Laura Loomer Handcuffs Herself to Twitter HQ to Protest Her Twitter Ban
Twitter is a private entity and can enforce their terms of service as they see fit, but they’re not fooling anyone with the “impartial” schtick.
Last week, Professor Jacobson blogged about Laura Loomer who was kicked off of Twitter for criticizing incoming Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
Loomer is a “controversial” figure because of her bold tactics, such as getting in the face of left-wing politicians and shouting out provocative questions. Those are tactics that the media normally defends when directed at Republicans. She also challenges Islamism, which makes her anathema to the left-leaning media. This all gets her put in the “far right” media box.
In protest, Loomer handcuffed herself to Twitter’s NYC headquarters.
From The Washington Times:
Laura Loomer, a conservative activist and provocateur recently suspended from Twitter, handcuffed herself to a door outside the company’s New York City headquarters Thursday in protest.
Ms. Loomer, 25, started the stunt shortly before 4 p.m. Thursday, eight days after her Twitter account was suspended over a tweet criticizing Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat.
“I’m here for the millions of conservatives who have been censored by Jack Dorsey,” Ms. Loomer said after shackling herself to Twitter’s headquarters Thursday, referring to the company’s co-founder and chief executive.
“I put away the key,” she added. “I’ll be here as long as it takes.”
Twitter “notified the relevant authorities who are responding,” a company spokesperson told The Washington Times.
Ms. Loomer “was suspended for violating our policies,” said the spokesperson. “We apply the Twitter Rules impartially and not based on ideology. “
The incident ended after roughly 2.5 hours when New York Police Department officers used bolt cutters to sever Ms. Loomer’s handcuffs at her request, The Verge reported. She was not placed under arrest, the report said.
Twitter keeps claiming they are not targeting anyone based on ideology, but Loomer blew up tweets made by Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan that tell a different story.
Laura Loomer blew up Louis Farrakhan's tweet calling Jews 'termites' and showed it side-by-side next to the tweet that she was banned over where she called out Democrat Ilhan Omar for being pro-Sharia law and then listed off how Sharia law targets women and the LGBT community. pic.twitter.com/4d1CzZ8dQW
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 29, 2018
This is the tweet that Loomer blew up and put on Twitter's building.
She wrote underneath it: "NOT BANNED FOR HATE SPEECH."https://t.co/vK5O0fLQ0y
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 29, 2018
Here's a close up of the tweet of hers that she blew up.
She wrote underneath it: "BANNED FOR HATE SPEECH" pic.twitter.com/vHLORE7XOV
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 29, 2018
As Professor Jacobson pointed out, you’re only at risk of being deplatformed if you’re a “right-winger.”
If you are an Islamist anti-Semite like Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, or Congresswoman-elect Ihlan Omar, you are safe. If you are the military wing of Hamas, you are safe. If you are an unhinged anti-Trump conspiracy theorist, you are safe.
If you are accused of being “far right” (regardless of whether that’s an accurate description), you are at risk.
Conservative pundit Jesse Kelley was recently suspended from Twitter. Only have two US Senators called attention to the issue was Kelly’s account reinstated. There’s a growing list of pundits and activists on the right who are being kicked off one of the largest social media sites for alleged “hate speech” while the anti-semites go untouched.
Twitter is a private entity and can enforce their terms of service as they see fit, but they’re not fooling anyone with the “impartial” schtick.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How can the banning of conservatives be nothing but embarrassing for the twats at Twitter!?!
Maybe when Twitter, Facebook and Google all bury the story.
They can do what they want, but they need to quit saying they are impartial.
…And I just repeated the last sentence. Oy!
I disagree. They are a Monopoly and can be regulated the same way as the cable company.
I think they have proven that they are all about the content of their site by their inconsistencies, so the rules of a business responsible for the content should be immediately and completely imposed.
A monopoly or practice, maybe. A utility, subject to regulation, likely.
Interesting that all these “Social Media” companies are Leftist, Anti-America, Anti-White, and Anti a Woman’s right to defend herself (own a gun)…coincidence or intentional?
This is being planned.
classify it as a public utility and watch the fun….
are conservatives/libertarians not capable of creating a con/librtn version ?
Well, there’s Gab.ai, and the unbearable political incongruence of free speech, equal not “=”.
An alt-Google would probably share public subsidies.
There is also the preference of 0.1%ers, domestic and foreign, and super de-mocratic le-verage.
This is actually an important, even critical question. While there is evidence of monopolies and practices, what would it take to build and sustain an insurmountable margin?
Public subsidies, including welfare, is one. Private subsidies, including charity, is another. Increasing numbers, and reducing per-capita profit, is a third. Brand characterization (e.g. “conservative”, “progressive”), pro-native vs anti-immigrant, etc. is a fourth. Tolerance, not necessarily normalization, consistency, is a fifth.
Good actions? Good perceptions? Good outcomes?
Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic? Political congruence or profitable? Diversity, including racial leverage?
Maybe once Camel Toe passes her bet neutrality law these fuckers could be the first victims…Sorry I mean the first criminals prosecuted under the democrats intraweb laws 😉
“Net Neutrality” is about shared responsibility, or subsidizing broadband producers.
She’s got energy. How can we support her?
@4th Armored
I’ve often asked the same question myself. I’m disabled and have cognitive decline because of it, there’s not much I can do. But if a 20-year-old Zuckerberg can create Facebook, and a bunch of twentysomethings with zero business savvy can create Twitter, why the F can’t we create a functioning business in this sector? Supposedly, creating economically Viable business is is what we do, but we are total strikeouts in every part of social media.
Because you don’t have the 0.1% behind you.
@4th Armored
They can and they have. Gab replaces Twitter, Mind replaces Facebook and Bitchutte replaces YouTube.
But besides the normal technical ramping up issues they have other problems. Microsoft, Amazon, ISPs, payment providers are blackballing them. Gab in particular.
Not to mention that they’re called neo-nazi, blah, blah, blah.
This one should have interned with James O’Keefe to learn the finer art of investigating and exposing evil.