Previous post
Twitter is again failing to equally apply their user policies. Hateful speech from multiple users is ignored, but a Tweet from Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign results in a timeout.
The timeout takedown, from multiple sources, including Politico
A Twitter spokesperson said the @Team_Mitch account was “temporarily locked out of their account for a Tweet that violated our violent threats policy, specifically threats involving physical safety.”
Team Mitch is playing hardball politics to get banned for this violation. Only, he was the victim of a threatening mob of people, protesting at his home. The protest event was recorded outside of his house, and posted on official reelection Twitter account.
The victim, McConnell, tweeted the antics of the mob. And then got banned for it. The threats directed at him include this “kindness” from Black Lives Matter Louisville leader Chantelle Helm,
[she] is heard on the video mocking McConnell’s recent shoulder injury and saying he “should have broken his little, raggedy, wrinkled-ass neck.” She then yells, “Just stab the mother fucker in the heart, please.”
This is how the “violation” of Twitter policy went down. Some people did something, and others got blamed. If he was a Democrat it would be no big deal to post hateful comments and video. Nina Bookout covers the obvious Twitter bias here.
Fox News “The Five” addresses Mitch’s Twitter timeout, and the risk to anyone not “With US.”
Twitter is a private company, and users agree to their standards. The problem arises when the company fails in equal application of the policy with every user, they discriminate. People expect fairness and, gasp (!), equality in how they are treated. Twitter blatantly disregards their own rules by giving Liberals special treatment. The violations required to find a liberal pet in timeout are egregiously offensive.
Candace Owen famously tested Twitter, and validated their policy bias. Her tweet resulted in a timeout, while the one she copied almost word for word remained on the platform.
Twitter has a very clear policy that has been repeatedly violated without penalty.
We also factor in the intent of the person sharing the information. For example, if we believe that someone is sharing information with an abusive intent, or to harass or encourage others to harass another person, we will take action.”
Texas congressman Joaquin Castro used the Twitter platform to release the names of Trump donors. His “intent” wasn’t meant as a positive affirmation of political freedom. It was specifically to shame and cause harm to those donors. Karma delivered repercussions where Twitter failed. Six of his donors were on the list.
From the Washington Examiner,
Donald Kuyrkendall, president of a San Antonio commercial real estate company, shared concern about his family’s safety and wondered what the Castro brothers hoped to gain by the Twitter outing of Trump donors. “Were his intentions to incite people to picket Bill Miller’s barbecue or to come to Don Kuyrkendall’s house, you know, assault my wife, make nasty comments?”
Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of @BillMillerBarBQ, owner of the @HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc.
Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’ pic.twitter.com/YT85IBF19u
— Joaquin Castro (@Castro4Congress) August 6, 2019
Despite this obvious disregard for their rules, Castro remains unrepentant, and active on the platform. Amanda Green delves deeper into the story here.
Freedom of Speech is embedded in every American. We hold censorship in low regard, especially when practiced in a capricious way. With a lock hold on a massive venue of communication, Twitter is functioning as judge/jury/jailer for the users. The appeal process is contrary. Mitch McConnell’s campaign manager, Kevin Golden expresses it well,
“This morning, Twitter locked our account for posting the video of real-world, violent threats made against Mitch McConnell. This is a problem with the speech police in America today. Twitter will allow the words of ‘Massacre Mitch’ to trend nationally on their platform, but locks our account for posting actual threats against us …. We appealed and Twitter stood by their decision, saying our account will remain locked until we delete the video.”
Until the video of actual threats is removed, the Twitter page is locked.
Incredible.
This is the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, getting censored by Twitter over a video where McConnell himself is being threatened. #FreeMitch https://t.co/oaase4ep4A
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) August 8, 2019
Tactics like this have been used in the past. By repressive regimes bent on Authoritarian governance.
Featured Image: Flickr Credit: Esther Vargas License: CC BY-SA 2.0 Image cropped: 400×400
Scott says: She then yells, “Just stab the mother fucker in the heart, please.”… seems video evidence of such a threat against a sitting Senator should earn this hag some time in jail, then a nice prison stint after her trial…
I actually disagree that crime against elected officials earns the perpetrator a higher punishment. Equality is paramount in our society, and punishment for a crime should be standard as well. This crowd was certainly disturbing the peace, and as a neighbor I would have called the police. Words are not acts, and shouldn’t be treated as such. Should she be held accountable by society at large ramblings? Sure. But punishment for speech is exactly what Twitter has done. It’s censorship and, subjective as heck. I’d like to think that most people are made of sterner stuff to withstand a couple mean words hurled their way. When it crosses the line, and there is incitement, it’s criminal. Here she’s just a loud nuisance bully.
Scott says: Narcissi,
I agree that there shouldn’t be a difference, but it was my understanding (quite possibly wrong) that it IS currently different under the law..
As to the speech not being actions, I agree with this as well, and calling names, etc is something that people need to get over, including the dreaded “nigger” word… as we learned in grade school, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. But in this case, it seems that such comments would fall under inciting violence, and to me, that does cross the line you mention. Calling him “massacre Mitch” is just words, asking followers to stab him in the heart? different thing all together..Of course she’d claim that wasn’t her actual intent, and of course, she’d be lying…
“intent” is hard to prove. Just ask the good folks at Twitter how that’s working out…:) But freedom of speech does carry responsibility for the outcome. Had someone acted upon her statement that would be different, and “horrific” were she a conservative. You are correct that current law adds extra protections for Congress and other politicians. Just like “hate crime” laws, it’s wrong and violates the equal protection clause. If hurting a Congressman because of their job results in a tougher sentence, shouldn’t the same be applied to Law Enforcement targeted because of their job? They are not protected equally by the system.
Scott says: “You are correct that current law adds extra protections for Congress and other politicians. Just like “hate crime” laws, it’s wrong and violates the equal protection clause.”
I don’t disagree at all. Sad part is congress violates the equal protection clause all the time, including health benefits, pension, etc.. it all needs to stop. If they were 100% subject to some of the crap they foist on us “regular folks”, it’d never see the light of day!
Thanks again for all your thought provoking posts!
5 Comments