Citing Censorship And Bias, Laura Loomer Chains Herself To Twitter Office [VIDEO]

Citing Censorship And Bias, Laura Loomer Chains Herself To Twitter Office [VIDEO]

Citing Censorship And Bias, Laura Loomer Chains Herself To Twitter Office [VIDEO]

Folks, guess what? I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Laura Loomer. Who is Laura Loomer you ask? She is a extremely right wing tinfoil waving crazy person in my opinion. She’s trending on social media right now because she was banned from Twitter. She’s trending because she chained herself to Twitter’s NYC headquarters in protest of that ban.

Far-right activist Laura Loomer handcuffed herself to Twitter’s New York City headquarters for about two hours on Thursday afternoon to protest the company’s banning her from the social media platform, then asked police to remove her.

Loomer attached herself to the building’s front door, blocking the entrance to the building in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood in a protest that was livestreamed on Periscope, which began at about 3:45 p.m. ET.

The video stream showed Loomer wearing on her chest a yellow Star of David such as many European Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust, and a sweatshirt that read on the back, “#STOPTHEBIAS.”

What got her banned? This tweet.

“Isn’t it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate ‘women, LGBTQ, and minorities’ is a picture of Ilhan Omar?” she tweeted. “Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro-FGM Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish.”

For someone as in-your-face as Laura Loomer is, that tweet is pretty innocuous. But you see, she went against one of the new favored Democrat darlings, Ilhan Omar. And what we are finding out is going against the Democrat Left who run social media can get you banned.

The thing is, Ilhan Omar has an incredibly problematic record which we’ve outlined here and here. Powerline has written extensively about her, and PJ Media’s David Steinberg has written about her dubious record on multiple occasions.

So essentially what Laura Loomer tweeted is correct and yet Twitter banned her. Hence her protest.

Laura Loomer has a point. Twitter is NOT an impartial platform. Louis Farrakhan was only temporarily suspended from Twitter for calling Jewish people termites. Jesse Kelly gets permanently banned and then suddenly reinstated but no one knows why. But they weren’t the only ones. Just yesterday teen conservative CJ Pearson’s account was locked, and then unlocked. Twitter’s reason? His age. Except that CJ is 16. NOT 13.

Twitter tried to ban James Woods, and that didn’t go well. Given recent events, Instapundit shuttered his twitter feed and others are considering doing so.

Twitter is also banning or permanently suspending folks for daring to use science correctly regarding folks who’ve changed their gender. It’s something called ‘deadnaming.’ Evidently calling someone by the name they were christened with is wrong and gets you banned. In other words, calling Caitlyn Jenner Bruce on Twitter is a big fat no no these days. 

The platform also recently banned progressive feminist writer Meghan Murphy for questioning the premises of the transgender movement in tweets the company said violated its “hateful conduct” rules. Murphy posted the following blistering response online: “This is f**king bulls*** @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi billion dollar company is censoring BASIC FACTS and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is INSANE.”

Yes, Twitter is a private company. However, Jack’s stance that they are continually working to be non-biased is increasingly suspect. Fox News hasn’t tweeted since November 8 after the news of the attacks on Tucker Carlson’s home and his daughter were revealed.

“Shares of Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) tumbled 6 percent on Thursday after reports that Fox News had not tweeted for three weeks sparked fears of a backlash by conservatives protesting a perceived liberal bias by the company,” Reuters reports.

Twitter, in response to Laura Loomer’s protest, proffered up this explanation.

HAHAHAHAHA!! That’s incredibly laughable given all the recent bans and suspensions by Twitter.

Photo Credit: Screen capture via Periscope

Was Laura Loomer wrong to protest her ban? Nope. Not at all. Was she wrong or misguided to wear the Star of David during her protest? IMO, yes.

Yes, exactly.

Was Twitter wrong to ban Laura Loomer? In my opinion, yes. The platform has seriously misstepped in recent weeks. The platform’s explanation above regarding her ban is ludicrous.

Twitter has a censorship and bias problem and it’s not Laura Loomer.

Feature Photo Credit: screen capture via Periscope

Written by

5 Comments
  • Paladin says:

    To Yellow Star or Not to Yellow Star, that is the question. . . In a general way, I’m wondering how long it’s going to be before TCM pulls The Producers, and other Mel Brooks hilarities, like High Anxiety. Nothing is funny anymore, nothing can be parodied, the Prog Borg and Lickspittle Media are imposing a blackout on all independent thought. Alas, wearing the Yellow Star isn’t big enough pushback. Too many on our side are playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules, while the other side goes for the jugular, plucks out your eyes and stabs you in the groin with a meat fork.

    • Tannhauser says:

      After watching Mel Brooks mega-politically incorrect “Blazing Saddles” , SJWs will need a safe space the size of Greenland!

  • MikeyParks says:

    Sure Twitter is impartial; If a Conservative criticizes the Left, he’ll get banned. Likewise if a Lefty criticizes the Left, he’ll also get banned. Anyone see the catch there?

  • GWB says:

    Who is Laura Loomer you ask?
    I ask that a *lot* about Twitter personalities. And “tv news” personalities.

    that tweet is pretty innocuous
    “Mild” would be another word. As would “true”.

    Evidently calling someone by the name they were christened with is wrong
    Shouldn’t we force them to apply this to “maiden” names, too? Calling someone by their pre-marriage name would be the same thing, right? After all, they changed their name for identity purposes, and using their “maiden” name invalidates that identity, so…….
    *pulls pin, tosses rhetorical grenade over cubicle wall*

    We apply the Twitter Rules impartially and not based on ideology
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Loomer said it best about that statement:
    This is f**king bulls*** @twitter.

    All those who stood up for @JesseKellyDC who are now mocking Laura Loomer for protesting her Twitter ban
    Well, those *are* different. Because the same people who were upset at Kelly’s banishment also protested Loomer’s banishment. But Kelly didn’t do something silly like wear a Star of David and handcuff herself to Twitter’s front door.
    FWIW, I think her protest was a little silly, but I certainly don’t begrudge her right to do so (except for blocking access, which is a crime).

    Yes, Twitter is a private company.
    OK, this is where it gets difficult. Yes, they are a private company, but they control an entire communication medium. Since there is not a way to move a twit tweet from Twitter to some other medium (that I know of) and have it reach people NOT signed up for Twitter, it sits in the position of Ma Bell in the 70s: controller of a near-utility or utility.
    If Twitter were merely one player in a multi-micro-blogging ‘verse, and a Company X or Company Y user could receive and retransmit tweets from Twitter and Twitter users could pick up Companies X and Y transmissions and retransmit them, then it would be more like texting is now. I can text to people not on my cell phone network (well, I can sometimes, because my carrier sorta sux where I live), and they can text to me. So, if my carrier sucks or they want to ban me for sexting my girlfriend or defending haggis or whatnot, I can just decamp and move to a different carrier.
    Since Twitter and FaceBook (in at least some aspects) are closed networks (“stovepipe” technologies, rather than open ones), they operate much more as monopolies. In doing so, they should receive more regulatory scrutiny.

    Now, counter to my argument above, there *are* alternatives. They are not, for example the sole means of communicating over the internet or posting funny cat videos. RSS still exists if you want to know every time JimBob posts something new on his blog. That’s a totally neutral technology, available without the need for a middle-man.
    Build yourself a website and post your cat videos there. (Learn to code and post cat videos from other people’s websites.) Blog/opine there. Heck, you can even be anonymous on your blog, unlike FarceBook.
    But, you can’t communicate to Twitter and FaceBook suckers users without signing up for them.

    But, of course, Twitter and FaceBook are “free”, and there’s loads of people signed up, so it’s the go-to medium for micro-blathering – with all the accompanying pains of monopoly, property rights, and power over speech.

    • GWB says:

      Ironically, the WWW was built specifically to obviate stovepipe applications.

      (And, why do my comments look so much shorter in the typing box than they do when posted? Yeesh.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram