Should Twitter Be Charged for MAGA Kid Threats

Should Twitter Be Charged for MAGA Kid Threats

Should Twitter Be Charged for MAGA Kid Threats

They’ve had enough. Some of the families of the maligned Covington Catholic students are considering taking legal action against the media who smeared their sons. Good for them. But should Twitter be charged when threats of death or violence are made against others on its platform, especially in hot cases like this?

There may be a US code that could fit that bill.

It’s U.S. Code § 875 dealing with Interstate Communications. Letter (c) reads like this:

“(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

Considering the threats the Covington students have received just since this weekend, should Twitter be charged for allowing these tweets to stand? Or its CEO, Jack Dorsey?

should twitter be charged

Jack Dorsey. Credit: JD Lasica @ flickr. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

For example, when CNN’s Reza Aslan posted this question on Twitter, which included a Covington boy’s picture. . .

“Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?” 

. . . users reported it to Twitter as abusive. However, Twitter responded with this:

“We have reviewed your report carefully and found there was no violation of the Twitter rules against abusive behavior.” 

Even though Twitter’s policy also says this:

“You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people.”

But wait! there’s more. Lots, lots more.

Consider Jack Morrissey — a Disney producer who makes family movies — who would love to see the “MAGA kids go into the woodchipper.” He protected his account, but, of course, the internet is forever. Especially for famous people who suddenly regret their dumbass social media droppings.

Then there’s a Blue Check guy named “Uncle Shoes” who posted this beaut:

“If you are a true fan of Shoes I want you to fire on any of these red hat bitches when you see them. On sight.

— Uncle Shoes (@HouseShoes) January 21, 2019″

So the vile Uncle Shoes wants his lackeys to kill the Covington kids. Kinda like Charlie Manson sending out his murder squad to Cielo Drive.

How does this not violate Twitter’s oh-so-righteous policy against “abusive behavior?”

But the Covington kids aren’t the only ones to receive threats from Twitter’s sociopath mob. Consider last week when Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was sentenced for shooting teenager Laquan McDonald in 2014.

Apparently Van Dyke didn’t receive a long enough sentence for some. One charmer went to Twitter promising to pay anyone who would beat up Van Dyke’s teenage daughter:

“$500 to the first person who beats Jason Van Dyke’s daughter up and I’m not joking in the slightest” 

The not-so-gracious Jasmine Annise, who tried to strike that bargain, deleted that tweet — probably because readers at the cop blog Second City Cop posted a screenshot of her brain droppings. But dear Jasmine found out that Chicago cops were onto her threat and deleted her tweet. How do I know this? Because her Twitter profile page says:

“If you’re here from the cop blog remember: killing black people is uncool.”

Yeah, well so is beating up innocent white girls.

Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh is certain that at some point, someone is going to get killed:

“. . . it’s only a matter of time before a victim of a media-led smear campaign winds up dead. What will the inciters and orchestrators of the outrage mob say then? “We had no idea it would come to this”?

You know how the MeToo crowd cried “enough is enough?” It’s time to say the same thing about Twitter. Already a Breitbart writer is promising an article on “Verified Bullies” — naming names of the celebrities who call for ‘death, violence, and open calls for doxxing,’ and who conveniently fly under Twitter’s “abusive behavior” radar. Good for Breitbart. And maybe it’s time to wield the hammer of U.S. Code § 875 to charge Twitter when they ignore threatening tweets made against people whose politics they don’t like.


Featured image: cropped, from Free usage license. 

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!

  • GWB says:

    Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?
    serious physical harm
    Well, punching someone in the face isn’t serious physical harm, now is it? (At least not when a soy boi tries it.)

    Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat
    That word is the key. Twitter does not transmit, it is a broadcast mechanism. The user transmits. That’s a pretty solid legal precedent. (They’re the radio, which can’t be held responsible for what someone sends to it.)
    Now, since they seem desirous of censoring certain sorts of speech, they might be held responsible for conspiring to violate civil rights. And they could conceivably be argued as an accessory to incitement (assuming an actual crime is committed or should be expected to be committed), since they failed to take down the offending tweets after being notified.

    • Kim Hirsch says:

      I’m no lawyer, but I do think it’s worth examining, especially if, as you say, Jack and Twitter can be charged with accessory.

    • rocketride says:

      Actually, since they DO pick and choose between ‘transmitters’ they open themselves up to prosecution and/or lawsuits. The phone companies’ indemnification is a direct result of their NOT monitoring or interfering with or even encouraging what is communicated over their lines or cellular connections.

  • Jim says:

    This reminds me of Henry II: ”’Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” So three knights travelled from France to Canterbury and killed Thomas Becket in the cathedral. Sooner or later some needy, unstable disciple of the progressive fascist Left is going to hunt down some person marked as fair game on the internet. Those who manage the different forums, Twitter, Facebook and so on have to manage in anticipation of such a possibility.

    • SDN says:

      Obama at his inauguration “joking” about using the IRS against his enemies.

      IRS: Let’s deny Tea Party groups tax exemptions.

      Obama: Show a document where I told the IRS to do this.

      Obama was the best practitioner of the Henry II Doctrine I’ve ever seen.

  • windbag says:

    Social media are one of two things, but not both. Courts haven’t determined which they are yet.

    If they are public utilities, in a sense third party conduits of information/communication, then they cannot edit content. Since they have engaged in editing content, then they have abandoned that neutral position and have in spirit and deed become the second option.

    The are publishers. Since they engage in subjective editing, they control the content of their platforms.

    It will take some time (and probably a ton of cash) to maneuver through the courts, but I think* that facts are on the side of innocents such as these Covington students to pursue damages against the individuals who posted slanderous and threatening messages as well as the editors of the social media who allowed the content.

    It’s high time people were held responsible once again for their actions.

    *I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v. Just my $.02, which may be an inflated price.

  • jorod says:

    Even National Review libeled these kids….

  • Larry Folds says:

    I believe Debra Messing, Alyssa Milano,and Kathy Griffin’s homes should be burned to the ground, these women should be forced to eat excrement and possible die of food poisoning. They are pigs.

  • Grayjohn says:


  • Strayhorse says:

    Clearly being a racist is not exclusive to whites and neither is supremacy as exhibited by the self proclaimed black Israelite’s; or how about La Raza – the race; or the Black Panthers; or AIM – the American Indian Movement: or maybe the various gangs and cartels throughout America that prey on one race over another? Stop pointing fingers at just Caucasians. Evil is evil no matter the color, religion/faith, gender, sexual preference,age, political affiliation or nationality.

    • SFC D says:

      You clearly have not been paying attention. Only whites can be racist. Any other group is “speaking truth to power” or “standing up against white patriarchy”. You are not “woke”.

      Most people will recognize this as sarcasm. Others, however, regard it as gospel truth.

  • connie frist says:

    Vote with your feet. Stop patronizing the enemy.

    • SDN says:

      The problem with that is that they win by driving conservative views out of the latest incarnation of the “public square”. And that’s what they are.

  • I think Dorsey should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned; not because that is how the system should ideally work, but because the left -including Dorsey – have made us post-Constitutional. They’ve torn up the social contract, are quite comfortable with censoring libertarians and conservatives, while promoting death threats and violence against us. If these are the rules they want, make them live by them. It would be crazy to spend our time defending their rights to violate ours.

    Unfortunate, but that’s where we are.

  • SFC D says:

    How difficult would it be for the parents of these kids to just pick up the phone, dial 911, and report a Twitter death threat to the police? You have a verified name on the “blue check” account. No, I’m not calling for SWATing. Just a report of a credible, verified death threat or threat of physical harm.

  • […] Just saw this – Hoo-Dawgie! The Social Medias may have overstepped themselves – BIG […]

  • JALJAL says:

    “What will the inciters and orchestrators of the outrage mob say then? ‘We had no idea it would come to this’?”

    No. They will say the victim deserved it, after all, and repeat the Sin of the victim, and the slanders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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