Image 01 Image 03

Twitter marks Trump tweet in violation of “policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm”

Twitter marks Trump tweet in violation of “policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm”

“Twitter is literally censoring the President of the United States for saying that violent anarchists will not be allowed to take over our nation’s capital & that law enforcement will act to protect public safety. In Big Tech’s Orwellian world, that’s “abusive.”” – Sen. Ted Cruz

Big tech and social media companies keep claiming they show no ideological partiality but their actions are far from congruent.

Tuesday, Twitter marked a fairly innocuous tweet sent by President Trump from his personal account as a violation of Twitters “policy against abusive behavior, specifically, the presence of a threat of harm.”

There is literally nothing abusive about the tweet whatsoever. But Twitter kept on.

Nailed it:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Gotta wonder why anyone bothers with Twits.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to NotKennedy. | June 23, 2020 at 9:32 pm

    Methinks Twitter just broke multiple laws.

      Methinks Twitter just broke multiple laws.

      Such as? What law could it possibly have broken? How could this be against any law? It is absolutely protected by the first amendment, so not only hasn’t Congress made any law that could stop it, it can’t. And if you want it to, then you are advocating the overthrow of the US constitution and all our liberties, which makes you exactly the same as antifa.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | June 23, 2020 at 11:55 pm

        It makes twitter a publisher by controlling content rather than serving as a mere platform.

          daniel_ream in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 24, 2020 at 1:52 am





          …do I have to post S.230 of the CDA before people stop peddling Prager’s BS propaganda:

          “(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

          No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

          Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 24, 2020 at 9:15 am

          No, it does not. § 230 explicitly says it does not, and that is the only reason Prof J is able to provide us with this forum we’re using right now.

          Further, even if Congress were to repeal § 230, the courts would probably eventually overrule the horrible NY state court decision against Prodigy, and decide that forum providers are not like publishers but like bookstores, which are entitled to refuse to carry books they don’t like, or to label them any way they like, without thereby becoming responsible for the contents of other books they carry but have not read. The catch is in those two words, “probably” and “eventually”. Providers couldn’t rely on those words, and gample everything they had on them. That’s why they lobbied Congress to pass § 230 in the first place.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 24, 2020 at 1:46 pm

          Facebook Content Moderator: ‘If Someone’s Wearing MAGA Hat, I’m Going to Delete Them for Terrorism’

          Weazil Zippers

          Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 24, 2020 at 2:39 pm

          Facebook Content Moderator: ‘If Someone’s Wearing MAGA Hat, I’m Going to Delete Them for Terrorism’

          That may get him in trouble with his supervisor, but if the company is OK with it then it’s perfectly legal and does not affect the company’s § 230 protection for whatever user-supplied content is not deleted. People with rational opinions should just not use Facebook.

        rdm in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 4:53 am

        Only if twitter wants to deny it should get about half the special protections it enjoys.

          Milhouse in reply to rdm. | June 24, 2020 at 9:17 am

          You want Congress to change § 230? In what way, exactly, and how could it do so without destroying the entire sector of interactive computer services, including this forum?

        dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 6:51 am

        I think Con Edison has the right to disconnect your electric power due to your odd political beliefs.

          Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 9:19 am

          Con Edison is a regulated utility. Krogers is free to ban anyone from its stores because of their political beliefs.

          dystopia in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 9:50 am

          Fine, then will just ban you from all supermarkets and food stores in NYC because of your political beliefs. Same effect.

          #BAN MILHOUSE!!!!

          It’s Milhouse endorsed.

          Ulysses in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 9:53 am

          Just ban Milhouse from any Pharmacy Chain that accepts his Medical Plan. He’d be free to go to other Pharmacies.

          Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 11:09 am

          Are you seriously suggesting I would have some legal recourse if that were to happen? What recourse do you suggest? What laws do you claim would protect me?

          Ulysses in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 12:29 pm

          You would not have any legal recourse. If you had skilled legal counsel, you might. But with you as lawyer you certainly have no legal recourse.

          Furthermore, in my opinion, such a ban would also make for good corporate governance. Pharmacies should ban you.

          Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 2:41 pm

          What recourse do you imagine even the best counsel could give me? It doesn’t exist. There is no law that compels a business to deal with someone they don’t want to.

          Ulysses in reply to dystopia. | June 24, 2020 at 4:49 pm

          Recourse for you. There is no recourse. It is truly hopeless. But if you were a woke protester with skilled legal counsel there would be much recourse.

          Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | June 26, 2020 at 1:16 am

          No, there would not. There is simply no law against it.

        Finrod in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 6:43 pm

        For good or ill, Trump’s twitter account is considered an official government record.

        Twitter has no right to tamper with that.

      I’m sure AG Barr is all over it. Get ready for another “tsk tsk” statement and that they are looking into it.

    Mostly because Twitter is one of the few ways we can see what the president’s actually saying vs. what the leftstream media “reports.” His Twitter is vital.

JusticeDelivered | June 23, 2020 at 9:49 pm

Time to trim Twitter’s wings. Also, Facebook and Google. Initiate antitrust action, break them up.

    Antitrust laws are inherently illegitimate, and anyone who advocates using them has no business calling himself conservative.

      starride in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 12:00 am

      I d9 believe there is a possibility to mak a case for election law violations. Corporations using employees to censor content has a monetary value.

        starride in reply to starride. | June 24, 2020 at 12:03 am

        Sorry for the spelling, I was on my phone and without my glasses.

        Milhouse in reply to starride. | June 24, 2020 at 9:28 am

        No, there is no such possibility. Twitter is entitled to spend as much of its own money as it likes on influencing people’s votes. It can turn the entire site into an explicit campaign against Trump. It can automatically append “#DumpTrump” to all tweets. And it still wouldn’t be liable for whatever content it didn’t provide and hasn’t read.

        That’s the core freedom the first amendment protects, so Congress has no power to make any law to prevent it. But if it were that blatant people would finally come to their senses and stop using it.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 1:55 am

      Milhouse, buddy, you’re trolling and you’re not even trolling well.

      Anti-trust laws have been around over a hundred years. They are there to prevent large concentrations of economic power from being used against the welfare of the country or against the people. That’s a a decidedly CONSERVATIVE principle. To say that large corporations should be allowed to wield excessive power in unprincipled ways and to be protected in doing so by the state is, in fact, fascist.

      Try again.

        Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 24, 2020 at 9:41 am

        Antitrust laws are indeed over 100 years old. And conservatives have opposed them that entire time. They are a legacy of the “Progressive” movement, They were created in the first place out of pure black evil vicious envy of Rockefeller’s wealth; their express purpose was to bring down Standard Oil, which he had built and created by his own efforts without anyone’s help. Principled conservatives opposed them then, and when they were used against Alcoa, and every other time. Because envy of those who have succeeded is an evil sentiment and not a legitimate reason for legislation. “You didn’t build that” represents everything we stand against.

      daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 1:59 am

      Unlike the rest of the peanut gallery, I actually value your commentary on the relevant laws (hey, peanut gallery: it’s a law blog. Maybe a little more emphasis on what the law actually says and little less on performatory outrage wouldn’t go amiss).

      Can you expand on your opinion on antitrust law? Beyond the infamous Microsoft case, which was just a staggering clusterf*ck by everybody involved, I’m not very familiar with the history of that legislation.

        Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | June 24, 2020 at 9:51 am

        My opinion is the standard conservative (i.e. libertarian) view that government has no moral right to forcibly interfere in an economic relationship which all parties enter into without coercion, for their mutual benefit. Mere size doesn’t give government such a right. And the application of antitrust laws is fascism, because it penalizes people for breaking “rules” they could not possibly know in advance. Under antitrust law a company can be penalized for setting its prices too high, or too law, or just right.

        The classic case, which was the original motive for these laws in the first place, is Standard Oil, a business that created an industry and did well entirely on its own efforts, without bribing politicians. So the politicians hated it, the “Progressive” left hated it, with a vicious slander campaign they whipped up populist hatred of the rich, and passed a law to take John D down a few notches and show all other rich men what can happen to them if they don’t pay the right bribes. Which is what happened to Microsoft.

      Right. Running a thriving economy requires that there be no rules so someone finally wins the monopoly game. Just think how much better it would be to have “no rules” football or baseball or anything else. Civilization is about rules. LAW AND ORDER!

      Your libertarian nonsense takes us to the same place as the other anarchists currently running riot in our streets and government: chaos.

        Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 24, 2020 at 9:57 am

        In a free market there is almost no such thing as a monopoly. Someone who, through a combination of superior service, popularity, and good luck, finds himself with a large market share can’t take advantage of it because the moment he does some competitor will start eating his lunch. Freedom makes monopoly nearly impossible; government regularly creates monopolies. Other than De Beers there has never been a monopoly in a free economy, and after an unexpectedly long time even it eventually had to resort to government regulation (“blood diamond” laws) to protect itself.

        Standard Oil was not a monopoly, and did not behave like one. It couldn’t afford to.

          drednicolson in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 8:23 pm

          One of the best ways to help the little man is removing onerous government regulations, not adding them. Big business, up to a point, secretly doesn’t mind the regs. It can float the cost of compliance. Meanwhile, those same regs raise the barrier to market entry for potential competitors. The “greedy fat cats” on Wall Street don’t have to keep the little man down when the government is doing a great job of it for them.

          It’s a classic leftilibral con job. Laws they claim will protect us from abusive monopolies are in actuality, promoting market dominance by their preferred corporate leviathans. Feel-good non-solutions to a non-problem.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2020 at 1:21 am

          drednicolson, it’s not a secret. Big Business has always openly supported regulation, for the exact reasons you state.

          See, for instance, the way the big Chicago meatpackers took advantage of the uproar following the publication of The Jungle and its mass of dubious and false allegations. Rather than debunk them, which they could have done easily, they played the public hysteria up, and used it to demand regulation, which they promptly used to drive their smaller competitors out of business.

It’s as of they desperately want to be broken up as a monopoly, or forced (by legislation and the threat of stupendous fines) out of the censorship business.

But no. Liberals never think of consequences. When the inevitable hits the fan, they’ll be surprised and terribly outraged.

Even worse, twitter banned Carpe Donktum also.

NEWS: Twitter has “permanently suspended” @CarpeDonktum, pro-Trump meme account behind the “manipulated media” CNN “racist baby” video that Trump shared

Twitter says the account was axed due too “repeated” “valid copyright complaints,” per spox to @ABC News

— Will Steakin (@wsteaks) June 23, 2020

We might get our collective legs over the problem if Ted Cruz and Kevin McCarthy knew powerful people currently serving in congress. If only.

I guess we’ll just have to settle for strongly worded tweets and forcefully written memoranda.

SpaceInvader | June 23, 2020 at 10:10 pm

We need an internet bill of rights. That’s the only thing that will stop the madness.

    UnCivilServant in reply to SpaceInvader. | June 23, 2020 at 10:21 pm

    “You have the right to hear the approved leftist position. You have the right to enthusiastically espose the approved leftist position. You have the right to join a hate mob against the unperson of the minute.”

rabid wombat | June 23, 2020 at 10:27 pm

Content provider or editorialist….your choice

Chose wisely, as there are consequences….

    Milhouse in reply to rabid wombat. | June 24, 2020 at 9:59 am

    Twitter is 100% responsible for the content it provides. It’s not responsible for the content it doesn’t provide, and which it hasn’t even read and has no idea what’s there unless someone reports it.

      GWB in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 10:16 am

      Until, of course, they actually take responsibility for it – by censoring it. Especially when that censorship only consistently goes a single direction.

        Milhouse in reply to GWB. | June 24, 2020 at 11:14 am

        They’re obviously not responsible for the content they censor — even a newspaper is not responsible for what it leaves out. On the contrary, that’s what they’re expected to do. The whole point of this argument is your insane call for them (and Prof J) to be held responsible for what they doen’t censor, even if they have no idea that content even exists. That’s what the Prodigy decision said, and what Congress enacted § 230 to prevent.

          GWB in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 1:18 pm

          And a newspaper doesn’t have 230 protections.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 24, 2020 at 2:44 pm

          Precisely. Newspapers are publishers, and yet they are not liable for what they delete. § 230 says interactive computer services are not like newspapers, and are not liable even for what they don’t delete, so long as they didn’t write it.

Don’t be a twit. Cancel Twitter.

If Jack Dorsey secretly had a death wish for Twitter…what would he being doing differently than what he’s doing now?

    Aarradin in reply to MarkJ. | June 24, 2020 at 3:35 am

    Twitter’s users are virtually all libtards.

    Particularly, journalists.

    Since they invent their “stories” rather than actually committing acts of journalism, they have lots of free time, and they all spend it on Twitter. All day every day.

daniel_ream | June 24, 2020 at 1:56 am

“You have the right to use someone else’s computer for free any time you want” seems like it might have some unintended consequences.

I double dog dare Twitter to ban the President, you know they want to. So just do it already.

Twitter would have banned FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower, and just about every one of the Allies leaders in WWII. You can’t say bad things about people even when at war and under violent siege.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 24, 2020 at 10:01 am

    You finally hit on something true.

    “Chamberlain warns Hitler: If you invade Poland we will be met with serious force!”

    Twitter: This is against the public interest because it threatens harm against an identifiable group, the German army and nation.

If Trump really wants put a stop to these uncontested BLM etal attacks, crush the one in DC. The POTUS controls DC so stop tweeting about it. Just do it. Then DO another one somewhere else. The tweeting can wait once the hard cold message of reality is out. Do it!!!

This is in direct contradiction to the court case insisting Trump couldn’t block people from his feed.

So, I think Trump should now block all those “nasty people” on his Twitter feed. Then challenge Twitter (or anyone else) to go back to court over it. Let’s fill the pool with mud and start the ‘rasslin’!

    Milhouse in reply to GWB. | June 24, 2020 at 11:20 am

    No, it is not in any way a contradiction. You continue to misrepresent that decision. The court correctly found (because there was no other choice) that Trump’s twitter account is a government account used in his official capacity for government business, and therefore that the “comment section” (so to speak) of that account is a limited public forum, subject to the first amendment. It can be regulated, and such regulations don’t have to be content-neutral, but they do have to be value-neutral.

    Had Trump not converted his account into a government account, had he kept it his private account as it had been before he became president, then it would not be subject to the first amendment.

    Since Twitter itself is not a government entity, it is not subject to the first amendment and can impose whatever rules it likes; the fact that this account is operated by the US government doesn’t exempt it from Twitter’s own rules.

Comanche Voter | June 24, 2020 at 2:04 pm

Don’t know if Twitter broke any laws here. But they, once again, did reveal themselves to be a giant sucking cesspool of lefty garbage.

I hope I can throw a bit of hope into trumps presidancy re-election I live in UK (and am horrified to see your country the way it is)but in December the UK voted in a conservative gov( you republicans thank F*&K)in the lead up Labour(your loonyocrates)thought the could not fail the far left was pulling the strings convinced they were on their way to victory and then election day ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh their worst election since 1935 the were decimated everywhere even in the (wonderful north usally labour strong hold)people woke up to the far left inside labour I pray your country does the same in November GL from the UK

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to 1969kappa. | June 25, 2020 at 2:12 am


    …..and the leftists thought they could pull that crime in large part because of their Traitor Media