Elon Musk’s releasing of Twitter files proves what so many thought

December 13, 2022

It is possible that there is a new person atop the left’s “Most Disliked Person” list. And that person, replacing former President Donald Trump, is the new owner of Twitter, Tesla owner Elon Musk. Or maybe Musk will merely be added to the list below Trump’s name.

Twitter and Facebook have long been criticized for censoring certain kinds of tweets and posts, including those of conservatives and those whose opinions run counter to liberal thinking. Now that Twitter is not owned and operated by someone who believes in censorship, things are changing. And evidence to support the long-held beliefs that social media sites were infringing on free speech is coming to light.

Not only is the censorship of certain topics now shown to be fact, but some, perhaps many, of the items censored were valid and important.

One conservative user, “Stanford University's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya — a longstanding opponent of a COVID groupthink during the pandemic who expressed opposition to lockdowns" was placed on the site’s secret blacklists, as reported by Fox News, which is as bad to the left was Twitter was good.

This man is no average guy expressing an uneducated opinion. Yet, in its efforts to protect a faulty narrative, Twitter blacklisted him.

Bari Weiss, founder and editor of The Free Press, posted on Twitter earlier this month that, “A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics — all in secret, without informing users.”

Her revelations are all based upon information provided by Musk from Twitter files he has released.

"Twitter denied that it does such things," Weiss noted. "In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said, ‘We do not shadow ban.’ They added, ‘And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.’" Former Twitter owner Jack Dorsey said as much in a Congressional hearing.

One technique used is visibility filtering, a senior Twitter employee told Weiss: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.”

 A post on msn.com offered the following: “Liberals on Twitter panned the latest ‘Twitter Files’ revelations from Elon Musk and journalist Matt Taibbi Friday which showed the internal communications of Twitter leading up to the decision to ban former President Donald Trump from the social media platform in early 2021.

“The third ‘Twitter Files’ installment – this time dubbed, ‘THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP,’ presented documents showing that Twitter staff banned Trump not solely based on tweets he made during January 6th, but on the ‘context surrounding’ Trump and his supporters’ actions ‘over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.’”

And more inside information: A member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning Schmidt, said, “Free speech is not an absolute human right,” at a Politico Europe event. “It has to be balanced with other human rights.” Schmidt may have said what’s what in Denmark, but that’s not the way things are in America, where free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And that includes unpopular speech.

What we know and are learning shows that the mindset of Twitter’s boss and employees was one of cheating, censoring speech by deplatforming, suspending users, and other techniques to achieve its liberal/progressive goals, including winning the election of 2020.

“Deplatforming is certainly an effective tool when it comes to countering terrorist and like-minded extremist groups online. But the fact that this tactic is being used against individuals and organizations that do not fit these categories is a terrifying abuse of power,” reported The Washington Times.

“Such a tactic has proven to be just as effective in manipulating mainstream electoral campaigns. One of the most egregious examples of this was when Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post over the paper’s exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails and corruption. In other words, social media platforms baselessly characterized the Post’s investigative journalism as ‘misinformation’ and blocked it.”

The Times story goes on to say that a news report from the Media Research Center shows that some voters “would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they knew at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets.”

Twitter was and is a platform owned by a private company. According to webopedia.com, “Social media platforms are interactive digital channels that focus on the creation and sharing of thoughts, ideas, and information through virtual networks. These platforms enable users to take part in social networking by creating content, sharing their thoughts, commenting on other user content, and reposting it.”

Twitter and Facebook can control what is on their platform. They can prohibit truly dangerous language. But to take a political side, without a public statement to that effect, and then secretly censor the other political side is dishonest, and un-American.

Elon Musk has a good start to cleaning up Twitter, and hopefully will keep it politically neutral. Maybe Facebook will clean up, too.

Free speech: “Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”

September 13, 2022

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The rights guaranteed in the Amendment were selected first among the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights because of their importance to the well-being of the new nation. And free speech was the second of those freedoms to be listed.

John Milton, English poet and intellectual of the 1600s, understood the importance of the concept of free speech to individual and national freedom. He wrote, “Let truth and falsehood grapple … in a free and open encounter.” 

Under Milton’s sensible vision the American people must get information from a variety of sources to help them understand issues and craft informed opinions. This includes both speech that is liked and accepted by some individuals and groups, and speech which is not liked or accepted by some individuals and groups.

This idea is one of the most important in the founding of the United States of America, and one which has played a critical role in its success among the nations of the world throughout its history.

The rub comes when some people dislike certain points of view, and will not tolerate their existence in free discussion. Milton’s point, however, is that all points of view must be available for those interested in knowing them. 

In 1927, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis provided this advice: "The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio that “inflammatory speech -- and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan -- is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech ‘is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’"

Only the most severe and dangerous ideas should be overruled, which means not merely ideas that are disagreed with or that anger some people, but those which actually try to incite violence or endanger people. 

Yet many Americans work hard to thwart free speech. Worst of all is if and when the government tries to stifle dissent or controversial language, or participates with non-governmental entities to oppose some speech. 

On social media platforms, claiming posts and comments are “misinformation” or “disinformation,” these targeted offerings are deleted, and the writer often blocked from further participation. 

Author Salman Rushdie offered this opinion: “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” Rushdie was recently the victim of a vicious attack by an armed man, who may have been prompted by Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses,” and wanted vengeance for a message with which he disagreed.

In the campaign for the 2020 election, some posts and comments were labeled as false by these platforms, and removed. After the election, however, some turned out to be correct. But because ideas that should have been freely available were censored, participants were denied knowing this pertinent information.

Imagine a world where only some information is allowed. Who gets to decide what is and is not allowed for anyone to see? Who has that power? Who has that right?

Some prefer to advance their narrow ideas without the troublesome problem of having to prove those ideas are the best through open and free debate. After all, who does not understand that with only one idea being offered, it will be accepted by many people who might not have accepted it had contrary ideas been available to consider.

In addition to social media platforms, other places where different ideas should be open to discussion, such as opinion sections of the news media and schools, must be bastions of the free exchange of ideas.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) recently released the results from its 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings survey. This survey questioned 44,847 college students currently enrolled in four-year degree programs at 208 colleges and universities in the United States about their institution’s degree of speech freedom.

The highest score on a 100-point scale was 77.92, ranking it in the “Good” level of speech freedom. Depending upon which grading scale you apply to 77.92, it is only a C-plus, at best.

Five other institutions also were rated “Good.” Sixteen institutions were rated “Poor,” two were rated “Very Poor,” and one was rated “Abysmal,” with a numerical score of 9.91. Only 76 of the 208 institutions in this survey scored above 50.0, only 27 scored above 60.0, and just 6 scored above 70.00.

This is far below the level of free speech and open debate of ideas that should be occurring in institutions of higher education in the United States. 

An objective view of the free speech environment will clearly show many efforts to discourage and even ban ideas that some people or some groups do not like.

This is not healthy for our country, and it clearly violates the intent of the First Amendment.