Lin Wood, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression

Lin Wood, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression

Lin Wood, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression

Attorney Lin Wood became a hero to conservatives when he took on Nick Sandmann’s defamation suit, and won. They cheered to see Big Media getting its comeuppance after it nearly canceled the young teen’s future.

But then the Georgia Senate runoffs happened, and Lin Wood advised Georgians to refrain from voting for the Republicans. And conservatives scratched their heads and went Whaaat?

It didn’t make sense that the strong Trump supporter would advocate for allowing GOP Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler to lose. That was just the start of Lin Wood going cray-cray, however.

On January 4, two days prior to the January 6 Electoral College challenge, Wood set off a volley of unhinged tweets. Not only did he accuse VP Mike Pence of being a “traitor,” he also pulled Chief Justice John Roberts, child rape and murder, and something called the Lizard Squad into a lengthy thread.

Here are just a few of the choice tweets:

“Mike Pence @vp @mike_pence is disloyal to @realDonaldTrump. Mike is also a traitor to We The People.

Mike is a good friend to CCP. Too good.”

“I believe Chief Justice John Roberts & a multitude of powerful individuals worldwide are being blackmailed in a horrendous scheme involving rape & murder of children captured on videotape.

I have the key to the files containing the videos. I have also shared this information.

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) January 4, 2021″

“This blackmail scheme is conducted by members of 10 of world’s most well-known & “elite” intelligence agencies.”

“One of those groups was hacked by a group known as Lizard Squad. The blackmail files of rape & murder were obtained by this group & copy was provided to Isaac Kappy. — Lin Wood (@LLinWood) January 4, 2021”

“The blackmail targets are approached with a gun, a child, & a camera. The target is ordered to rape the child on video. The target is then ordered to shoot the child on video. The target is then owned & controlled by the blackmailers until blackmail evidence loses its value.

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) January 4, 2021″

Well, okay then.

But if you want to search out the entire thread at Twitter, you won’t find it. That’s because it kicked Lin Wood off its platform. However, you can read it at Legal Insurrection, the excellent conservative website run by William A. Jacobson, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. Prepare to raise your eyebrows throughout.

I believe I captured a screenshot of Lin Wood’s final tweet, because within a few minutes poof! his account had vanished.

Here is the screenshot. Wood accused Vice President Pence of sexually abusing teenage boys.

Lin Wood

Click to enlarge.

Lin Wood has also made his way to Parler, as have many conservatives. Right away he began ranting about Mike Pence and conspiracies to execute President Trump:

“Good afternoon! I am hearing rumors that Pence and leaders of coup are planning to arrest & execute President Trump and his followers. 

Typical move by Communist tyrants. . . .”

He also threatened Pence with execution:

So guess what Parler did? They removed this comment.

Hold on — Parler is the free speech platform, right? So why did they remove this ‘parley’?

Because it does have its rules, and one of them is that members don’t encourage violence. Rule 6.1.2 states:

“However, reported parleys, comments, or messages sent using our service will be deemed a violation of these Guidelines if they contain: an explicit or implicit encouragement to use violence, or to commit a lawless action, such that: (a) the Parleyer intends his or her speech to result in the use of violence or lawless action, and (b) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of the parley, comment, or message.”

Plus it is against the law to threaten public officials — little thing like that, you know. So yes, Parler correctly removed this comment.

Parler CEO John Matze has also confirmed that the platform did remove some of Lin Wood’s more incendiary parleys. Wood, however, claimed ignorance and called his comments “hyperbole:”

“If such action occurred, I received no notification of it. My post about Pence was rhetorical hyperbole conveying my opinion that his actions on the Electoral College vote were treasonous to We The People.”

However, my search of Parler shows that Wood took down his @linwood page at Parler and replaced it with @theLinWood. It appears that he has quite the fan base there, too.

Which, if we’re going to be consistent about free speech, we should support.

Lin Wood, in my opinion, is an unhinged kook who dabbles in conspiracy theories and wild claims. His extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence — of which he has provided none.

But he should be allowed to run his mouth on social media, since the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression. Moreover, the more he rants, the more reasonable people can see how demented he is.

Even his young client, Nick Sandmann, realized that Wood went off the deep end:

Lin Wood has cooked his own goose, and destroyed his credibility all by himself. He doesn’t need social media to shut him down and turn him into a QAnon martyr. Let him rant.

 

Featured image: Wally Gobetz/Philadelphia – Old City: First Amendment monument/flickr/cropped/CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0. 

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

9 Comments
  • John Wilson says:

    Stuff is hitting the fan. Wikileaks dump. The Italian Job featuring Obama and now Lin Wood. Stay tuned!

  • Hate_me says:

    I was debating joining Parler. No longer.

    I don’t give two shits about Lin Wood, but I don’t like censored speech, period. If it’s illegal, let the law sort it out. If it calls for violence, and someone enacts violence because of it, let the potential victim defend himself and the law perform its due diligence (limited though that should be). If it’s immoral or otherwise unacceptable on a personal level, ignore it. Censorship is un-American and, while I support the right of individual platforms to censor, I don’t support platforms which do so.

    In a fight between Stupidity and Ignorance, Wisdom does not try to break it up.

  • 370H55V says:

    And Sidney Powell chose him to represent her in Dominion’s lawsuit. Sidney, you’re an accomplshed lawyer too, and know best not to try to do it pro se, but don’t you think you might find a better advocate?

  • Uchuck the Tuchuck says:

    To Lin Wood, Adam Schiff, and all of the other members of the Legion of Hysterical Fools who claim to “have the evidence” of adventures on Pedophile Island or Russian Collusion or any other sinister cabal et. al. ad nauseum: Put up or shut up. You claim to have it, let’s see it, or shut the Hell up already.

  • Sparkle Spangles says:

    If a customer is in a store ranting, raving, and saying that a politician should be assassinated, is it violation of the customer’s first amendment rights if the store throws him out? I’m just wondering where you draw the line, Lil’ Kim.

    • Kim Hirsch says:

      Perhaps you missed this from my post:

      Hold on — Parler is the free speech platform, right? So why did they remove this ‘parley’?

      Because it does have its rules, and one of them is that members don’t encourage violence. Rule 6.1.2 states:

      “However, reported parleys, comments, or messages sent using our service will be deemed a violation of these Guidelines if they contain: an explicit or implicit encouragement to use violence, or to commit a lawless action, such that: (a) the Parleyer intends his or her speech to result in the use of violence or lawless action, and (b) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is the likely result of the parley, comment, or message.”

      Plus it is against the law to threaten public officials — little thing like that, you know. So yes, Parler correctly removed this comment.

      Try reading for comprehension next time.

  • GWB says:

    What worries me is that some people who were very instrumental in good cases – Wood here, also Powell – suddenly sound like raving lunatics. That doesn’t (normally) “just happen.” Past performance IS some guarantee of future results with humans. Without a medical emergency or some sort of brain harm they don’t suddenly go from sane, successful lawyers to raving madmen who see aliens when they put on their special sunglasses.

    Which seems to mean, either:
    1) Something has happened to both of them, at nearly the same time, which sounds awfully suspicious, or
    2) Maybe they really know something.

    The implications of that bother me.

    I will also say, however, that despite his legend from The Apprentice Trump seems a lousy judge of character in the people he chooses. He’s nailed it in a few circumstances, but he’s also produced a larder-full of “WTF were you thinking?” choices. 🙁

    As far as “Lizard Squad”, that sounds exactly like some group of hackers. They are often odd people who pick odd names.

  • Quentin Q Quill says:

    Hi Lil’ Kim

    Yes, I read what you wrote about Parler removing Wood. Later in your article, however, you stated, “But he should be allowed to run his mouth on social media since the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. You also wrote that Wood took down his Parler account and replaced it with another, writing, “Which, if we’re going to be consistent about free speech we should support.”

    It seems to me you are talking out of your mouth and ass at the same time. So Parler was correct to remove Wood because he promoted violence but we should support Wood returning to Parler under a different account name because of the right to free speech?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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