in the days to come.

Within hours of Milo’s @Nero suspension, the hashtag #FreeMilo started trending on Twitter.  Right now it’s sitting as #1 on my “Tailored Trends” topics.  Adding the hashtag into Tweetdeck produces a torrent of tweets on the subject, ranging from people fully in support of Milo to those gleefully rejoicing in Milo’s ban, and suggesting those upset about the issue join him and delete their accounts.  In essence, by removing Milo from the social media platform, they managed to amplify the “Dangerous Faggot’s” presence more than ever before.  It’s also highlighted Twitter’s disingenuous stance on free speech.

Make no mistake, Twitter is a private company, free to select who uses its services and who doesn’t.  And they’re free to select what they term “harassment” or “hate speech” and silence those voices.  But in taking the anti-Milo side, Twitter stands on treacherous grounds of doing something no one in their camp wants to do: prove him right.

During Yiannopolous’s last appearance on Dave Rubin’s “Rubin Report” show, Yiannopolous predicted Twitter would eventually shed its chosen mantle as a bastion of free speech and stand as a platform only devoted to allowing those ideas it deemed “safe” or acceptable.  They’ve done just that with the banning of Yiannopolous, and even allowed others to posit wilder stances than his, such as the ban’s “targeted” nature as it came right before Yiannopolous attended a “Gays for Trump” party during the Republican National Convention.  The ruse is gone, and Jack can’t take it back.

Worse yet, Twitter managed to give credence to the throngs of “men’s rights activists,” or MRAs, who claim women can’t handle criticism on the platform.  It also places Leslie Jones in a negative light, as a female comedian, arguably someone who should be able to handle criticism from hecklers or otherwise with ample savvy, was outed as someone who needed a Twitter knight in shining armor to activate the Trust and Safety Council’s jackbooted digital thugs and suppress Milo’s voice.

It’s an odd stance for a social media platform to take, especially one so allegedly pro free speech, and ostensibly the bastion of the marketplace of ideas.  A gay man with a fetish for black dudes is silenced for criticizing a black comedian.  In the meantime, pro-ISIS accounts are allowed, and tweets advocating for the killing of cops are prolific.  Even Jones, originally clutching her pearls and whining about how something had to be done to stop all the hate, is back on Twitter denouncing “white people shit.”

Yiannopolous’s presence has yet to end on Facebook, which poses an interesting conundrum for Mark Zuckerberg and his team.  They’ve already been outed as anti-conservative through leaked information, when word circulated his team internally wanted to stop Donald Trump from becoming President.  Zuckerberg, firmly in the crosshairs of the free speech world, invited a number of prominent conservative talking heads to his offices in California and affirmed his commitment to promoting all values, no matter what.

The ball is then ostensibly in Facebook’s court, and can be used to breathe fresh life into a platform now largely seen as an echo chamber for those still using it.  If Mark Zuckerberg takes a strong stance and blows the doors open for any and all, firmly distinguishing Facebook from Twitter, it will send a powerful message and bring the disenchanted back to the land of “likes” and “pokes.” If Zuckerberg remains silent on the issue, or worse yet adds fuel to the fire by endorsing the ban of Milo Yiannopolous, then both social media platforms will suffer.

Only time will tell, as the story is less than a day old and yet gaining international attention.  One thing’s for sure, and that’s striking down Nero only makes him more powerful and amplifies his voice than one would possibly imagine.