October 2, 2019

“2020 Democratic candidate Sen. Kamala Harris asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in a Tuesday letter to consider suspending President Trump's account...”

“... for violating its user agreement with his tweets about the Ukraine whistleblower and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).... Harris accused Trump of violating Twitter's rule that users ‘may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people’ by falsely accusing the Ukraine whistleblower of ‘spying’ and Schiff of treason. The California senator called the tweets ‘blatant threats’ ...”

Axios reports.

It’s helpful to know that Harris’s orientation is to suppress freedom of speech. Her own political speech has proven quite ineffectual, so it’s in her self-interest to shut down the speech of others. Whether she’s into restricting speech for personal reasons or whether she pure-heartedly seeks the greater good through censorship, it’s a bad orientation to display as you’re running for President. I’m certainly glad she has the freedom of speech to express that lousy thinking, though. What she’s said puts her out of the running for my vote.

(And, yes, I know Twitter is a private company, and she’s only asking it to do something that it probably could choose to do without violating the constitutional right to freedom of speech. I’ve been through that topic many times on this blog, and I am strongly committed to the broad view of freedom of speech, freedom that includes access to social media, and I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom.)

185 comments:

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

A glimpse into the left's ideas about freedom of speech.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Stated well, Ann.

Dave Begley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

There's no way Jack Dorsey would suspend Trump. That would invite a firestorm of biblical proportions.

So why would Kamala do this? Let's cut this with occam's razor.

Welp, she's floundering, sinking fast in a vast sea of other candidates, not to mention the Trump impeachment excitement that has sucked all the oxygen out of the room with regards to anything to do with all these Dem candidates. She desperately needs some attention, something to put some focus on her.

Will it work? Probably not.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Have to disagree. Shut it down. He has violated Twitter's byzantine community standards, as likely have half their user base north of oh, say a billion users.

Shut him down. Then shut them down. Then shut them all down. He's the Pres. He's got other ways of getting the word out. Put their bias front and center while conveniently roasting their entire network.

Make them live up to their own damn standards, which is none.

mccullough said...

Tulsi Gabbard exposed Kamala as the lightweight she is. Jack ain’t going to listen to this loser.

SDaly said...

"KAMALA HARRIS ASKS SOCIAL MEDIA GIANT TWITTER TO INTERFERE IN 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!"

rhhardin said...

Scott Adams says it's meant to get attention not to shut down speech. It would be baiting the right.

He's assuming she has learned to play chess, rather than just being stupid.

BarrySanders20 said...

Kamela is a dromedary queen. A one-humper.

Char Char Binks said...

Harris doesn't want to impede Trump's free speech, only our ability to hear him.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

If that is what she wants to do to Trump, what will she do to us?

rehajm said...

Who is Kamala Harris?

rehajm said...

Is she gunning for a seat on Twitter's board?

Rance Fasoldt said...

Freedom of speech - where Liberty begins.

Lucid-Ideas said...

According to the harshest interpretation of the various tech 'community standards' the only things Twitter, Insta, and Snap would be left with are photos, videos, articles and articles about photos and videos of 1) cute adorable puppies and kitties and 2) food (which of course may not contain cute adorable animals).

Wait...I'm stretching. I forgot the people that are triggered by cute adorable animals or may - in some cases - think that THEY ARE cute adorable animals.

Forget the whole thing.

wendybar said...

Corey Booker wants Trumps rallies to be cancelled, Beto wants tech companies to censor content, Julian Castro posts a target list of Trump supporters< Kamal wants Trumps twitter shut down. Who are the fascists again?? Between shutting us up, and threatening to assassinate the President (both said and done in videos) the Democrats are showing us what they really are. Wake up.

hawkeyedjb said...

" Harris’s orientation is to suppress freedom of speech "

She certainly fits in with the rest of the Democratic party. How many votes would the first amendment receive in the Democratic caucus? A handful, I believe. "Congress shall make no law" is a repugnant phrase to Our Betters.

Rance Fasoldt said...

Freedom of speech - where liberty begins.

wendybar said...

Biden wants Rudy Blacklisted from Television, NYC is going to FINE people for saying illegal alien, Antifa (the little masked Fascist wannabes) wants the Rubin Report shut down Maxine wants Trump to be imprisoned and in Solitary confinement.......do you see a pattern yet???

rcocean said...

I don't believe in this "The 1st amendment doesn't apply to them". Closing down Trump's twitter feed would be a massive blow to his campaign AND a massive plus for the Democrats. It would be a non-monetary campaign donation worth $millions to the DNC. The only way Dorsey could justify it, would be to ban all D Candidates from Twitter. In any case, McConnell and his gang and the RNC would pull R advertising from Twitter. Hurt them in the pocketbook.

rehajm said...

Harris accused Trump of violating Twitter's rule that users ‘may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people’ by falsely accusing the Ukraine whistleblower of ‘spying’ and Schiff of treason

I feel like the only one that sees the inconsistency of this statement. Well done deep state..

(How does she know they are false accusations, BTW? More of that mind reading?)

BJM said...

I double dog dare Jack to deplatform Trump's personal and the White House Twitter accounts.

John Borell said...

Authoritarians are always going to be authoritative.

Free speech for me but not for thee!

Mike Sylwester said...

Kamala Harris says that ICE is like the KKK.

Shouldn't someone take effective actions against ICE members? After all, they are like KKK members.

KKK members tortured and lynched hundreds of colored men.

That's what KKK members did -- and ICE members are like KKK members.

People, do something about that! You know what to do!

eric said...

This is a solid take.

Thank you professor for standing up for free speech.

Even if there are times when you want to throttle President Trump and tell him to stop using Twitter, if he so chooses, he ought to be able to continue using it.

Char Char Binks said...

Democracy dies in silence

Narr said...

That WOC is crazy.

Narr
And not even hawt-crazy

NCMoss said...

Political correctness is filling the sails of democrat candidates these days but it could just as well sink them; I can hope, can't I?

Dave Begley said...

She wants to censor, suspend, ban, cancel anyone who tweets about how she slept her way to the top with the husband of another woman.

Talk about quid pro blow!

And now that Bernie is effectively out, Warren firmly in number one slot.

Achilles said...

Twitter is a private company and free to operate how it wants banning individuals.

Twitter is not free to act in noncompetitive manners that violate the antitrust laws we have and act as a publisher.

If they choose to censor anyone they should take responsibility as a publisher for everything they allow on their platform.

Period.

Skeptical Voter said...

Who knew that Kamala would go all Greta Thunberg? "How Dare You!"

The progressive left is all about "You can't say that". In their own way they are worse than Torquemada punishing heresy wherever they see it.

As for Kamala--shuffle off stage left, sputtering, as your campaign goes steadily down hill into the dumpster. You'll still be around for Senate hearings and such, but you won't be sitting in the Oval Office in the Big White House.

Law Prof said...

Ann, serious question: why does Harris' (offensive) authoritarian tendency to suppress speech mean that she loses your vote, but Trump's significant authoritarian tendencies (to suppress the media, lack of due process, executive aggrandizement etc.) don't appear to have the same effect on you?

Mark said...

the constitutional right to freedom of speech

The Constitution grants us nothing. We don't get our rights from the Constitution. The rights pre-exist the Constitution, which only recognizes and protects those rights.

While it is true that the First Amendment refers to infringements by Congress, still the principle of free speech is one that applies universally. Others beyond Congress or government can violate that principle, including monopolistic corporations (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon) which tend to unfairly manipulate the marketplace of ideas.

roesch/voltaire said...

No please let the Tweeter in Chief continue to post his witness intimidations and crack pot conspiracies so we all can understand why he will be a one term president.

Law Prof said...

Ann, serious question: why does Harris' (offensive) authoritarian tendency to suppress speech mean that she loses your vote, but Trump's significant authoritarian tendencies (to suppress the media, lack of due process, executive aggrandizement, etc.) don't appear to have the same effect on you?

Mark said...

Twitter is not a private club with a restricted membership which could rightly claim that it can regulate the content of communications. Rather, it has freely and voluntarily opened itself up to the general public as a public forum.

John henry said...

If Twitter suspended pdjt today it would, as nonopod said, create a major firestorm.

5 minutes after being suspended pdjt would be posting on Gab, Mastadon, parler and another whose name I forget.

All those services get PDJT's followers.

PDJT gets a great and valid excuse to rail against Twitter and, by association, Google Facebook et al.

I can picture pdjt sitting in the Oval chortling "c'mon, Jack. Kick me off please!"

John Henry

Bay Area Guy said...

1. The Left does not support Free Speech
2.The Left believes it is ok to suppress "Hate" Speech
3. The Left then defines "Hate" Speech broadly to include whatever their political opponents are saying.
4. Kammy is a diehard member of the Left

Ergo, Kammy seeks to suppress the President's speech.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Craig said...

Well said, professor. I also had a strong reaction to Harris's tweet.

I was happy to see Nate Silver come out against her request for censorship:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1179196668023054336

Curious George said...

"What she’s said puts her out of the running for my vote."

She was in the running before? Yikes.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Adam Schitt(D) did actually fake-quote the President of the United States.
Where is the obstruction charge for that?

All good Americans call Obstruction of Justice on Adam Schitt.

gravityhurts said...

Not to long ago there was bragging about how these online platforms would revolutionize free speech making it available to everyman. Now it looks like a Marxist revolution.

Lucien said...

Rcocean raises a good point: isn’ Harris soliciting an in-kind campaign contribution from Twitter? Let’s investigate to see if this is criminal election law violation!

Darrell said...

Silence everyone that doesn't support the narrative.

--The Way of the Left

Francisco D said...

It’s helpful to know that Harris’s orientation is to suppress freedom of speech.

After the Kavanaugh hearings, it became clear to me that Democrat politicians are taking their cues from college campuses where freedom of speech and rules of evidence are often determined by political preference rather than Constitutional understanding.

So who is surprised that Kamala wants to suppress Trump's freedom of speech?

bagoh20 said...

If Twitter did that, Trump could kickstart an alternative that would devastate Twitter value.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Besides her comparisons of Immigration and Custom Officers to the KKK,
Kamala(D) also stated clearly she wants to remove access to ALL private health care.

Nah - that's not totalitarian at all!

MountainMan said...

This disqualifies her as far as I am concerned.

bagoh20 said...

I think the story of the next decade will be the downsizing of the big tech companies due to the rise of alternatives that will be less totalitarian creeps. It will be another time like the shrinking of the railroads, the creation of the rust belt, and the neutering of companies like IBM in the 80's.

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Iman said...

Harris should stick to laughing at her own 7th grade level jokes. And the media should wake up and investigate her time as a prosecutor in the Bay Area.

Ken B said...

I am in pretty much perfect agreement with Althouse on speech. Free speech is not a synonym for what the first amendment protects. It is a broader value, social fact, and approach to governance. Free societies govern by talking about it. Freedom of speech is essential for that to work.

I don’t buy the argument only governments can censor. The church censored books for centuries. The Nazi party smashed bookshops and burnt books. Roving bands smashed printing presses in the antebellum south.

R2d2 said...

Pruneyard

R2d2 said...

Is the censoring of conservatives by Facebook, Twitter, etc an in-kind campaign donation?

bleh said...

Uh oh, Trump just tweeted BULLSHIT. It's like he's using Twitter to get around the MSM's filters and biases, and speak directly to Ann Althouse.

TJM said...

the KKK is a venerable Democrat Organization

readering said...

A true threat is not protected speech so what's the problem with Harris pointing that out?

Bob said...

Poor Kamala. Stuck in the Senate for three-plus more years. Tick-tock-tick-tock.

purplepenquin said...

I am strongly committed to the broad view of freedom of speech, freedom that includes access to social media, and I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom

Heh.

Wherever they are & whatever they are doing - those folks who have recently been banned from commentating on this blog have a wry grin on their face right now but they aren't exactly sure why.

Gk1 said...

Is there anything more intellectually flabby than a liberal democrat in this day and age? This is the calibre of talent you can expect when candidates receive no push back from opposing view points. When I hear Kamala speak it's hard to believe that she has a law license or studied law.

Freder Frederson said...

I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom.

Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?

madAsHell said...

Why are these affirmative action hires always so petty, and thin skinned?? Oh, wait......

Bilwick said...

Doesn't democracy die in darkness?

Leland said...

She joins a long list of those making the request.

I'm pretty sure Twitter would never do it, because it would be a financially dumb and futile idea. It would immediately alienate a large number of users (I won't say half, because Twitter is much bigger than the US) who support Trump. It would alienate many more that value free speech. And Trump also brings a lot of attention to Twitter as a brand.

About that attention Trump brings; it is platform independent. Trump could simply create a blog on Whitehouse.gov; and people would flock to it. The news media would report on it as much as they report on his Twitter feed. I suspect he would even allow comments to enhance the commercial value of his posting. After all, if Trump restricted responses; then his Tweets or Blogs would be just like his press conferences. It would be covered via the lens of mass media. Trump's tweets subvert mass media; and that is why they (and their fellow Democrats) want to silence him.

Known Unknown said...

"Comment moderation has been enabled."

Et tu, Professor?

Listen, I get it. You don't want the wasteland of toxic back-and-forths, but big people like me (and others) who are near-absolute when it comes to free speech (unlike you, now, apparently.) can identify it and move past it pretty quickly as it suits us.

But it's your blog and your right to run it as you see fit. It's just when you post words like those above, it smacks a little hypocritical.

Yancey Ward said...

"What she’s said puts her out of the running for my vote."

Haven't all of the Democratic candidates criticized Twitter for allowing Trump to write stuff they think is inappropriate?

Amexpat said...

SNL had a good take on Kamalahttps last Saturday as an ruthless phony. They were toughest on all (except Warren)the candidates but focused on her. Link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2myYMSeFMA

Sigivald said...

"Violence"?

I don't see what violence is in his "threat" of a legal action.

(If legal penalties applied by a court are violence, then nobody on Twitter can accuse someone of crime or call for judicial action?)

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Sort of OT:

The Politico smoking gun everyone is talking about. (except the corrupt media(D))

Ukrainian MP seeks probe of Ukraine-Clinton ties

Tom T. said...

She could have used current events boldly by being the first competitor to call on Biden to drop out. She wouldn't even have to call him corrupt, but rather just a distraction. The press would have to pay attention. Instead she goes for this penny-ante nonsense.

Bruce Hayden said...

“According to the harshest interpretation of the various tech 'community standards' the only things Twitter, Insta, and Snap would be left with are photos, videos, articles and articles about photos and videos of 1) cute adorable puppies and kitties and 2) food (which of course may not contain cute adorable animals).”

I think that you need to clarify that your prohibition on cute adorable animals not be shown in the food. On the one side, my partner went through a phase where she had me photographing quite a bit of what our then kitten did. Sticking his head out of bags, her purse, and even standing on one of our plates trying to share our food. Now she knows better, freaking out when he even breathes too closely on her food, commenting on where his tongue has been, esp in his inveterate cleaning parties.

On the other hand, she warned her youngest, a girl, not to name the pig that they were raising. She did name him, “Spot”. He apparently was very affectionate. Her private pet, that followed her around, like a puppy. Until it was his time to earn his keep. Then, every time they ate pork for the next half year, her brothers would chant “here comes Spot”, at which time she would, of course, go crying from the table. No doubt, a picture of Spot would be triggering for her, probably to this day. So maybe photos of food should probably be out too.

n.n said...

A swipe of Occam's scalpel suggests an immediate and desperate need to shift frames.

Vance said...

Remember Hillary's campaign slogan? Wasn't it "Stronger Together?" And isn't that the literal translation of the Italian word "Fascist?"

Never, ever forget who the left really is. The only reason the left hated Hitler and the Nazis is because Hitler had the audacity to invade Soviet Russia--until then, the Nazis were the darling of the left. And they still would be, except they attacked the Soviet communists. That whole unpleasant business about the Jews can and indeed has been overlooked by the left (ask Oman, AOC, and the rest of the gang if they really have problems executing Jews......)

Bruce Hayden said...

“I double dog dare Jack to deplatform Trump's personal and the White House Twitter accounts.”

And if I were in his shoes in the White House, or even In AG Barr’s shoes, there would be an announcement by the AG that the DOJ had opened an inquiry into Twitter, Facebook, and at least Google, for antitrust and election law violations, and they could expect subpoenas within the week.

rehajm said...

What do the community standards say about false allegations, coordinated smear campaigns and 'reading between the lines'?

Never mind, I think I know...

Mike Sylwester said...

Correction to my comment at 9:58 AM

I inadvertently wrote the expression colored men.

I meant to write Men of Color.

Please make the mental correction.

narciso said...

Well that was two years ago.

Francisco D said...

Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?

As usual, Freder has no clue.

NDAs are a private transaction, often with a payment to the signer. They do not prevent free speech. They assign a cost to people who violate a contract.

Yancey Ward said...

I wrote the other day- the pressure to shut Trump down on Twitter was amping up in response to the impeachment mania. I don't think Dorsey will be able resist this, especially if the Democrats do decide to move on to real impeachment.

McGehee said...

A court ruled that Trump can't block people from following his personal Twitter account without violating their constitutional rights, but Sepia Hillary wants Twitter to, in effect, block all those people, and anyone else, from following Trump.

And to think she used to be a state's attorney general.

JAORE said...

I'm sure KH fully supports free speech, BUT [fill in the blank].

I'm sure KH fully supports [fill in the blank], BUT [fill in the blank].

dustbunny said...

Now that Harris has lost the possibility of getting Althouse’s vote I’m wondering if Ann saw the CNN interview with Warren where Liz confesses she fell in love with her husband when she saw him in shorts. That’s got to be a deal breaker.

Drago said...

purplepenguin: "Wherever they are & whatever they are doing - those folks who have recently been banned from commentating on this blog have a wry grin on their face right now but they aren't exactly sure why"

Inga has been posting another another name and LLR Chuck has been posting as well.

Thanks for being lightyears behind.

Again.

Howard said...

I agree that bans and standards on social media, including blog comments, are counterproductive. Slimy scummy dirtbags like Trump and his loyal fellatio gallery need to feel free and unfettered to spew their hate. Sunshine and spotlight the mutherfuckers.

Quaestor said...

Remember Hillary's campaign slogan? Wasn't it "Stronger Together?" And isn't that the literal translation of the Italian word "Fascist?"

Every dictator and tyrant since 1789 has raved about unity and corporate strength, even those who chant The people, united, can never be defeated! (Who came up with that, I wonder. Probably a Comintern stooge enrolled at Wellesley in the hootenanny era.) are flirting with totalitarianism. The real test of a republic is whether a single man with right on his side can resist the united "people" and defeat them utterly.

Paul Zrimsek said...

In other anti-First Amendment news, Elizabeth Warren wants to tax companies which spend too much money petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Part of the proceeds will be used to install a Warren ally in a government office so the government can petition itself instead.

Le Stain du Poop said...

KH is a dried up old wh*re who never had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. Women are catty as hell--and while they don't mind the idea of riding a dic* to the top themselves, they sure as hell are not going to stand by and let another woman do it if they have anything to say about it. And they do comprise more than 50 per cent of the electorate.

'Nuff said.

Kevin said...

"Joe Biden’s presidential campaign demanded on Sunday that major TV networks <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/29/biden-campaign-giuliani-ukraine-networks-010801”>stop booking Rudy Giuliani,</a> accusing President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer of spreading “false, debunked conspiracy theories” on behalf of his client.

In the letter, the Biden team argued that “Giuliani is not a public official, and holds no public office that would entitle him to opine on the nation’s airwaves.” And so, they continued, “the decision to legitimize his increasingly outlandish and unhinged charges and behavior — calling it ‘news’ — rests solely with you."

DKWalser said...

I think it interesting that a federal court recently held that Trump could not block people from participating on his Twitter account because his account is basically a public forum. (The court held that because Trump uses the account as an informal to communicate the policies and other messages of his Administration, he could not restrict others from responding.) So, if Trump's account is a public forum, can Twitter close it?

Amexpat said...

I don't think Twitter will do it or that Harris expects they will. It a cheap sound bite to try to keep her in the news.

If it did happen, then there's a real chance that social media would fragment into different platforms that exclude opposition political views.

Laslo Spatula said...

My guess is that whatever nominee the Democrats put up will be one that Althouse can vote for.

Of course, there will be the requisite blog criticisms of the nominee to maintain an air of Cruel Neutrality, but being a liberal in even-more liberal Madison during the four-year TrumpHate will have worn her out.

She will want Boring, and Boring will be much easier with Trump gone.

A Political Party that has spent all of their energies (legal and otherwise) trying to negate the 2016 vote of US citizens will be rewarded by those with the least skin in the game: college kids, teachers, unfireable government workers and retirees that have a guaranteed government pension, until death, no matter the condition of the Real World Economy.

As I have said before: Morlocks and Eloi.

For the others -- well, as Johnny Rotten once said "'Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

I am Laslo.

Paul said...

"What she’s said puts her out of the running for my vote."

Truly Ann, with what the Dems have running for president, Trump is still the only choice. And now with Bernie out of the race ... Hillary is thinking about it. Now ain't that a gas!

hawkeyedjb said...

"So who is surprised that Kamala wants to suppress Trump's freedom of speech?"

At this point, I assume nobody is surprised; pretty much everyone understands who she is and what she wants. Her supporters are enthused and her detractors are not.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

This basically confirms my inability to predict political outcomes. Until GWB in 2000, every presidential candidate I voted for lost,from McGovern on. In 1980 I was going to vote for Carte but I was in Kodiak, one of the farthest west districts in the US. By the time I got off work and headed to the polls, Carter had already conceded. I voted Libertarian in that one. (For the record, I regret my vote for GWB in light of his recent elitist drift.)

2008, my candidate lost. 2012, my candidate lost. Good. I think the cause would have been set back by either or both of those spineless, vindictive frauds.

In 2016, I was as certain as everyone else that Trump was going to lose but the alternative was too awful to contemplate. Trump improved my record.

All this is prologue. Two months ago I was predicting Harris would be the Dems candidate. She had checked every single one of the left's identity grievance boxes. She's good looking. She's from California. How could she not be nominated? She figured out a way. She showed us the person behind the image. She's just not very smart.

Now, with Biden's Ukraine woes and Bernie's stents, my money's on Warren. Mark my words. I've probably torpedoed her candidacy, too.

DarkHelmet said...

Can anyone list a reason why Kamala Harris should be president? Anything that would impel one to vote for her (rather than just against someone else?)

I can't.

Ken B said...

This raises one of the reasons why I gave up on Libertarians. They, ironically, are big supporters of shutting people up. The libertarian position would be that it is Jack Dorsey's property, he can ban Trump even without cause. Libertarian websites ban people at the drop of a hat. It becomes clear in discussions that they only care about navel gazing about “property rights”. Colleges can ban speakers and protestors, how can you object to exercising a property right? Free speech as a value or approach to debate really doesn’t register.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Funny how those with the fascist tendencies are the far left libs.

Michael K said...

Then, every time they ate pork for the next half year, her brothers would chant “here comes Spot”, at which time she would, of course, go crying from the table

When I was about ten, I got ten chicks and two ducklings for Easter, a typical thing for the days.

As summer approached, the roosters began to crow and the hens to lay pullet eggs.

By July, I was sent off to Wisconsin for a week to stay with friends. When I got back, the chickens and ducks had "been sent to the farm" we owned in downstate Illinois. We had a lot of fried chicken that summer.

gspencer said...

Scratch a Democrat, find a totalitarian.

First step, control who has the guns.

Then, control the people with those guns, prohibiting them from communicating or assembling.

cubanbob said...

Harris is an idiot. its obvious but for servicing Willie Brown she would be nothing but some rich guy's wife. As for Dorsey, if he wants to risk Fed action against Twitter let him go for it. I'm sure the BOD of Twitter will rethink who the boss at Twitter will be.

Birkel said...

Commenter "Law Prof" argues by assertion, above. "Law Students" should be demanding refunds.

Sebastian said...

"I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom."

Do any Dem power seekers value this broader concept? If they don't, do you disapprove of them enough to give up on your inclination to vote for pro-abortion power seekers?

gilbar said...

Sigivald said...
"Violence"?
I don't see what violence is in his "threat" of a legal action.


Mitch McConnell's twitter account was Suspended, because people threatened Violence AGAINST him.
So, yeah

chickelit said...

It cheers me greatly as a Californian to see Harris flail and fail. More please!

Lucien said...

I read Harris’s letter as posted by Axios. In it she says “the dictionary definition of a spy is”, and then quotes what is not “the” definition provided by the dictionary she cites, but only the second of three definitions given (for the noun). I bet when she was a lawyer she quoted judicial opinions using ellipses - and that it usually paid to read the source to find out what she left out.

Danno said...

If you've lost Althouse, ...

DanTheMan said...

>>I know Twitter is a private company

So were all those lunch counters in Alabama. Are you saying they had the right, as a private company, to serve some and refuse to serve others?

And if a small 1960's restaurant is a public accommodation, how is Twitter not?

Bake that cake, lefties.

chickelit said...

I hope Iowa destroys Harris’s presidential aspirations once and for all.

I Callahan said...

I know Twitter is a private company, and she’s only asking it to do something that it probably could choose to do without violating the constitutional right to freedom of speech. I’ve been through that topic many times on this blog, and I am strongly committed to the broad view of freedom of speech, freedom that includes access to social media, and I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom.

Absolutely, perfectly said, Professor. The cop out that free speech is ONLY what the government allows just means broader free speech only exists in the abstract. Which is certainly not what the founding fathers would have envisioned anyway.

Marshall Rose said...

For those attempting to equate blog comment moderation with anti-free speech postion please note that AA is not advocating for the trolls that foul the waters here also be banned from 1)commenting elsewhere or 2)hosting their own platform.

Whenshe advocates for silencing people betond her own site, then you may have a point, until then it is apples and oranges.

I Callahan said...

Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?

How do these NDA's shut people up?

Iman said...

Clinton does not rule out a 2020 run, next day Sanders suffers “chest discomfort”.

Coinkydink?

gerry said...

It’s helpful to know that Harris’s orientation is

Well, she is Progressive, after all.

wendybar said...

Adam Schiff is caught in a HUGE LIE right now. He claimed on TV in September that he NEVER spoke to the Whistle Blower....turns out he lied again...When are people going to wake up????

Jon Ericson said...

Known Unknown said...
"Comment moderation has been enabled."

Perhaps you missed Fen posting hundreds of repetitive 50 line cow patties for a couple of days?
I'm not here everyday either.
If he can see his way to not do that, maybe we can get back to the Inga (asked to go away), and Chuck (asked to go away) show, featuring Drago.

cubanbob said...

Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?"

Unless Trump put a gun to their heads and said "your signature or your brains on the contract" then he didn't shut anyone up, they agreed to be quiet.

Bob Loblaw said...

Twitter won't suspend Trump because a company that's barely breaking even can't afford to alienate half its potential user base. They might never recover from the man with the world's biggest megaphone standing in front of the presidential seal and declaring "You can follow men on gab.ai".

Narr said...

A lot of people who should know better here think they gotcha, don't they Prof? Prof's wall, Prof's chalk, plenty of both to go around elsewhere.

Somebody referred to govt retirees who get paid regardless-- yes, so far. But don't think I expect my pittance to come in the form of bullion if and when things head south majorly.

Narr
Earned every pfennig

stlcdr said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
"I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom."

Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?

10/2/19, 11:09 AM


Today, on 'one thing is not like another thing'...

Steve Witherspoon said...

President Trump didn’t create the left’s hate, he didn't create the left's bigotry, he didn’t create the left’s irrational aversion to truth and facts, he didn’t create the left’s anti-American and anti-Constitution ideology; however, Trump's intentional trolling of the political left has inspired the political left to rip off their false facade and self-reveal their true colors in signature significant ways!

President Trump is pro Make America Great Again vs the political left is America has never been great.

President Trump is pro rule of law vs the political left is anti rule of law.

President Trump is pro freedom of speech for all vs the political left is anti freedom of speech for all.

President Trump is pro Constitution vs the political left is anti-Constitution.

President Trump is anti-ILLEGAL immigration and border control vs the political left is pro-ILLEGAL immigration and uncontrolled borders.

President Trump is pro business vs the political left is anti-business.

President Trump is anti-socialism vs the political left is pro socialism.

President Trump is anti-totalitarianism vs the political left is pro-totalitarianism.

All President Trump has to do is voice a stance on anything and the political left will oppose it.

Etc, Etc, Etc...

The political left has shown their true colors and they're using their own bigotry, hate, and a pompously overzealous ideology to crush themself. The political left has backed themselves into a corner and it's all or nothing for them right now, they have to go for broke.

Kamala Harris is the only 21st century version of the Democratic Party ideologically pure choice for their nomination; she’s a pompous progressive, she’s a non-white black person, she's a woman, she’s a social justice warrior, she’s anti-constitution, she’s woke, she’s panders to all the appropriate identity tribes, and she want's the job. Sounds to me like she’s the perfect Democratic Party nominee for modern progressives to latch onto in their last ditch effort to destroy the United States. If they win, they win big; if they loose, they'll blame it all on Trump and another election conspiracy theory (they're building the foundation for that right now).

Paddy O said...

Is this a separation of powers issue?
Does a senator have a right to call for the silencing of a President?

A Senator is telling a company to silence the President, when (if I recall) the President was required to not block any user on Twitter because this is a public forum and it would violate freedom of speech for the President to silence a citizen.

Mark said...

Yeah, with Sanders feeling the bern today, he's effectively out.

whitney said...

So then he goes to gab. It's not like what he says publicly is going to be ignored. They think it's the medium but it's actually Trump that's interesting. That would be a real Boon for gab wouldn't it

itzik basman said...

...What she’s said puts her out of the running for my vote...

Unlike you, I a Canadian only have a notional vote. But she put herself out of the running for that vote by her conduct during the Kavanaugh hearings. Her baseless unanswerable questions rife with sinister imputation that she couldn’t back up were noxious demagoguery. Her self satisfaction at asking them kicked the noxiousness up a notch.

Seeing Red said...

2 more reasons why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote:

HerSheand Pelosi

The first Speaker of the House and she’s deliberately and maliciously forcing the country into civil war. What a wonderful legacy for the Female head of the House:

Via Insty:

...Meanwhile, with her decision to proceed with impeachment by fiat, Mrs. Pelosi has set many disturbing precedents—none more terrible than the idea that all you need is a willing speaker and you can put a congressional committee in permanent impeachment mode, using its powers to try to overturn an election....

Jim at said...

then there's a real chance that social media would fragment into different platforms that exclude opposition political views.

As opposed to the current social media platforms who already exclude certain political views?

mrmartind40 said...

Harris will be toast shortly, and back on her supine position.

Bob said...

Yancey Ward said, "Haven't all of the Democratic candidates criticized Twitter for allowing Trump to write stuff they think is inappropriate?"

None of the candidates think it's inappropriate. They're just upset Trump does Twitter way better than they do.

"It's NOT FAIR!!!!" (Crosses arms and pouts)

Bruce Hayden said...

“First step, control who has the guns.”

“Then, control the people with those guns, prohibiting them from communicating or assembling.”

This isn’t going to work in this country. Maybe others, but not here. As I mentioned last night, the other side is arming up much faster right now than they can ever be disarmed. Too many Americans know why the Militia Clause was included in the 2nd Amdt, and it has nothing to do with the National Guard.

Ann Althouse said...

“Ann, serious question: why does Harris' (offensive) authoritarian tendency to suppress speech mean that she loses your vote, but Trump's significant authoritarian tendencies (to suppress the media, lack of due process, executive aggrandizement, etc.) don't appear to have the same effect on you?”

I’m currently following the Democratic primary campaign and trying to make a choice. The choice in the general election will become relevant some time next year. The.GOP primary isn’t an active contest.

I don’t like any candidates, but I do make choices... as necessary.

Laslo Spatula said...

Narr said..."Somebody referred to govt retirees who get paid regardless-- yes, so far. But don't think I expect my pittance to come in the form of bullion if and when things head south majorly."

Ah. I'm not talking of the Big Collapse -- that's another conversation.

I'm talking about the people who would vote Trump out that are swathed in bubble-wrap from direct damage to the economy. (Indeed, you have had many press-types practically wishing for a recession to get Trump out).

They can vote for Boredom with less personal consequence.

Also: I love your comments, but when I read them the voice in my head sounds like Robert Shaw in "Jaws".

I am Laslo.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Shouldn't someone take effective actions against ICE members?

I have a relative who works in management for ICE. She changed all her social media handles and removed all photos of her family, cars, home, anything identifying in the least. This was done at the direction of her superiors after several of her peers were doxxed and their homes were vandalized.

You didn't see that in the media, did you, but you sure heard right away about that poor victim of Karen Pence's bigot school, didn't you.

Yancey Ward said...

What I would like to know, LawProf, is what has Trump done to "suppress the media"?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump doesn't suppress the media. The media is full-force democrat party operative/narrative. The media are worse than ever. It's not even bias at this point. It's full blown democrat party advocacy.

Trump has the balls to call them out.

Of course on the left, this means "Suppression!"

Impeach!

narciso said...

well gabbard does display some moderate impulses, but she's still for the disastrous green nude deal, and thinks impeachment is thinkable,

narciso said...

the back story, is Dorsey tilted the social media scales enormously in 2008, and 2012, for Obama, the Russian snipehunt carried out by the Chertoff-hayden kristol is all about eliminating voices of opposition,

rcocean said...

Libertarians are in favor of the rights of the rich, middle class, and the poor.

The Rich and poor can both sleep under bridges. And the rich and the middle class can both regulate speech in their private portion of the public square. Both can deny anyone access to their quasi-monopoly TV networks, cable shows, newspapers, radio stations, and Social media. Its all about Choice/Freedom. If 500 rich people control what people think, we'll that's Ok - 'cause private property. And the other 320 million of us had better not squawk. That's communism boy!

BJM said...

Bleh said "Uh oh, Trump just tweeted BULLSHIT."

Yeah, and Fredo is clutching the drapes at CNN.

rcocean said...

Trump's significant authoritarian tendencies (to suppress the media, lack of due process, executive aggrandizement, etc.) = this is vague bullshit. How does Trump "suppress the media" ? What does "Lack of due process mean"? How does aggrandizement = authortarian. And notice the bullshit label of "authoritarian tendencies". What the fuck is "Tendency" mean in this context? Other than meaningless bullshit.

In case you've forgotten, Harris like other D candidates is in favor of packing the SCOUTS, getting rid of the filibuster (when D are in charge), ignoring the 2nd amendment, and getting rid of the Electoral College. And bringing back Busing. Whether we want it or not. She's a wanna-be-dictator in high heels.

BJM said...

O.M.G.!

Chief Executive Lawbreaker - Whiny Weasel Trumpkins said...

I am strongly committed to the broad view of freedom of speech, freedom that includes access to social media, and I disapprove of power-seekers who do not value this broader concept of freedom.

And yet power-seekers who do not even value a much older concept of freedom, such as Trump's desire to overturn the way we interpret libel laws, seem to either escape your notice or just not merit such opprobrium. Interesting.

Is it because Trump is the president and you hold an interpretation of presidential immunity/authority that gives him a pass on attacking our freedoms?

I'm not a fan of Harris. All she is doing is saying that the president should be held to the same standard governing Twitter's service agreement as any non-president should be. It's interesting that this idea of equal treatment needs to be attacked. And it seems to go entirely against what was founded here 243 years ago.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Ann, serious question: why does Harris' (offensive) authoritarian tendency to suppress speech mean that she loses your vote, but Trump's significant authoritarian tendencies (to suppress the media, lack of due process, executive aggrandizement, etc.) don't appear to have the same effect on you?”

Huh? Need a bit of documentation on each of your points on Trump. Otherwise, I will assume that you are a Dem sycophant repeating party propaganda by rote. For example, last I knew, Jim Acosta still had his Hard Pass, despite going well beyond the pale on multiple occasions. That doesn’t sound like suppressing the press, though a large segment of the population probably thought that his open sneering disrespect for the President had earned him far worse than merely revoking his Hard Pass to the White House.

chickelit said...

Vance said...Remember Hillary's campaign slogan? Wasn't it "Stronger Together?" And isn't that the literal translation of the Italian word "Fascist?

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion "Stronger Together." The fascia (bundle of sticks) was featured on the reverse of the US Mercury dime. And while the coin's design was associated with FDR, it actually predated his presidency by almost 2 decades and was in circulation from 1916-45. Read more here.

Bob Loblaw said...

Trump's "significant authoritarian tendencies"? What in the world are you talking about?

hawkeyedjb said...

"Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?"

Where is my criticism of Trump for... anything? Lost in the cacophony of Trump criticism that floats above every political conversation like a great, noxious unavoidable cloud. Criticism of Trump is such an over-served market that it's tough to get a word in. There are untold millions willing to make up for anyone's perceived failure to criticize Trump. Bullshit is a commodity, just like oil or wheat, and you have to know the market better than I do if you want to participate.

Law Prof said...

“Ann, serious question: why does Harris' (offensive) authoritarian tendency to suppress speech mean that she loses your vote, but Trump's significant authoritarian tendencies (to suppress the media, lack of due process, executive aggrandizement, etc.) don't appear to have the same effect on you?”

I’m currently following the Democratic primary campaign and trying to make a choice. The choice in the general election will become relevant some time next year. The.GOP primary isn’t an active contest.

I don’t like any candidates, but I do make choices... as necessary.

***

Thanks. That makes sense. I thought your original answer referred to the entire election. I've been surprised that, despite the Trump years, the democratic contenders seem to have not absorbed the dangers of an overly muscular presidency (with Harris being one of the worst offenders). But Republicans seem to have forgotten the same concerns that they had under Obama. Le plus ca change...

chickelit said...

It’s Presidential Harrisment.

Narr said...

Fasces--look at the decor of the US House chamber. Geez.

Narr
Let's all spin E Pluribus Unum

Narr said...

Robert Shaw? No kidding? Have to watch Jaws again, I guess . . . can't recall the detail.

Narr
Anyhoo, thanks, and likewise!

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

In KKKamala's 'Merica, this is real.

Illegal entrants get a pass.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

"significant authoritarian tendencies"

Beating Private Server for international Clinton Foundation Family slush fund candidate.

John Cunningham said...

So does Kameltoe Harris aspire to be Dzerzhinsky, Yagoda, or Yezhov?

walter said...

Laslo Spatula said.She will want Boring, and Boring will be much easier with Trump gone.
--
There will be nothing boring about the flight of capital and wealth should one of the prominent Dems get in and succumb to their louder base instincts.

walter said...

Sorry Laslo, posted right on the cusp of a multiple hour interval mod cycle.

Nichevo said...

Put their bias front and center while conveniently roasting their entire network.

Make them live up to their own damn standards, which is none.
10/2/19, 9:35 AM


Have we forgotten that the president of the United States can commandeer the airwaves at will? He can request time and be granted or refused, but he can take the time as well. I don't remember what the ramifications are, but if the networks want to be expropriated of their broadcasts an hour at a time here and there, that game can also be played. Under that framework, I wouldn't be surprised if he could commandeer Twitter channels as well.

Nichevo said...

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion "Stronger Together." The fascia (bundle of sticks) was featured on the reverse of the US Mercury dime. And while the coin's design was associated with FDR, it actually predated his presidency by almost 2 decades and was in circulation from 1916-45. Read more here.

10/2/19, 7:21 PM


Sure, but America First=genocide or something, right?

Chief Executive Lawbreaker - Whiny Weasel Trumpkins said...

Criticism of Trump is such an over-served market that it's tough to get a word in.

Perhaps the demand for authoritarian narcissists is weaker than you think.

wildswan said...

Criticism of Trump is getting boring.

n.n said...

"Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?"

NDAs are voluntary legal constructs. Defamation (e.g. allegations of diversity, projections of phobias, political congruence, anti-nativist rhetoric, witch hunts and warlock judgments) without cause is authoritarian.

chickelit said...

Sure, but America First=genocide or something, right?

America first, the Netherlands second.

Quaestor said...

Junior Jr. writes: Perhaps the demand for authoritarian narcissists is weaker than you think.

Cease using words one doesn't understand, else one risks being dismissed as foolish.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?"

I think that it was Stormy Daniels who took Trump’s money, signed the NDA, violated it, and was fined by the court for breaching the contract, as well as she, along with Avonetti her attorney, were, pursuant to the contract assessed attorneys’ fees. Keep in mind that she entered into the NDA voluntarily, and happily accepted the money from Trump that was the consideration he provided in the voluntary exchange. She had the legal right to reject Trump’s offer of her signing the NDA in exchange for his cash. She didn’t, accepting the cash instead. Anyone pretending that Trump did anything wrong here doesn’t understand basic contract law.

I should add that I spent a notable part of my legal career writing and negotiating NDAs, though never to silence a paramour. They were always useful in patent prep and prosecution, but became absolutely essential after the America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted roughly a decade ago that changed our patent system from First to Invent to First to File. I have literally dozens of them on my computer, collected from various companies and law firms throughout the last 30 years. They aren’t rocket science.

Ken B said...

John Cunningham
She is a prosecutor. Vishynsky.

J Lee said...

Coming from a one-party city in a one-party area of a one-party state, Harris may not deal well with contrary opinions having equal or greater voice than the conventional wisdom she subscribes to.

She also apparently doesn't understand business, since were Jack Dorsey to ban Trump, some rival social media messaging company would immediate pick him up and get millions of other subscribers, including progressives, since they would want to see and comment on whatever Trump's posted now. For a company that's had problems monetizing its subscribers in the same ways that Google and Facebook have, Twitter banning Trump would be a huge financial negative for the company.

Dan in Philly said...

If Ollie's can be considered to be subject to governmental regulation through the interstate commerce clause for buying supplies from other states, Twitter can be similarly subject. And therefore though private, also subject to the protections of government.

Skylark said...

"Perhaps the demand for authoritarian narcissists is weaker than you think.”

I am assuming this is your theory as to why Biden is falling like a rock.

Skylark said...

Authoritarians us the nations intelligence agencies like the CIA, NSA, FBI, IRS, FEC, etc, to attack their enemies. Authoritarians would pervert the “Patriot Act,” jus like Obama has

Skylark said...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/05/obama-defends-leak-prosecutions-first-amendment-223134

Skylark said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/08/trump-rages-about-leakers-obama-quietly-prosecuted-them/

MadisonMan said...

I am also surprised Harris was still in the running for an Althouse vote.

Skylark said...

The funny thing is that it would be impossible for Trump to “quietly prosecute” a leaker. It would be further grounds for impeachment and lead the news for a week.

Michael K said...

"Really, where is your criticism of Trump for using NDA's to shut people up and his interest in making it easier to sue for defamation?"

This is pretty dumb but consider the source. It certainly did not shut up that blackmailer. Or her pimp-lawyer.

Blogger is determined this will not be posted.

Tina Trent said...

I think I agree with LucidIdeas: Trump is the one person who could jump-start one of those alternative platforms pledging free speech.

Everyone should listen to the two Joe Rogan shows where the head of twitter talks -- six hours total -- about his vision of America and exactly how and why they are designing and implementing the destruction of free speech. It is a template for totalitarianism and as such important, though difficult, to hear.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

It becomes clear in discussions that [Libertarians] only care about navel gazing about “property rights”.

I think you misspelled weed and 'sex work.'

Danno said...

How Orwellian of Ms. Harris. A dangerous lady that anyone still sane should not support for President much less dog catcher.

narayanan said...

@ Bruce Hayden

Is NDA contract simply terminated by returning the money consideration at inception ?

Nichevo said...


Laslo Spatula said...
My guess is that whatever nominee the Democrats put up will be one that Althouse can vote for


Of course, including Harris, because AA will say that was just the primaries. If KH got the nod, AA would fall in line; the rationalizations will be spectacular. Fortunately for her, KH will not get the nomination. But she will vote for some other enemy of freedom.

narciso said...

All the social media platforms have the same view

Fernandistein said...

Apparently Harris and Booker coordinated and/or planned and/or supported Jussie Smollette's anti-white hate crime as propaganda in support of their idiotic "anti-lynching" law:

"This was an attempted modern day lynching." -- Kamala Harris

"The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching." -- Booker.

And something very similar for the 12-year-old and her family's anti-white hate crime, apparently committed in support of a "no discrimination based on dreadlocks":

"Reporter [Turner] Behind False Dreadlock Story Promoted Family’s Beauty Products Before Viral Hate Crime Allegation"

"Turner spent the hours before the supposed attack advocating for a “natural” hair law that would criminalize discrimination based on dreadlocks, then used the incident as evidence for why such a law should be enacted."

John henry said...

Blogger narciso said...

All the social media platforms have the same view

Gab is pledged to be the free speech alternative to Twitter. My understanding is that their policy is that they will not ban any speech that is not illegal under federal law.

Mastodon is a bit different because it is a network of "instances", each with its own rules and guidelines. One can set up an instance which links to all other instances. However, other instances can block yours.

Or something like that. I looked into it a couple years ago when it came online and found it confusing. The main thing I remember about it is that there is no central locus of control like Twitter, Gab and most other services.

John Henry

narciso said...

Major, i dont know about mastodon, gab has been 'tagged' with the 'little tail'

narciso said...

Never mind:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Cam_Cawthorne/status/1179724381565722625

I am pilgrim is quite a page turner

narayanan said...

Adding to previous @ Bruce Hayden

add lawyers all >>> can an NDA contract simply be terminated by returning the money consideration that was accepted at inception ?

John henry said...

Narayanan,

Not a lawyer but have signed a hundred or more ndas over the years.

My understanding is that, once signed, ONLY the entity issuing it can cancel it.

If they accepted return of the money, one might argue they had revoked it absent some specific agreement otherwise.

I can't see them accepting the return of the mone though.

John Henry

Kirk Parker said...

IANAL either, but the Daniels/Trump NDA is a little different than the ones that John, Bruce, and I have signed or issued over the years. Mine (and I assume theirs) have involved the sharing of (presumable) trade secrets or the like, and do not include any monetary payments.

They generally run like this: you agree to share with me your Very Valuable Idea, in return for me promising to keep it confidential and agreeing to consequences x, y, and z if I fail to do so.

Other than the promise of confidentiality, this kind of NDA had little or nothing in common with the other kind; and in particular has no way of being backed out since once the secret knowledge has been imparted, there is no way to go back to the status quo ante.