White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy."
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 22:26 last edited by
The White House privately demanded Twitter ban me months before the company did so
Biden Administration officials asked Twitter to ban me because of my tweets questioning the Covid vaccines, even as company employees believed I had followed Twitter’s rules, internal Twitter communications reveal.
In a White House meeting in April 2021, four months before Twitter suspended my account, the company faced “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” a Twitter employee wrote.
The employee recounted the meeting discussion afterwards on Twitter’s internal Slack messaging system. The message, and others, make clear that top federal officials targeted me specifically, potentially violating my basic First Amendment right to free speech.
The First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Twitter. But if the companies are acting on behalf of the federal government they can become “state actors” that must allow free speech and debate, just as the government does.
Previous efforts to file state action lawsuits against the government and social media companies for working together to ban users have failed. Courts have universally held that people who have been banned have not shown the specific demands from government officials that are necessary to support state action claims.
In my case, though, federal officials appear to have gone far beyond generically encouraging Twitter to support Covid vaccines or discourage “misinformation” (i.e. information that the government does not like).
Instead, top officials targeted me personally.
More at the link, including screenshots which I'm too lazy to link.
-
The White House privately demanded Twitter ban me months before the company did so
Biden Administration officials asked Twitter to ban me because of my tweets questioning the Covid vaccines, even as company employees believed I had followed Twitter’s rules, internal Twitter communications reveal.
In a White House meeting in April 2021, four months before Twitter suspended my account, the company faced “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” a Twitter employee wrote.
The employee recounted the meeting discussion afterwards on Twitter’s internal Slack messaging system. The message, and others, make clear that top federal officials targeted me specifically, potentially violating my basic First Amendment right to free speech.
The First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Twitter. But if the companies are acting on behalf of the federal government they can become “state actors” that must allow free speech and debate, just as the government does.
Previous efforts to file state action lawsuits against the government and social media companies for working together to ban users have failed. Courts have universally held that people who have been banned have not shown the specific demands from government officials that are necessary to support state action claims.
In my case, though, federal officials appear to have gone far beyond generically encouraging Twitter to support Covid vaccines or discourage “misinformation” (i.e. information that the government does not like).
Instead, top officials targeted me personally.
More at the link, including screenshots which I'm too lazy to link.
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 22:33 last edited by@George-K said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
top officials targeted me personally.
I am also too lazy to look further . . . my first question is: why would the White House care enough about this guy to go to all the trouble?
-
@George-K said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
top officials targeted me personally.
I am also too lazy to look further . . . my first question is: why would the White House care enough about this guy to go to all the trouble?
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 22:38 last edited by@Catseye3 said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
@George-K said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
top officials targeted me personally.
I am also too lazy to look further . . . my first question is: why would the White House care enough about this guy to go to all the trouble?
Maybe they thought that saving even a single human life from disinformation campaigns is important.
-
@Catseye3 said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
@George-K said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
top officials targeted me personally.
I am also too lazy to look further . . . my first question is: why would the White House care enough about this guy to go to all the trouble?
Maybe they thought that saving even a single human life from disinformation campaigns is important.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 22:45 last edited by
The government leaning on private companies to censor people does not anger anyone?
Remember, the Biden Whitehouse is most likely gone in by the end of 2024. Now, just for shits and giggles, let's say Donald J. Trump is the next POTUS. Is everybody here comfortable with Mr. Trump silencing dissident voices by leaning on private communication platforms?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
The government leaning on private companies to censor people does not anger anyone?
Remember, the Biden Whitehouse is most likely gone in by the end of 2024. Now, just for shits and giggles, let's say Donald J. Trump is the next POTUS. Is everybody here comfortable with Mr. Trump silencing dissident voices by leaning on private communication platforms?
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 22:50 last edited by@Jolly said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
The government leaning on private companies to censor people does not anger anyone?
Remember, the Biden Whitehouse is most likely gone in by the end of 2024. Now, just for shits and giggles, let's say Donald J. Trump is the next POTUS. Is everybody here comfortable with Mr. Trump silencing dissident voices by leaning on private communication platforms?
Personally I was only joking, parroting what I believe to be the dumbest sounding common justification possible. I'm not a life is priceless guy.
-
The government leaning on private companies to censor people does not anger anyone?
Remember, the Biden Whitehouse is most likely gone in by the end of 2024. Now, just for shits and giggles, let's say Donald J. Trump is the next POTUS. Is everybody here comfortable with Mr. Trump silencing dissident voices by leaning on private communication platforms?
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 23:45 last edited by@Jolly said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
The government leaning on private companies to censor people does not anger anyone?
Joe Biden, whilst Obama‘s Vice President at the time, leaned on PayPal to cut off service to Wikileaks. I protested at the time.
As for this allegation of the White House telling Twitter to ban someone, I want to see an admission by the White House or some credible evidence before believing this allegation. As it is, this allegation does not appear credible to me.
-
@Jolly said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
The government leaning on private companies to censor people does not anger anyone?
Joe Biden, whilst Obama‘s Vice President at the time, leaned on PayPal to cut off service to Wikileaks. I protested at the time.
As for this allegation of the White House telling Twitter to ban someone, I want to see an admission by the White House or some credible evidence before believing this allegation. As it is, this allegation does not appear credible to me.
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 23:51 last edited by@Axtremus said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
I want to see an admission by the White House or some credible evidence before believing this allegation.
I know how to give oxygen should you decide to hold your breath.
Who's your buddy?
-
wrote on 13 Aug 2022, 01:47 last edited by
Intubation would not be high on my list of fun things to do...
-
wrote on 13 Aug 2022, 02:12 last edited by
@Jolly said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
Intubation would not be high on my list of fun things to do...
Oh, it’s a fun enough thing to do.
It’s just not a fun thing to experience.
-
@George-K said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
top officials targeted me personally.
I am also too lazy to look further . . . my first question is: why would the White House care enough about this guy to go to all the trouble?
wrote on 13 Aug 2022, 02:22 last edited byGuy who makes up a ton of shit and posts it online says WH tried to get him banned.
OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
I was only joking
-
Guy who makes up a ton of shit and posts it online says WH tried to get him banned.
OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 13:40 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
Guy who makes up a ton of shit and posts it online says WH tried to get him banned.
OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Yup, some people have an extended belief in their own importance.
-
Guy who makes up a ton of shit and posts it online says WH tried to get him banned.
OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
wrote on 16 Aug 2022, 14:28 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
Guy who makes up a ton of shit and posts it online says WH tried to get him banned.
OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
Don’t know anything about the guy except what googlepedia says… He did provide screenshots supporting his claim.
-
wrote on 27 Aug 2022, 23:44 last edited by George KLink to video
Go to 14:00.
-
Link to video
Go to 14:00.
wrote on 28 Aug 2022, 01:12 last edited by@George-K said in White House to Twitter: "Ban this guy.":
Go to 14:00.
Mr. Biden must be impeached.
