Twitter

UPDATED! In Defense of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, Suspended from Twitter for Suggesting Motorists "Run Down" Charlotte Protesters

Chilled speech isn't like chilled vodka; it sends people out the door quicker than you might think. [UPDATE: Reynolds has been un-suspended.]

|

Updated (10:44 A.M.): Glenn Reynolds is back on Twitter. Scroll down to see this return-tweet.

One of the Internet's most venerable institutions—Glenn Reynolds, the University of Tennessee law professor who runs the popular aggregator site Instapundit—has been suspended from Twitter:

Instapundit.com

His offense was to tweet this in response to protests in Charlotte, North Carolina after a police shooting:

Twitchy.com

Reynolds defends his tweet at Instapundit, writing, "Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we've had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn't like me, I'm happy to stop providing them with free content."

Well, I hope he is reinstated immediately and keeps on giving Twitter "free content." Over the past 15 or 20 years, Reynolds (whom I interviewed for one of my very first stories at Reason, about the potential influence of the Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez) has been one of the most-interesting and thoughtful voices on the broadly defined right. He writes everywhere (I recommend especially his USA Today columns) and books such as An Army of Davids and The Higher Education Bubble are the product of an incredibly sharp and serious person with an eye on the possibilities offered by technological and cultural innovation. Since coming online in 2001 shortly before the 9/11 attacks, the Instapundit site has been nothing short of a godsend, collecting and sharing links on an immense variety of topics from electoral politics to private space exploration to human longevity to flash sales at Amazon (for these and other reasons, Reynolds is sometimes called "the Blogfather"). I don't always agree with the spin the various contributors put on current events, but it's the first or second site I check every day after Reason.com.

Glenn Reynolds

Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte, the idea that he is seriously inciting any sort of actual or real threat is risible. I can appreciate the various pressures that Twitter is facing from all sorts of perspectives. The service is constantly being asked to take material down for any number of reasons, and the requests aren't simply coming from SJWs with bees in their bonnets (indeed, it seems as if the most numerous requests from copyright holders). Twitter lists the most common reasons for suspending accounts here. This seems to be the relevant section in Reynolds' case:

We believe in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user's voice.

Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension….

  • Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism….
  • Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

Let's be clear: Twitter is a private company and has every legal right to act however it wants when it comes to creating and enforcing rules of conduct (at the same time, publicly stating rules and then failing to live up to them may provide redress for users). So, as with the banning of Milo Yiannopoulis, the alt-right Breitbart editor, we're not talking about classic censorship here in which the government clamps down on speech it finds offensive or subversive.

But that's hardly the end of meaningful discussion, is it? I suspect suspending Reynolds over this was a quick-trigger response by someone (or some-bot) at the service that will quickly be reversed. Certainly, the conversation at Twitter suffers if every tweet that gives offense is punished by a suspension, especially if the suspensions predictably target people from only one part of the ideological spectrum.

Twitter is already facing serious challenges from social-media services such as Snapchat and Instagram, each of which reportedly has more daily users. The last thing it can afford to do—or should do, given its stated commitment to free speech—is to become one more fainting couch in cyberspace where offense it taken easily and often and then acted upon. Twitter's blocking functions work well to help users dismiss and ignore trolls and idiots (however we each choose to define those terms). Better to work on constantly upgrading those sorts of mechanisms than to start suspending people such as Instapundit—the Blogfather, for cripes sake!—for tweets that are not particularly offensive or deplorable.

Chilled speech isn't like chilled vodka; it sends people out the door quicker than you might think.

Update: Here's the return tweet of the Blogfather:

NEXT: Movie showing and panel discussion of "The Moneychangers" next Wednesday in Philadelphia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reynolds defends his tweet at Instapundit, writing, “Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we’ve had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.”

    Good answer.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

      ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  2. I will say it again. I thought that net neutrality was supposed to prevent big, wealthy corporations from censoring what we could and could not receive over the Internet. Every time the subject of net neutrality was raised here, dozens of guest commentators would appear here to assure us that net neutrality was the only thing that would save free expression on the Internet. Where are they now?

    1. Political hucksters are worse than the cartoonish “snake oil salesman” that are used to attack the free market.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

        ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

    2. Meanwhile, Jack Jack’s best friend Deray has been posting violent imagery for several years without nary a word. Funny, that.

    3. I thought that net neutrality was supposed to prevent big, wealthy corporations from censoring what we could and could not receive over the Internet.

      Twitter is rapidly en route to bankruptcy and never had that many employees. So maybe net neutrality is working?

      1. Some consortium of media concerns is going to end up buying Twitter and accepting the annual loss as a cost of doing business. The platform’s existence just makes their lives too easy.

        1. Like Univision and Gawker

          1. Yeah. My personal bet is it will be NBC or Fox: both have the requisite mix of celebrity gossip, sports journalism, and politics.

    4. I thought that net neutrality was supposed to prevent big, wealthy corporations from censoring what we could and could not receive over the Internet.

      Nope, not that at all. Net Neutrality is about bandwidth, not content. It is supposed to prevent, for example, Netflix paying a service provider to prioritize Netflix’ traffic over that of non-paying competitors.

      1. “Net Neutrality is about bandwidth, not content.”

        No it isn’t.

        ” for example, Netflix paying a service provider to prioritize Netflix’ traffic over that of non-paying competitors.”

        See, thats content, and you’ve contradicted yourself.

        You’re just wrong.

        1. I thought it was the other way around. ISP would charge more for premium ‘lanes’ to customers or companies. I’m probably wrong.

          1. Doesn’t matter who initiates the transaction, but, yes, it is about forbidding people to be able to contract for a fast lane for their traffic. Liberals don’t like that.

        2. The issues are related–the primary problem with Netflix and other streaming services is that they flood the content providers with data during peak use hours, and mooch off of settlement-free interconnect. The solution for companies like Comcast was to charge Netflix a fee for the bandwidth they were hogging, a principle that’s not out of line considering that these streaming services act as if network infrastructure doesn’t cost anything to expand or maintain.

          Net neutrality supporters argue that Comcast and others are unfairly charging Netflix for the bandwidth they’re taking up, but that’s bullshit. If Netflix wants to ensure that their customers have 100% access to bandwidth, they should simply set up their own telecommunications infrastructure so they don’t have to worry about Comcast or others throttling their bandwidth down to serve Comcast’s other customers.

          1. And the fees associated gained from charging bandwidth hogs more, finances expansion of the network and guarantees access for hogs and light users alike. It takes a proggy brain to conclude that charging more for using more is somehow a bad thing or an injustice.

            1. Exactly. Point out to these people that content providers expanded their networks post-Youtube to handle the ever-increasing demand for bandwidth, organically, without any government mandate to do so, and they look at you as if you’d grown a second head. They simply can’t fathom that a business might adapt to changing demands on their business without the gentle fist of the government forcing those changes.

      2. Net neutrality exists to create a market for regulations, regulators, and politicians. Participants in the market will be purchasing the right to have their competitors hamstrung.

    5. I will say it again. I thought that net neutrality was supposed to prevent big, wealthy corporations from censoring what we could and could not receive over the Internet

      Oh, that’s precious; you really thought that that was what net neutrality was about?

      Net neutrality was crony capitalism, taking money from one group of people and handing it to another group of people, by force of law. I’ll leave it to you to ponder who wins and who loses with “net neutrality”.

  3. In the same exact way that the arrogant and overbearing ways of the JournoList created the vacuum that eventually led to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, the rabid lefties now running roughshod over the tech world like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are creating the vacuum that will inevitably eventually lead to the creation of their right-wing equivalents, as the almost total division and polarization of Americans continues to proceed at breakneck pace.

    1. Wow, I bet you’re a blast a parties. Dude, you are absolutely right, but do you have to be so grim about it?

      1. He could’ve at least changed the names to Jack Mehoff and Mark Fuckabird.

    2. There isn’t going to be a right wing Facebook. At best, there will be a peer to peer Facebook that will be liberal and have left and right wing voices without any real mechanism for censorship.

  4. Extremely ill-advised Tweet by Reynolds, regardless of whether you agree with the sentiment or not. I would be fine with Twitter suspending him were it not for the fact they selectively take action against conservatives… there have been way worse tweets by others that have been allowed to stay up.

    Let’s be clear: Twitter is a private company and has every legal right to act however it wants when it comes to creating and enforcing rules of conduct (at the same time, publicly stating rules and then failing to live up to them may provide redress for users). So, as with the banning of Milo Yiannopoulis, the alt-right Breitbart editor, we’re not talking about classic censorship here in which the government clamps down on speech it finds offensive or subversive.

    Weren’t you guys calling it “censorious” when the private nonprofit organization did not invite Gary Johnson to their debates, according to their objective, publicly-stated rules?

    1. Yeah sorry I can’t take seriously moderation from a company that allows the hashtag #killallwhitepeople but not this.

    2. Inviting a presidential candidate to debate and suspending a Twitter account be two different things, methinks. Got a link to them calling it censorious?

      1. Gary Johnson has been denied his rightful place in the presidential debates, according to the commission’s arbitrary and censorious criteria.

        link

        1. cen?so?ri?ous

          adjective: censorious

          severely critical of others.

          synonyms: hypercritical, overcritical, fault-finding, disapproving, condemnatory, denunciatory, deprecatory, disparaging, reproachful, reproving, censuring, captious, carping, sitting in judgment

          1. With that definition, “censorious” isn’t the right word.

            1. Call diction and complain at him. 🙂

              1. I heard STEVE SMITH’S diction you.

    3. Along those lines, I seem to recall that a little over a year ago, a schoolteacher used social media to invite people to join her in burning down a pizzeria owned by people who she felt had the improper opinion about same-sex marriage. Refresh my recollection: did the social media site in question ban or suspend her account?

      1. Alondra Cano, Councilwoman, published her constituents names, addresses and phone numbers on Twitter. They had the gall to question her support of BLM. So, she tweeted out their names and contact information to “expose their racism”.

        And yes – she is still Tweeting.

    4. That’s why he makes the distinction of “classic censorship”. Companies can and do censor things too, all the time. Look at TV. It’s well within their rights to do so, but it’s still censorship.

    5. But, they are a private company and can take whatever editorial POV they wish – that freedom of association which most of us favor. Having said that, they are indeed blatantly biased and Debbie Downer is correct above.

      1. Brick and mortor private businesses are required to provide equal access to their services to all rrgardless of physical differences. Think handicapped parking and ramps and such.

        Is providing eq0ual access to all different forms of opinion so far different ?

        Seriously asking .

        1. In the sense that it isn’t legally protected unless those opinions involve metaphysics, yes.

    6. “ill advised”? Screw that. run them down. I would never allow myself to be boxed in and trapped in my car by loons on the interstate. I may hestitate longer if alone, but wouldn’t hesitate one second if my family was in the car.

      The rioters are a direct and immediate threat that should be met with a full response.

    7. It’s different because one of those two things is political by it’s very nature whereas the other isn’t. I’m sure you can see the difference.

      Also, what exactly is ‘objective’ about 3rd party polling that consistently fails to predict outcomes or actual voter sentiment? I’ve seen numerous stories about the wholesale failure of polling yet people are still pointing to polling because it’s what we’ve been trained to do, facts be damned.

      The failure of modern polling techniques has driven some major players out of the business entirely as they acknowledge they no longer know how to predict these types of things, yet that is the very metric they use to determine presidential debate inclusion. How does one call that an ‘objective measure’ I wonder?

      Ballot inclusion is a far more sane metric to use in my opinion, but that isn’t the goal of the commission. Their goal is continue the duopoly that they control, not to have meaningful debate on a national stage.

    8. private nonprofit organization

      “Non-profit” doesn’t just mean you’re not making a profit. It’s a legal term for IRS filing purposes. “Private” and “non-profit” are two different things – if you’re a private organization (like Twitter) you can discriminate, if you’re a non-profit you’re not supposed to be able to. Hence the lawsuits against the CPD for violating their IRS non-profit status by demonstrating their discrimination in only inviting Democrat and Republican candidates to their “fair and impartial non-partisan” debates.

    9. Weren’t you guys calling it “censorious” when the private nonprofit organization did not invite Gary Johnson to their debates, according to their objective, publicly-stated rules?

      In a democracy where the government controls 40% of the economy, political parties, politicians, and their cronies are not “private nonprofit organizations” and shouldn’t be allowed to organize as such

  5. Vodka sucks.
    *swigs Steel Reserve*

    1. I bought a new bottle of Tequila and Gin last night and I was feeling cheap so I got some $15 bottle of New Amsterdam gin and a $20 bottle of tequila. I haven’t tried the gin yet but the tequila is noticeably less good than a $45 bottle of Herradura. 😐

      Vodka and soda water can be nice when you just want to get drunk on flavorless carbonated water.

      1. want to get drunk on flavorless carbonated water.

        ………………. why?

        1. Sometimes you want a nice glass of calvados and sometimes you don’t.

          ?\_(?)_/?

        2. want to get drunk

        3. prevent dehydration.

      2. New Amsterdam isn’t bad for moderately priced gin. It might be more expensive other places, but Broker’s Gin is excellent and under $20 where I am.

        You definitely get what you pay for (to a point) with tequila.

        1. The gin selection at the VA ABC store (ugh state run liquor stores) is kind of weak. jesse had given me some recommendations for gin and none of them are available.

    2. You can’t expect proles to appreciate the refinement of a fine malt liquor

      1. *and subtlety*

      2. There is an alcoholic grandma that lives near me that treks to the nearby gas station every day to buy forties of steel reserve.

        1. /shudders. That’s one of our punishment beers if you lose at Kan Jam.

  6. It’s interesting to see “services” of this sort always eventually devolve in social justice echo chambers. But whatareyougonnado? Their site, their rules. I give Mr Reynolds credit for a good reply.

    1. I’m a fan of the market. Why hasn’t the market provided us with better media? Is it because we (Americans) are terrible and this is what we want?

      1. There are and have been several competitors to Twitter.

        1. There are and have been several competitors to Twitter.

          Twitter is an unprofitable cash burner with no end in sight. The market can bear one like that, just for the potential, but more than one?

      2. I suspect that the answer to your second question is yes. It seems to me that the only people who are rabidly into social media are social justice assholes who just want a place to bitch about everything. Everyone else really only gives half a fuck (or less) about Twitter fights and other random stupidity and just turns it all off. Unfortunately too many people believe that the shit that goes on on Twitter means anything.

      3. The market is working fine. It’s just that Glenn Reynolds is not actually Twitter’s customer, so they have no reason to care whether he’s happy or not.

      4. I’m a fan of the market. Why hasn’t the market provided us with better media?

        It has. But there are a lot of stupid people out there, and Twitter is a honeypot for them. You should be grateful; without Twitter, we’d get a lot more jerks and idiots here than Tony.

    2. O’Sullivans Law: “All organizations that are not explicitly right-wing will over time become left-wing.”

  7. Chilled speech isn’t like chilled vodka; it sends people out the door quicker than you might think.

    But the echo chamber, like the array of strategically placed slot machines in a casino, keeps them from finding that door. People love them some echo chamber.

  8. Also, it’s nice to see a law professor say “Run them down” is an acceptable response to protesters blocking traffic. I posed that question here a couple weeks ago but only got snarky replies (go figure, right). I didn’t think a person’s right to protest should override another person’s right to move freely.

    1. I think its a response to rioters pulling people out of cars, or at least delivering a credible threat of doing so. In which case, yes. If you are surrounded by a group of people making a credible threat of violence against you, you should use any weapon at your disposal to exit the situation with your life and health intact.

      1. I agree. Remember the Asian guy who ran over the motorcycle gangsters in New York a year or two ago. One of the gangsters was a cop.

        I don’t think the Asian guy was charged, and rightly so. He was defending himself and his family. Good for him.

    2. Context matters a great deal, one would think. I mean, are you just miffed that downtown traffic is snarled and it’s taking forever to get to Jimmy John’s on your lunch break? Suck it up, it’s a public road and bad shit is certainly going on in our country. To the left, are you surrounded by a screaming mob that’s pushing over cars and carrying burning brands? Hit the gas – gently if that’s all it needs, and harder if they don’t take the hint.

      Because fuck a mob. No one owes the mob a martyr.

      1. Context, Hammie? Context?!?

        That’s crazy talk!

      2. Context, Hammie? Context?!?

        That’s crazy talk!

          1. “beared”

            1. Do you have to put your fetish into everything?

              1. If you want to repeat things with your bare ass hanging out, go right ahead.

          2. Is it not , it bore repeating ?

            /asking for a friend.

        1. It’s double talk at the very least.

          1. It’s amazing how difficult it can be to understand another’s opinions when you’re supplying half of their opinions through your own assumptions.

            1. I am responding to Heroic’s double post.

              1. HA!

                I was waiting for someone to give me shit about protesters. Happens a lot. Victim of my own insight. These things do happen.

                Cheers, yo!

        2. “Bore” repeating. Bear as verb, not noun. [Resumes looking at pictures of big, hairy men.]

          1. Like something in a delicious goulash?

          2. Bare boars bear boring bears barely bearably across the barren ben.

        3. Iron Law #8. And always run over the squrilz.

      3. Context matters a great deal, one would think.

        Thus, the Iron Law:

        Meaning comes from context.

    3. For blocking traffic? No.

      In self defense? Yes.

      1. Many interesting responses. Apparently the right to stand in the middle of the road does preempt the right to drive somewhere on the road. Why is that?

        1. “Preempt” is not precisely correct. It is a public roadway. The person and the car both have cause and right to be in the space. And barring potential injury, the driver does not get to run over those with whom they do not wish to share the public roads, just because they’re bigger.

          If we did that, there would be far more Suburbans and fewer Prius, but don’t let this persuasive argument sway you.

          1. Apparently a number of people are dodging the point, intentionally or not I don’t know.

            I’m not saying one should be allowed to drive over any person out walking in the road. If some person/people walk into the road with the express purpose of blocking traffic, they should, in my opinion, lose their right of way. They are not using the road for its intended purpose, they are purposefully blocking those who are trying to. I don’t think you should be able to gun the engine and turn them into red paste, but you should be able to keep your car moving.

            Get it?

            1. We don’t really classify right to travel by intent, though. No one’s trip is more entitled to right-of-way and ease-of-access if they plan to only visit the pharmacy than if they’re really just out and about to blow off steam. There’s probably a law around somewhere that makes it illegal to use the public right-of-ways and thoroughfares for criminal purposes, because why not, but effectively? No.

              There a right to travel, not a right to travel free from encumbrances due to high traffic. Whether the traffic is of noble, neutral or ignoble intent is… rather beside the point.

          2. It’s an interstate highway. By law, no one has a right to stand on it. Your argument fails.

            1. We’re talking about both interstate highways and common public streets. YOUR argument fails, so NYAA.

        2. Apparently the right to stand in the middle of the road does preempt the right to drive somewhere on the road. Why is that?

          Not in Ohio. I “jaywalked” one time through 2 lanes of stopped traffic… but forgot about the left-turn lane. (Oops!)

          I took that last step, then looked to my left- all I remember is the expression on the face of the dude in a Chevette that hit me at 35MPH. I saw him in time to jump, so I went over the top of the car, slid off the back of the roof and landed on my head.

          While I was in the ER getting 7 stitches, the cop came in to write me my ticket- so I couldn’t sue the guy that hit me.

          1. THou should have held a protest and knocked over a Piggly Wiggly, or something.

            #JayWalkerLivesSplatter

        3. Are you talking about gamboling?

    4. The “right to move freely” part wasn’t the objection. It was the “and then a mob drags you from your vehicle and beats you into a coma” part. A tractor-trailer was looted and burned during that protest. But it could just as easily have devolved into a Damion “football” Williams situation.

      His argument is “self defense”, not “I want to drive in that direction, so you’d better move!”

      1. Ask Reginald Denny if stopping is a good idea when people are rioting.

        1. Yeah, that’s the guy that “football” hit in the head with a cinder block.

    5. There’s some undoubtedly leftist law professor from UC Irvine engaging in vigorous pearl-clutching about this on Twitter at the moment, going on and on about how awful this “incitement to violence” is…..yet he never addresses what supposedly is the obligation of an individual to eschew self-preservation in the face of an angry mob.

      If a violent mob surrounds your car, I wonder what the Rick Hasens of the world believe one is supposed to do? Rely on the kindness and mercy of an enraged mob, like that poor sonofabitch who was beaten and stripped in that parking garage?

    6. I think it’s about the right to self defense more than the right to move freely. If it were peaceful protestors blocking the road, but not acting threateningly to drivers, I don’t think it would be acceptable to run them over (though it would be appropriate for police to come remove them). You don’t actually have a right to move freely on the highway. If you are stuck in traffic, you don’t get to start ramming people out of your way.

      But given what has already happened, I think drivers are reasonable in seeing the protestors as a threat.

      1. Depends on whether those other stopped vehicles are also victims of blockage perpetrated by third parties, or are active participants in said blockage. Also, limited-access highways are far different from city streets. Pedestrians are allowed to cross city streets and have right-of-way even if jaywalking, and there is a reasonable expectation of frequent stops even absent pedestrians (stop signs, traffic signals, waiting for others to turn on small roads). Pedestrians are not supposed to be on those limited-access highways and the traffic is not supposed to stop. Some limited-access highways have minimum speeds posted.

  9. So to summarize: Colin Kaepernick is exercising his First Amendment rights by kneeling during the pledge of allegiance, even though he faces no threat of government repercussion for doing such a thing, but if the NFL stopped him and fans ‘boo’ him they are somehow violating his First Amendment rights? Alternatively, Twitter banning Milo and Reynolds is totally OK, because they’re a private company. Isn’t the NFL a private league?

    Have we just gotten to the point where the First Amendment is only ever invoked to protect Leftist comments from ridicule? It doesn’t seem like the rules are being applied equally.

    1. Did Nick say his 1A rights are being violated?

      1. Look, if you are going to have to read and understand articles before making shit up to complain about them, this system is just not going to work, bro.

        1. Only faggot cosmotarians read books and shit.

          1. But it’s very important to save these books and artworks and shit only fags care about from the Brown Muslim Hordes.

            1. Finally, someone understands the value of diversity.

      2. I wasn’t criticizing Gillespie. I was talking about the general media narrative.

  10. Progressives really seem to believe that it is the duty of the average person, not them of course, to die at the hands of some preferred victim group. There is nothing controversial or distasteful about what Reynolds said. He said the truth. If you are attacking people in their cars, you are not a protester. You are a rioter and a violent criminal. The people you attack have a human right to defend themselves as best they can, which includes running you down with their car if that is the only reasonable means of defense available to them, which it likely will be.

    1. Correct.

  11. Twitter is in a tough spot.

    At some point, the use of the service is negatively impacted by users getting nasty. Women, minorities, and millennials, in particular, are probably less inclined to play in your sandbox if the people already there are slinging mud around, and if your business model and future growth depend on getting as many people as possible from those demographics to play in your sandbox, then your business model and future growth depend on getting people to stop throwing mud around.

    Meanwhile, many of your core users have come to imagine that the whole purpose of the sandbox is to supply them with mud to throw.

    Twitter hit a high of $69 a share in December of 2013. It’s been on a steady decline ever since. They opened at, what, $18.50 this morning?

    The libertarian argument I see here is that private enterprise does a better job of just about everything, and one of the things it does a better job of is censorship. Ultimately, I think it’s the profit motive and a push for quarterly earnings that’s motivating Twitter’s censorship here. And if that doesn’t serve some customers right, I bet it will make others happy. I bet that Twitter will reinstate Reynolds, that Reynolds will think twice about how he says things in the future, and free enterprise will demonstrate that entrepreneurs can do a better job of just about everything, including tailoring their offerings for a general audience through self-censorship.

    1. Ultimately, I think it’s the profit motive and a push for quarterly earnings that’s motivating Twitter’s censorship here.

      If you seriously believe this crap, I’ve got a bridge I’d like you consider buying.

      Lefties, Islamists, and all sorts of riffraff make threats and over the top statement all the time, and nothing ever happens to them. It’s only people on the right who ever get disciplined. Iowahawk recently got briefly suspended for making a comment that was nowhere even remotely close to being as questionable as “Run them over.”

      Jack Dorsey, Prince Alaweed, and their little minions are looking for justifications to punish people they don’t like politically, and seizing on every one they can, no matter how dubious. The “profit motive” has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what they’re doing.

      1. It’s all a conspiracy by lumbersexuals to hurt your favorite team’s chances, I’m sure.

        Isn’t it always?

      2. “Lefties, Islamists, and all sorts of riffraff make threats and over the top statement all the time, and nothing ever happens to them. ”

        Because the modern corporate world eschews racism and is largely on board with the leftist, islamist and pervert agenda. Look at Twitter or Target.

        1. Because the modern corporate world eschews racism

          #killallwhitepeople isn’t racism?

          1. If you see the corporate world raising a stink over #killallwhitepeople let me know about it.

    2. It is actually not that tough. They are a private company and have a right to enforce standards on their platform. Indeed, doing so is no doubt smart business. It is not that hard to have one standard and enforce it with some common sense. If Twitter did that, they would incur the wrath of the progs who have no common sense or any interest in actual standards but would command the respect of everyone else. Instead, they claim they have standards and then selectively enforce them against non progressives and allow progs and designated victim groups to act with impunity.

      This is a road to nowhere for Twitter. No amount of unequal and biased treatment is ever going to satisfy the progressives. And Twitter’s continued uneven and biased enforcement is causing more and more non progressives to lose respect for them and abandon the platform. This approach is going to leave them disliked by virtually everyone.

      1. I really don’t think it’s just about progressives.

        Women, in particular, aren’t interested in a shouting contest.

        You should go read the comments in a heavily moderated website. In Canada and Australia, their laws don’t protect the platform from libel lawsuits perpetrated by users, and you also don’t have to show malice or prove damages to win a libel suit. Moreover, they don’t have First Amendment protections, they have laws against hate speech, etc., so the big news sites in those countries prescreen every comment before it’s posted.

        It must cost them a fortune.

        Go to one of Murdoch’s websites in Australia and look at the comments there.

        They have women!!!

        I’m sure everyone there complains about the bias in censorship. Archie Bunker always that his bigoted statements weren’t bigoted because they were true, and whomever is doing the censoring has conscious and subconscious biases of their own.

        But look at the comment section. If the beauty of comment sections (and Twitter and Facebook) is that users generate content for free, those sites may be getting higher quality user generated content that appeals to a broader demographic specifically because it’s so heavily “censored”.

        1. “Women, in particular, aren’t interested in a shouting contest.”

          Citation needed. Women are more than happy to have a shouting contest. They might not want to have one over the same things you do, but a group of women will happily, gleefully, engage in a spirited discussion.

          And if it results in one of them being reduced to crawling into a ball sobbing great heaving tears all the better for the rest of them.

        2. Women, in particular, aren’t interested in a shouting contest.

          True, they’d rather just unload on someone who they know is in no position to respond.

      2. Twitter’s problem is the very nature of the medium. They’re ostensibly providing a platform for people to express themselves, while at the same time trying to act as the arbitrator for what is acceptable or not. That, of course, is going to be influenced by the biases of the people running the company as well as those determining who to ban or suspend.

        Twitter would be better off letting every tweet stand, and if it leads to violence, allow the attorneys to use them as evidence. Most of the hateful stuff is just people blowing off steam, but in the rare cases where they follow through on their rhetoric, let their own words be used to hang them in court.

        1. The easiest line to draw would be directly advocating of violence or criminal activity. That way you could kick off the jihadists and anyone else who in as many words said “go forth and kill” and leave the rest alone.

          Ultimately, the only value of the platform is for it to allow about anything. Without the freedom to say anything, what is the point?

        2. Twitter would be better off letting every tweet stand

          I don’t think they could let every tweet stand (DMCA, slander/libel, child porn), but that is beside your point.

      3. “Censored” is in quotes because when newspapers “censor” their own reporters, they call it “editing”. When newspapers “edit” user generated content that’s unacceptable to subscribers and advertisers or might get the newspaper into legal trouble, maybe “censorship” isn’t the right word. They’re basically doing the same thing to their own reporters.

        Remember when we got to see what Weigel really thought of the Tea Party without an editor?

    3. You have a point. Where it runs into problems is where Twitter does seem to be engaged in a bit of one-sided censorship. It gives a pass to #killallwhitepeople or calls to burn down pizzerias, but lets down the hammer on anything questionable from the right. Obviously, it’s free to do so. But, I think its fair that potential content providers, and yes, potential advertisers start to see as a product that is only for one side of the political spectrum. Now, that might be a viable business model (although ideological media don’t seem to be particularly successful as stand-alone enterprises). But, they shouldn’t complain when they get seen as such.

      1. It’s an inherent problem to censorship–censoring people evenhandedly. Censorship probably can’t be done without some bias creeping in–because it’s done by people with biases that are both conscious and subconscious.

        That’s an excellent reason why the government shouldn’t engage in censorship.

        The idea that companies whose revenue streams depend on censorship should probably engage in it anyway, though, even if censorship can only be done imperfectly.

        1. The idea that companies whose revenue streams depend on censorship should probably engage in it anyway, though, even if censorship can only be done imperfectly.

          The problem is when the bias gets to be seen (I think rightly) as systematic and intentional, then that censorship you’re counting on as being “good for business” becomes an anchor chained around your neck. You’ve abandoned half the market. And the only way you can hope to get them back is to alienate your existing customer base.

          I’m reminded of a story I read a few years ago about a television conference. One of ABC’s programming execs was throwing a rant about the loss of the Male 18-34 demographic (generally considered one of the most valuable) to video games (at the time only Fox was showing any kind of gains in the demographic). At the time, their major prime-time line-up was Dancing With the Stars, The Bachelor, Gray’s Anatomy and Modern Family.

          1. People who are against gay marriage are going to think that you’re being biased against them for advocating government discrimination, no doubt.

            How can that not be biased against them?

            The point of censorship is bias fundamentally.

            You bias that being unbiased is better is simply a bias of your own.

            Yes, they’re being biased, and if their success depends on that, then biased is what they should be.

            I bought Whole Foods stock back in the mid-1990s. I used to go there all the time. They had a community billboard up on the outside of one of their buildings in a neighborhood with a lot of Jews. I was walking past it once, and I spotted a bunch of neo-Nazi, antisemitic fliers on the board. I took it in and asked the manager whether he was an antisemite. He said he wasn’t, and that he hadn’t noticed the fliers, but he was committed to free speech. He apologized if something there offended me. I explained that I’m not Jewish, but I am a shareholder, and I’m committed to not seeing my managers senselessly drive away health food customers for stupid reasons like providing neo-Nazis with a public forum. I explained that if I saw another flier, the corporate office would hear about it.

            I checked that billboard on a regular basis. Yeah, the profit motive makes managers biased against neo-Nazis. And this is as it should be.

            1. “Yes, they’re being biased, and if their success depends on that, then biased is what they should be.”

              That sure is working out well for them.

              1. Well, not engaging in censorship at all wasn’t helping them.

            2. Yeah, the profit motive makes managers biased against neo-Nazis.

              Actually, their perception of the profit motive may make them so. Foregoing the neo-Nazi market in favor of those repulsed by neo-Nazis is probably a wise business decision. Likewise, Twitter’s perception of it’s profit motive may make them biased against anyone the social justice cadres deem to dislike this week.

              Of course, perception isn’t always reality. Twitter might very well find its alienated a much bigger market than it can reliably afford to lose.

              1. “Twitter might very well find its alienated a much bigger market than it can reliably afford to lose.”

                People use Twitter for its convenience. Not because they agree with the owners on the political issues of the day.

          2. I thought that was an albatross around the neck

    4. At some point, the use of the service is negatively impacted by users getting nasty.

      That’s a pretty content-neutral position, and likely correct.

      Twitter is not applying content-neutral bans, though. It has a double standard, enforced by a committee of dedicated SJWs, to drive out conservatives, while doing nothing for equally, or more, nasty progs.

      1. Like I keep saying, if their business model and growth depends on keeping out racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, and homophobic content out, then how is that not going to come across as unbiased and non-SJW?

        Censorship is bias.

        1. And as others keep pointing out, they seem to leave certain flavors of racist, violent, etc., content alone. It’s starting to create the appearance of a one-way ratchet. Also, their stock price is in the toilet, so they may want to revisit this business model.

          1. You mean they’re not as biased against the ones that aren’t necessarily threatening their bottom line?

            Yeah.

            Censorship is bias.

            That’s one reason why the government shouldn’t do it.

            1. You mean they’re not as biased against the ones that aren’t necessarily threatening their bottom line?

              How on earth do you reach the conclusion that they have successfully identified the flavors of hate that threaten their bottom line, and have banned those, and only those, flavors?

              1. Leftists gotta left.

              2. I’m not saying they’re right.

                But yeah, if they’re more biased against those viewpoints that they feel are impacting their bottom line, then that doesn’t surprise me.

    1. That post went up 8 hours ago. I didn’t see it on CNN’s home page. They don’t seem to be playing up their reporter getting knocked to the ground either.

      So far the media still seems to be carrying the water for the “keep the riots going” crowd. Despite the danger to life and property, and despite the mounting evidence that this is yet another case where they picked the wrong shooting to protest.

      Charlotte needs to get their crap together and get that video released ASAP, if it indeed shows a justified shooting.

      1. It’s to the point where I understand why Drudge links to Infowars and loony right-wing sites. They often have video that the media just won’t touch. That’s probably not all of Drudge’s motivation there, but it’s enough for me to often click.

      2. Even if the video confirms the police’s version of the shooting it won’t make much difference. The “hands up don’t shoot” thing is still out there. Something about a lie getting halfway around the world.

      3. Charlotte needs to get their crap together and get that video released start maintaining the safety of their citizens and integrity of their property, ASAP,

        Fixed that for you. Piss on the video.

      4. These are two separate issues?

        Was the shooting justified? We don’t know yet.

        Is the rioting justified? We already know it’s not.

    2. Check out Grommen’s bizzarro 1:20 AM post just below the one to which Brochettaward links.

  12. You wrote this:

    “Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte, the idea that he is seriously inciting any sort of actual or real threat is risible.”

    After quoting him saying:

    “Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation”

    He is very clearly saying that he meant what he said, despite the fact that he didn’t write “run them down if you feel threatened”, he wrote “run them down”. Why are you acting like this is a reasonable thing to say?

    Had Glenn said he was being sarcastic, then it is a different story. He didn’t. He is actually arguing that you should run over protesters in this situation, despite the fact that any ‘threat’ from the protesters is minuscule – much less than a stranger on the street assaulting you, yet you’d be insane to start knocking down anyone walking in your direction.

    Twitter may very well be biased here, but so are you.

    1. Because when there is violence associated with these ‘protesters,’ it IS a reasonable thing to say (don’t care if that’s the argument Fruit Suchi made).

      1. Unfortunately for black people, it seems like standing 500 feet away from violence makes you in association with violence.

      1. Weren’t there some trucks on the highway that were looted and burned too? There’s plenty of reason to see the rioters as a threat if you are in a vehicle or not.

    2. any ‘threat’ from the protesters is minuscule

      Reginald Denny disagrees. So does the reporter that the “protestors” knocked out and tried to toss into a fire. So does the guy that the “protestors” shot and killed.

      1. I love how the immediate media reports said they were ‘hit’ after talking about them throwing rocks. Not that it’s much better, but I had this weird suspicion in that some instances people were being hit with, you know, fists.

    3. Had Glenn said he was being sarcastic, then it is a different story. He didn’t. He is actually arguing that you should run over protesters in this situation

      Not everyone shares your autism.

      1. We’re all on the spectrum now.

      2. His blog post about this makes that argument, you idiot.

    4. I don’t think he is saying to run down protesters. You can keep driving without running them down. I would never stop my car in the middle of a group of people in that situation. That does not mean that I would hit the gas and run them over. I would just keep slowly moving ahead and forcing them out of the way. That is not running them down. If they started to try and open by car doors or get to me, then I am hitting the gas and running them over if necessary. I have a right to defend myself. If doing that means running someone who is trying to block my car over, that is their own fault not mine.

      1. “Crazed Old White Man Runs Down Innocent Minorities During Peaceful Vigil Following the Death of an Innocent, Unarmed Black Man”

      2. I was driving by one of these shut-downs on the other side of the freeway a few weeks ago and made a similar resolution. If they ever pull this shit on my and I’m in the first line of cars, I’m simply putting my car into drive, taking my foot off the brake, and they can decide how injured they want to be.

        That said, if you live in a community where this crap goes on, there’s no way reason carries the day. If they refuse to get out of the way and are injured, the motorist is definitely getting punished for it.

      3. I don’t think he is saying to run down protesters

        His exact words were: “Run them down.”

        That having been said, the context is pretty clearly: when there is a threat to your safety.

        1. “Run them down” does not have a defensive connotation. If he wrote “drive through them” this would not be a story.

      4. I don’t think he is saying to run down protesters.

        Then who *was* he saying to run down when he literally said, “Run them down”?

        1. There were no protesters on that highway. Those were rioters.

          Big difference.

      5. Yeah pretty much. I’d go slow enough that the Democrat Obstructionists would need to make a conscious choice to get crushed by my vehicle. If they persist in attacking, I would run them down without a second thought or spec of guilt on my conscience.

      6. He literally wrote “run them down”.

        I get the self-defense argument and agree with it, but that is not what he said.

    5. We’re not talking about a fucking picket line here. This was a mob roaming the interstate, forcing cars to stop and surrounding them. What reasonable person doesn’t see that as a threat?

      1. As opposed to a large group of people with long-guns “protesting” outside of a mosque? Would the statement “take them down” be considered self-defense on this website?

    6. “He is actually arguing that you should run over protesters in this situation, despite the fact that any ‘threat’ from the protesters is minuscule.”

      Ask Reginald Denny about this situation.

      You are right, we don’t normally go walk the streets knocking people around for no good reason. But, if they’re surrounding you and threatening your life, you will do that and more to protect yourself and your loved ones.

    7. Run them down.

    8. …despite the fact that any ‘threat’ from the protesters is minuscule…

      Kind of hard to assess the threat of twenty or more people who are carrying improvised weapons completely surrounding your vehicle, I guess.

      1. I’m going to be pretty cynical in assessing that threat. Definitely don’t want to err on the side of optimism.

        “Oh look, that nice gentleman wants to give me a baseball bat.”

        1. Exactly. If they meant well, they would be out trying to hold up traffic in the first place.

    9. Look, guys, it’s a drive-by, probably a troll. Name sounds like “feel.”

    10. He is actually arguing that you should run over protesters in this situation, despite the fact that any ‘threat’ from the protesters is minuscule

      I think we might differ on how minuscule the threat of rioters burning and looting actually is.

  13. “rabid lefties now running roughshod over the tech world”
    Sure seems like it. But this was supposed to be libertarians, right? “Wired” was founded by a libertarian. The early 1970s movement was infested with tech geeks. It was supposed to be ua “running roughshod,” with things going viral and spreading the libertarian message because we got a jump on all those liberal arts progs who didn’t understand the first thing about technology. What happended on the way to the libertarian revolution??

    1. Democrats started a’regulating, and the tech geeks realized they had to start lobbying and getting in good with them at their cocktail parties to succeed.

      1. Too much time in California.

    2. I’m pretty embedded in the IEEE scene here in Boston.

      The people inventing tech are childlike and imbecilic when it comes to political theory and understanding the consequences of their actions.

      For example, I once had dinner with a guys who was very excited to be developing software for the DOD that would help identify people whose behavior was a threat using criteria that the government input into it. HE thought it would do a great job of identifying extremists before they started killing people. It wouldn’t. But it would be really great if you wanted to compile a list of people who supported the wrong candidate, or were trying to form a political action group. And when I asked him what if some jerk became president of the United States and started using this to ID supporters of the opposing political party for harassment, he looked at me as if I were insane. “This is America; we don’t do that. They’ll only use this in Iraq and Afghanistan he told me”. We all know how much Afghanis use the Internet for their daily shopping and gabbing.

      Time and time again, I would run into people who naively assumed the tech would be used only to solve the problem in front of them and not be used to further totalitarianism.

      1. He should have done better research because they already had it in Iraq and Afghanistan. And here, for that matter.

        1. He had a massive grant from the DOD and his belief that it would be used there was sincere.

    3. Conquest’s Second Law of Politics: Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

      1. The flaw in that is the US government is constitutionally “right wing” (in the limited government sense), and has become quite left-wing anyway.

  14. I am in the run them down camp.

    1. I’m in the reach back to tap the gunner’s calf. then realize that I do not have the appropriate caliber or number of crowd suppression rounds. Or a gunner.

  15. Twitter is not a hard technology to duplicate, and people could even create apps that pull from both twitter and neo-twitter.

    They can be replaced.

    1. The Alt-Right now has one: gab.so

      There’s a waiting list.

      1. waiting list?

        Thats stupid.

        The idea is to create a completely open version that is also distributed so not central authority controls it.

        Then the app pulls from all of them. Twitter, open-twat, and gab. And any others.

        1. They are in the beta at present.

          Their code of conduct disallows the promotion of violence “of any kind”, which makes me wonder if Instapundit’s remark would be banned.

          1. Okay, my account request was approved, so there isn’t any actual waiting on the waiting list.

            Mostly, it is Trump supporters at present.

  16. “Protesters” attack homeless man:

    mobile.twitter.com/KellyRek/status/
    778846928062722048

    1. He didn’t check his white privilege.

    2. It drives me nuts that the media calls these people “protestors”. They are rioters. The worst thing about this is that not only does the shooting in Charlotte appear to be justified, it was done by a black cop. This is no longer about racism. This is about the BLM movement’s desire to end any sense of law and order.

      1. No, I have it on the authority of the victims brother that “All white cops are f-cking devils, and white people.”

        It is all about racism.

        Q. E. Mother-Effing D.

        1. No white cops involved? Doesn’t matter. All white people are devils. The black officers are just puppets of the white man.

        2. Somehow even though the cop involved was black, it’s all whitey’s fault.

          1. Something something internalizing the institutional racism around him something.

        3. So, is he saying that all cops are white people or that all white people are devils?

          And did he mention Tricknology at all?

      2. we are watching the collapse of society. During the LA riots, store owners protected their property with firearms. Now, the police have actively prevented citizens from protecting themselves and property. Citizens are expected to wait for the police to handle it, but yet they aren’t.
        Allowing these animalistic rioters to loot and pillage is nothing more then the complete abdication of the government in maintaining civil order.
        Just a matter of time before we start seeing vigilanties. Frankly, it’s past time for armed groups to step in and shut this shit down.

        1. “we are watching the collapse of society.”

          Too early to say yet. I think it’s clear we are watching white hegemony in America crumbling.

          1. Where is my shocked face that mtrueman wants to see another Cultural Revolution.

            Who knew “white hegemony” consisted of black people (and other non-whites) holding positions of power at all levels of government. Apartheid South Africa ain’t got nothing on the Baltimore City Council!

            1. “Who knew “white hegemony” consisted of black people (and other non-whites) holding positions of power at all levels of government.”

              The president of the USA may have dark skin, but don’t overestimate his ‘position of power.’ I don’t believe he’s in control of his government, especially his security apparatus. It’s not because he’s black, but because elected positions are largely window dressing. Case in point, the Baltimore City Council.

          2. I think it’s clear we are watching white hegemony in America crumbling

            Considering most of these riots take place in black neighborhoods, this statement is more projection on your part than anything else.

            I don’t think you and your social class really want to be around if an honest-to-goodness civil war breaks out. You’ve basically neutered yourselves and the minorities you fetishize hate you just as much as they do any Billy-bob redneck.

            1. I’d bet money they’d hate mTrue way more than Billy Bob redneck. Billy Bob redneck probably shares a lot of interests; similar tastes in entertainment (maybe no the same genres, but at least the broadly defined “popular music”) Similar education levels and backgrounds. Similar problems with work, family, etc.

              Billy Bob and Black Rioter hate the stereotype of one another but a couple minutes of peaceful interaction they’d at least agree to disagree.

              Black Rioter is loathed by mTrue and his ilk because mTrue and his ilk thing Black Rioter is a subhuman who exists only to further mTrue’s desires.

              1. “Black Rioter is loathed by mTrue and his ilk because mTrue and his ilk thing Black Rioter is a subhuman who exists only to further mTrue’s desires.”

                Nonsense, Mr. and Mrs. Black Rioter are the only Americans fighting for dignity I respect these days. I wish them both fun and profitable looting.

            2. Whites used to constitute some 80% of the electorate during Reagan’s day. Today that number should fall below 70%.

              “I don’t think you and your social class really want to be around if an honest-to-goodness civil war breaks out.”

              As long as Americans are devoted to fighting each other, they won’t be fighting enemies that actually matter, like the Russians or Chinese. It’s the lining of silver in the cloud of civil strife.

        2. Now, the police have actively prevented citizens from protecting themselves and property. Citizens are expected to wait for the police to handle it, but yet they aren’t.

          This is the untold story of all these riots. Nobody’s allowed to fight back any more. Not even the police. It’s fucking dumbfounding when the police can storm a person’s house at 3am, shoot their dogs, and hold them hostage for hours at gunpoint, or can take the slightest hint of movement as excuse to employ lethal force in close encounters (often of their own making!), but they can’t do anything about fucking riots except stop innocent people from defending themselves.

      3. This is no longer about racism.

        No, it’s definitely about racism. But everyone wants to pretend that racism from blacks is acceptable and entirely warranted.

        1. Not all racism by blacks would be treated as acceptable. Which is why you’ll never hear about their opinions on Hispanics or Muslims (and yes, I know Islam isn’t a race–but the left doesn’t seem to think so). The narrative requires that anyone not at the bottom of the victim hierarchy be seen as without fault.

      4. Protesting is an act of speech. It just doesn’t connote, include, or justify any attending lawbreaking, non-violent or otherwise.

  17. So, where is the President? People railed against Bush for only surveying the damage from the air in a situation where his presence on the ground could not have really helped matters.

    Yet in this case the President could actually save lives and stop the spread of racial hatred by showing up and calming things down. He is actually uniquely qualified to do this.

    He could have done it in Ferguson. The minute his own team’s investigation showed that the police version of events was true, he could have flown to Ferguson and made one of his soaring rhetoric speeches in which he admonishes people to avoid jumping to conclusions and explains why the tragic shooting was justified.

    But he didn’t. In fact, he and his team sat on that information for weeks.

    He sure didn’t mind jumping in on the side of “he could have been my son” when it helped push an agenda, even though he didn’t have any of the relevant facts.

    Things are getting violent, and divisions are opening up. He has a duty both through his position as President and through his unique capabilities as a speaker, former community organizer and highest elected black official in US history to help bring this situation under control.

    And it is incumbent on the media that covers the President and this event to cover that angle and hold his feet to the fire.

    Let’s go, Mr. Yes We Can. You actually have an opportunity to do some good and save people and property.

    1. You’re looking at the work of the president. He has been stoking racial divisions, and the chickens have come home to roost.

      1. This. If he wanted to do what Cyto suggests, he would, because he always does whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

        He’s getting precisely what he wants, and he’s quite cool with what’s going on. But he won’t like what it’s going to lead to in just a few more weeks.

    2. Why would you assume he wants to stop the spread of racial hatred by showing up and calming things down? His actions for the past 7+ years indicate he prefers the opposite.

    3. When the LA riots happened, the media was all over Bush I for not personally going to Compton and bringing peace to the city. Somehow the light giver and Chocolate Jesus who is the greatest most unifying wonderful President ever is not only totally unaccountable for these things, he isn’t so much as expected to take time out of his golf game and come out of retirement to give a press conference.

      In 1992, the LA riots were the fault of 12 years of Reagan Bush racism and completely the responsibility of the President and his party. Today, worst and most widespread race riots since the 1960s happening in multiple cities over a period of months is just bad luck. Those damned Republicans are always sticking it to poor Obama I guess.

      1. Maybe Obama thinks Black people protesting police who shoot unarmed Black men have a point.

        1. Which didn’t happen in this case, but, maybe.

        2. Maybe he does. That however does not prevent him from or alleviate his responsibility to try and intervene and put a stop to this and bring some peace between the two sides. . You think otherwise, because you are a scumbag socialist who thinks rioting and murder are a good thing. Obama last I looked didn’t view it that way.

    4. He’s a shitheel. He likes what is happening. It’s not complicated.

      1. I wouldn’t even say that. I don’t think he cares one way or another. Unless it directly affects him, he doesn’t care about it. He helped create all of this division and nastiness because he needed black turnout in 2012. It served his purposes. He doesn’t care at all that it has gotten out of control and is now causing riots. He didn’t intend for the riots to happen. He didn’t intend anything except doing what he needed to do for his own ends. Everything else is someone else’ problem.

  18. A media company pitched to a general audience just probably won’t thrive on a quarter to quarter basis and grow beyond a certain size without some kind of editor–and when you’re talking about user generated content, that’s always gonna come across as censorship, but even the smaller fish can’t ignore user content completely.

    A while ago, here at Reason.com, I saw an ad for a new web editor, I think it was. One of the stipulations was that the editor will need to get along with the users here at Hit & Run–I felt sorry for the person in that job already. What if your job were to keep us belligerent and profane knuckleheads semi-happy? If the government sentenced someone to that job for committing a crime, I’d think it was cruel and unusual punishment. Anyway, point is that Reason’s entire existence isn’t tied to the value of a floating stock price, but they have to worry about user content from multiple angles, too.

    Oh, and if and when any of you spot violent threats against judges or people in the news, please bring then to Reason’s attention by way of email, so they can take the content down. I appreciate this site’s commitment to free speech, but Preet Bahara has the mind of a four year-old, and if you wrote what Reynolds wrote about a public official, it might cause Reason a lot of money and trouble they just don’t need.

    1. What happened with Epi..um..siarch?

      1. I don’t know, but I don’t miss him.

    2. ‘One of the stipulations was that the editor will need to get along with the users here at Hit & Run–I felt sorry for the person in that job already. ‘
      Well the socks can be irritating, but in general the comments are on point and often remarkably funny.
      Of course Sugarfree is another matter, though he is hardly the worst thing on the intertube.

      1. I’m waiting for SugarFree to vent his wrath against the impudent scoundrel who is trying to supplant him in his role as Lovecraftian mind raper.

  19. And here I thought government owned roadz and property belong to all peoples of the world whether in a car or not

    1. That’s the bedrock of “freedom of movement” theory.

  20. Is it OK to call for running down Twitter executives, or would woodchippering be more appropriate?

    1. No. Non-aggression principle.

  21. Hey – @jack Twitter – why can’t you admit you don’t apply your own rules? Principals not principles?

    Remember Alondra Cano? She published the names, addresses and phone numbers of her own constituents – constituents who disagreed with her support of BLM. She wanted to expose them in public for their racism. And that was against Twitter rules – but she’s still tweet, tweet, tweeting away.

    https://twitter.com/People4Alondra

  22. I would like to thank Reason for this story, but mostly I would like to thank Twitter for making the story possible. Now I know that Instapundit is worth reading.

    1. You see what I mean, nick? There’s nearly no level of right-wing rhetoric these days that fellow travelers consider shameful. The bar has been lowered to the Marianas Trench. Maybe James Cameron can help, though.

      1. Skip to the part where you say something incredibly racially bigoted toward Asians.

        1. You mean the joke I heard on the Colbert Report?

          1. You mean the joke I heard on the Colbert Report?

            It doesn’t matter if you heard it on the Colbert Report or the Daily Stormer. You made the decision to repeat it. And you made that decision because you are a racial bigot.

        2. Left-wingers are noble and at worst misguided. Right-wingers are evil and at best on the Koch payroll.

    2. And don’t forget to check out Dave Burge aka Iowahawk – the man is a national treasure.

  23. “His offense was to tweet this in response to protests in Charlotte, North Carolina after a police shooting: RUN THEM DOWN,”

    Yawn. That’s pretty ho-hum amongst right-wingers these days. If Twitter started banning right-wingers for this level of rhetoric half of them would be gone. Nick, you think publishing this sort of garbage would lead to less traffic at Instapundit? Have you checked out Breitbart’s web traffic numbers lately?

    1. It’s pretty ho-hum among left-wingers, too. Spike Lee’s twitter account is still active, last time I checked.

    2. Indeed. What would be radical would be to praise the Soviet Union for rounding up Muslim villagers in Central Asia and shipping them off to gulags.

      1. You missed the context. It was right after some ISIS asshole ran over 80 people in France. I was simply lamenting that some cop didn’t kill said asshole and that I prefer secular and socialist Kurds to religious extremists.

        How many tears did you cry over Anwar al-Alwaki?

        1. That’s a nice attempt to rewrite history.

          Your rationalizations beside, I challenge you to find a comment on these fora in which I supported the decision to assassinate al-Alwaki and his son. In fact, my only comments on here about al-Alwaki have been to condemn the decision by the Obama administration to kill 2 American citizens without due process.

          In the vernacular of the Internet, “ya dun goofed.”

          1. Obama didn’t do it, the military-industrial complex did and/or made him do it!

            … is I’m sure how he rationalizes it

            1. Note that he said nothing about “secular and socialist Kurds” when praising the Soviet Union’s forced relocations of entire Muslim communities to prison camps.

              1. I’m sure it’s all relative. The “secular and socialist” Kurds and other, similar Muslim communities are superior to the reactionary and fundamentalist Islamists (who are the same as Christians, don’t you know?) but still inferior to the glorious atheist and communist Soviets.

                So the Kurds to get to be free only until social justice comes to town. Then it’s time to either get on the bandwagon or get on the train to the gulags.

    3. I’m with AmSoc on this. Right wingers have been pushing the #killallwhitepeople hashtag with impunity for far too long.

  24. Well, I hope he is reinstated immediately and keeps on giving Twitter “free content.”

    Why the scare quotes around free content?

    I don’t always agree with the spin the various contributors put on current events,

    I was hugely disappointed when he brought in two mediocrities as co-bloggers. Driscoll in particular adds little besides Hannity-style establishment Repub talking points.

    1. And Hoyt double posts, doesn’t see her co-bloggers already provided the same link she did and is more interested in providing a sales pitch for her and her fellow authors than providing anything of value.

    2. Why the scare quotes around free content?

      Freedom ain’t free. [spits tabaccy juice]

    3. Are they scare quotes or just quote quotes?

  25. Even regardless of whether or not you think Reynold’s words are appropriate, this is a double f**kin’ standard if I’ve ever seen one. Big name liberal celebrities and personalities on Twitter routinely wish horrible death and torture on conservatives, in no uncertain terms. If they can do it, why not Instapundit?

    1. Exactly–look at shitlib celebs wishing death on NRA members, yet no consequences whatsoever.

  26. “Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte”

    Tastefulness nothing.

    The question in each case is whether the motorist reasonably fears death or serious bodily harm. If not, they need to put up temporarily with a little interstate blockage – and then seek to hold the offenders liable in court. But if they have reasonable cause to believe that members of an angry mob are going to kill them or inflict serious injury, they are entitled to drive through said angry mob.

    So it’s not a question of tastefulness, but a question of whether this angry mob is endangering the driver in question.

    I’ll be charitable and assume this angry mob *doesn’t* endanger drivers.

    For the moment.

    1. They Reynolds post could be read to encourage vigilantism – that even if your life is not in danger, you can take it upon yourself to run over lawbreakers instead of letting the authorities deal with them.

      IMHO, deadly force if it goes beyond the scope of self-defense of one’s person, is vigilantism even if the person you’re running over is a lawbreaker.

      It’s time to let the National Guard do its thing, not for individual vigilantism outside the scope of self-defense.

  27. Free speech is a right and one must reap the consequences of that speech. Suggesting to “run them over” is ridiculous and as an attorney, I’m appalled. The protesters are exercising the same free speech. Whether I agree with the protesters is irrelevant. Don’t embarrass my causes Glenn.

    1. The right the “protestors” (might be) exercising is to peaceably assemble. Reynolds isn’t saying to stop them from speaking. He’s at worst saying to stop them from being in your way, with a rather strong implication that they’ve stopped being peaceful.

      1. Stop trying to destroy Reason Foundation, kb. And then you traipse away like nothing happened. Despicable!

        1. What is it today, barbiturates or amphetamines? Both, maybe?

          1. And stop shilling for Hillary. And get back to working on that book, it’s not gonna finish itself. And stop trying to undermine all that is good. And ‘Popehat something-something’.

            Jill Stein approves this message.

            1. I don’t mind that you’re insane, I just wish you’d find another use of your time.

    2. Sadly, doesn’t seem Gillespie was embarrassed. Which says something about Nick.

  28. a Thiel-like nomination would bring diversity to the Court.

    He’s despicable. Almost as bad as Trump and Theil.

  29. Question: since Twitter suspended Milo Yainnappolis and suspended and the nun-suspended Glen Reynold’s account, can I assume they suspended Bahar Mustafa’s account too? I mean, “hate speech” is “hate speech” right? RIGHT?

    SLD: she shouldn’t have been charged with a crime for, but Great Britain sucks, and I’m specifically asking if Twitter suspended her account, or if they only suspend the accounts of white male shitlords because “oppressor class… power dynamics… other victim studies buzzwords/ horseshit.”

    1. It’s all so damned unfair.

  30. I saw his tweet last night and I thought it was despicable. Though I don’t think he should be suspended, I’m glad he deleted it and I hope he is more careful in the future. Tweets like that should be roundly condemned.

    1. Get off Twitter and get to work on finishing that shit book, Weigs. It’s not going to somehow magically finish itself you know. Fuckface.

      1. My publisher told me to take my time. “Haste makes waste,” he said. “And keep track of all the things the haters say – they will be held accountable to their words.”

        Jill Stein approves this message.

        1. I don’t think he meant a lifetime though!

    2. Indeed.

  31. I always thought Reynolds was a moron. He just proved it.

  32. Here is an article at Reynolds site discussing those in media and their response to protests in Baltimore.

    “Salon has gone out of its way to incite further violence in Baltimore…”

    Which begs a few questions…does Reynolds think he isn’t part of media? Does Reynolds not think running down people in the street is violence? Does Reynolds site hold others to a different standard?

    Well, it’s obvious.

    1. It “asks” the question, moron. And go fuck yourself.

      1. It actually RAISES the question. It doesn’t “beg” it, nor does it “ask” it.

        If you insist on being the grammar police, at least get it right.

        But then, you don’t get much right, do you?

    2. Piss off, troll.

    3. If a crowd of angry rioters surrounds your car, starts banging on the windows, and are trying to open the doors, are you going to

      1) tell your wife to step out and try to reason with them
      2) run them down

  33. UPDATE: Twitter may have reinstated Reynolds, but USA Today suspended him for 30 days

  34. Running down protesters would be a bad thing; running down rioters- what Reynolds recommended- would be a good thing.

    1. would be a good thing….

      Unless the runner downer was black. Then it would be just another thing to moan about.

  35. Let’s be clear: Twitter is a private company and has every legal right to act however it wants when it comes to creating and enforcing rules of conduct (at the same time, publicly stating rules and then failing to live up to them may provide redress for users). So, as with the banning of Milo Yiannopoulis, the alt-right Breitbart editor, we’re not talking about classic censorship here in which the government clamps down on speech it finds offensive or subversive.

    This is true – as long as any clampdown really is a private decision by the private company, and not… “influenced” by a government agent sitting in the shadows, whispering “Nice business you have there, be a shame if anything happened to it…” See, for example “Operation Choke Point.”

  36. I’m tickled that the link to a copy of the offending tweet goes through t.co, Twitter’s redirection server.

  37. > Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his
    > suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte,
    > the idea that he is seriously inciting any sort of
    > actual or real threat is risible.

    Seems somewhat less risible today.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.