Twitter

Twitter Permanently Banned Conservative Pundit Jesse Kelly

Kelly says the social media site offered no explanation, which would violate its own policies.

|

Kelly
Screenshot via Fox News

Jesse Kelly, a conservative writer, radio host, and failed Republican political candidate, is no longer welcome on Twitter: The social media site permanently banned him on Sunday, for reasons unknown.

Many on the right saw this as evidence that Twitter is unfairly silencing conservatives; others were neither surprised nor particularly sad to see Kelly disappear. Twitter is a private company and can ban anyone it wants, of course. But it would be helpful if the site administrators explained what exactly Kelly did to merit such draconian measures—especially if Twitter wishes to put a damper on the right-wing notion that social media censorship is a serious issue meriting federal intervention.

It's not clear which tweets got Kelly in trouble, or if it was something else. The decision to ban him could have been the result of baseless complaints, or even an error on Twitter's part. Kelly told other conservative writers that he was left completely in the dark, reportedly receiving the following message from Twitter: "Your account was permanently suspended due to multiple or repeat violations of the Twitter rules. The account will not restored. Please do not respond to this email as replies and new appeals for this account will not be monitored."

If this was truly the full extent of Twitter's communication with Kelly, then the social media platform has violated its own policy. As the writer Jeryl Bier pointed out, Twitter's terms claim that a permanent ban will be accompanied by an explanation of which policies were violated "and which content was in violation."

Kelly's tough-guy shtick is fairly obnoxious. He called Sen. Jeff Flake (R–AZ) a coward for siding with "the enemy" (Democrats) and delaying the vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He also fantasized about a second American civil war, refusing to submit passively to "the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders." But if demonizing your political opponents is a crime on Twitter, there are millions more accounts to ban. To my knowledge, Kelly hasn't engaged in the kind of targeted harassment or direct advocacy of violence that should earn a rebuke from the platform. And if he has, Twitter should point it out.

I say should, because this free service is not obligated to humor its conservative users' desire for transparency and fairness, no matter how loudly they complain. But the idea that major tech companies are beholden to progressive goals is becoming a major talking point on cable news; absent proper justification, Twitter's treatment of Kelly will add fuel to this fire.

Advertisement

NEXT: This Week, Supreme Court Will Hear an Important Case that Could Help Curb Asset Forfeiture Abuse

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. Twitter is a platform for shitheads.

    Twitter commenters are among America’s most horrible people. The influencers they follow probably deserve what they get for pandering to shitheads.

    They can all go screw each other.

    Moral of the story? Why invest any more of your time and effort building name recognition or brand consciousness on Twitter when it can all be taken away in an instant by of arbitrary rules?

    Whatever the future holds for social media, it won’t be Twitter.

    P.S. Facebook is a platform for naive shitheads.

    1. It’s amusing when someone with hundreds of thousands of tweets clears out their Twitter history. Reminds me of Ozymandias.

      “Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

      1. Did he use any inappropriately deadpan “parody,” or tweet in the name of any university presidents? That would certainly be cause enough to arrest him, let alone close down his account. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. Twitter is really just entertainment. Goofing around. Even Trump would probably agree with that.
      Most everyone is taking themselves too seriously when discussing entertainment social media platforms like Twitter.

      1. ^This. Sometimes it’s amusing to argue about but it sure isn’t going to change my life.

      2. Someone tried to claim that Twitter would start a real war with a major country.

        I said any world leader who takes Twitter that seriously is not deserving of respect.

        Social media in general panders to our worst instincts. Kindness and generosity are boring, though laudable. Likes are generated by snark, contempt, and well placed attacks. The less you care, the more likes you get.

        What a horrid place to take seriously.

      3. But then again, so is the news, and have you seen the amount of hand wringing that has taken place over who and what has access? I recall some special investigation going on concerning some focused goofing around from distant lands. It’s serious business.

        There is a chameleon like character to the arguments that morphs depending on who is most offended at the time. It’s propaganda. It’s censorship. It’s fake news. It’s entertainment. It’s meddling with the elections. It’s right of association.

        My head spins trying to keep track of it all.

    3. I call them Twitter Twats…

    4. Twitter is a platform for shitheads.

      We finally agree on Trump!

  2. I don’t think libertarians get to bitch about the government requiring businesses to accommodate people and then bitch about a private company not accommodating people.

    1. It boils down to use pointing out the poor customer service on social media.

      I remember when only people with Harvard email address were allowed to get a Facebook account. After bragging that Obama was the first president to be brilliant enough to win with a social media campaign and complaining that Trump was the first president evil enough to win with a social media campaign, social media companies are returning to their exclusive roots. Why do we grant them the privilege to import labor via visa programs that warehouse owners cannot avail themselves of?

      1. It boils down to use pointing out the poor customer service on social media.

        Stay with the issue.

        I remember when only people with Harvard email address were allowed to get a Facebook account. After bragging that Obama was the first president to be brilliant enough to win with a social media campaign and complaining that Trump was the first president evil enough to win with a social media campaign, social media companies are returning to their exclusive roots. Why do we grant them the privilege to import labor via visa programs that warehouse owners cannot avail themselves of?

        You’re a liar, Or crazy.
        That was Russians running the FB campaign for Trump. Which was literally fraudulent., getting names with phony surveys, Obama did indeed pioneer in that regard. He built his list by saying it was to support his campaign,

        I say that as a professional im Internet Marketing. (and libertarian)

        I always laugh when a fairly innocent lefty humiliates so many at once, who avoid his question …which can include running off at the mouth with a totally tribal rant … or simply lying about the statement … and//or not understanding it.

        And what fascist calls social media campaign “evil?”

    2. The difference between must and should.

      1. Why lie about his question?

    3. “I don’t think libertarians get to bitch about…”

      Tough. Libertarians get to bitch about anything they want.

      1. They don’t in Tony’s utopia.

        1. Is this Red Tony or Fascist Tony?

        2. They don’t in Tony’s utopia.

          umm, he actually made a valid libertarian point … which I apparently you cannot answer …. or perhaps cannot grasp.

          Try again:

          I don’t think libertarians get to bitch about the government requiring businesses to accommodate people and then bitch about a private company not accommodating people.

          Or are you defending the blatant moral hypocrisy?

      2. There’s an understood “without being big fat hypocrites.”

        1. I don’t support your values in the economic sphere, Tony. But I admire how you manage to expose the crazier goobers with “inconvenient” questions they attack you for asking, lie about, or just bellow and beat their chests.

          I hope you know they are not libertarians but the exact opposite, authoritarians.
          On your side we have Berkeley snowflakes shouting down differing views. Right-wing snowflakes are also easily triggered, but even more vicious. Kinds like the McCarthyism of the 1950s, but now both left and right.

          Because Left – Right = Zero (still)

        2. The hypocrisy isn’t nearly as strong as you suppose.

          For one thing, there’s nothing hypocritical about calling out a company for not abiding by it’s own rules. Indeed, considering that contract enforcement is one of the few roles of government many libertarians accept, there’s not even hypocrisy in libertarians hoping that Twitter gets sued.

          There’s even less hypocrisy involved in certain conservatives calling for government action, because conservatives (just like liberals, I might add) believe that certain conditions *require* government intervention.

          1. For one thing, there’s nothing hypocritical about calling out a company for not abiding by it’s own rules.

            Nobody said it was, goober.

            Indeed, considering that contract enforcement is one of the few roles of government many libertarians accept, there’s not even hypocrisy in libertarians hoping that Twitter gets sued.

            Contract enforcement is a strawman-lie. — combined with lawsuits, which only private parties do

            It’s too far back to easily see your shameful lie about this:

            I don’t think libertarians get to bitch about the government requiring businesses to accommodate people and then bitch about a private company not accommodating people.

            The rest is also totally off-topic

            There’s even less hypocrisy involved in certain conservatives calling for government action, because conservatives (just like liberals, I might add) believe that certain conditions *require* government intervention.

            Less than … ZERO? (smirk)

            Informed people know that websites have maintained and enforced such policies since the dawn of the Internet. Infomed people and those not eagerly brainwashed.

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his multiple personality disorder on display again.

      3. “I don’t think libertarians get to bitch about…”

        Tough. Libertarians get to bitch about anything they want.

        Are you lying about his words intentionally, or did the obvious point whooosh over your head?

        I don’t think libertarians get to bitch about the government requiring businesses to accommodate people and then bitch about a private company not accommodating people.

        That’s about egregious hypocrisy, not about rights. Amd HIS was the libertarian value!

        Truy again.

    4. The fact that Twitter is a private company–which libertarians acknowledge–does not mean that the company ought to be immune to criticism. You see, unlike you, when we criticize a private company we don’t call for men with guns to enforce our views.

      1. You want men with guns to force gays out of cakeshops.

        1. Really? Under what twisted interpretation of Masterpiece Cake do you find that conclusion?

        2. You are a flaming fucking retard.

          1. Another win for Tony. (lol)

    5. The problem is that government reduced the criminal and civil liabilities of Twitter and Facebook for them being “neutral” dumbfuck.

      1. Indeed. Twitter gets to do whatever they want, but every time they ban a conservative for behavior X, and ignore the liberals doing behavior X, they lose a little bit of credibility in their claim of being neutral.

        1. Show us when that happens, goober.
          We all know certain conservatives are far more vicious than liberals. As proven on this page.

    6. Tony conflates “bitching about” violations of the freedom of association by the state with “bitching about” the behavior of private actors in the exercise of their freedom of association. These obviously are entirely different things. Because the progressive state holds so much promise for a good national socialist like Tony, I know it’s hard for him to tell the difference.

      1. Tony conflates “bitching about” violations of the freedom of association by the state with “bitching about” the behavior of private actors in the exercise of their freedom of association. These obviously are entirely different things.

        If you lie about his point. Shamelessly.
        Tell us why you demand special rights for (some) Christians only, under a Constitution that guarantees Separation,.
        Or do you perhaps not understand the legal and moral issue

        1. Who’s demanding special rights for Christians? Laws that require special accommodations, and forbid discrimination, are forbidden by the 1st Amendment’s protection of free association — and are just as evil as Jim Crow laws, and just as unConstitutional, for the same reason.

          Seriously, if gays were simply interested in freedom, and didn’t want to ram their lifestyle choices down everyone’s throats, the proper response to a baker who feels that baking a cake violates his conscience would be “We apologize for making you uncomfortable; we’ll ask someone else to bake a cake for us. While we’re here, why don’t we pick up a box of donuts?”

          1. Who’s demanding special rights for Christians?

            Ignorant authoritarians like you.

            Laws that require special accommodations, and forbid discrimination, are forbidden by the 1st Amendment’s protection of free association — and are just as evil as Jim Crow laws, and just as unConstitutional, for the same reason.

            That’s MY point Skippy. I’ll try to dumb it down.
            This is about a SPECIAL EXEMPTION from those laws, which you AGREE is moral hypocrisy.

            Seriously, if gays were simply interested in freedom, and didn’t want to ram their lifestyle choices down everyone’s throats, the proper response to a baker who feels that baking a cake violates his conscience would be “We apologize for making you uncomfortable; we’ll ask someone else to bake a cake for us. While we’re here, why don’t we pick up a box of donuts?”

            You just fucked yourself, defending the special exemption, as a special exemption.

            Personally, I think those bakers should post a sign at the entrance, saying who they refuse to serve, since they are open for business. Just like “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” for the past 50 years or so, and similar.

    7. There’s nothing un-libertarian about bitching about business policies that we don’t like. There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that says you can’t criticize people or try to persuade them to change behavior that you don’t like. If self-proclaimed libertarians were to lobby the state to force private businesses to change policies they don’t like, that would be hypocritical.

      This is an idea that I just cannot seem to get through most people’s heads, no matter how big a (strictly metaphorical!) clue bat I use: saying “X shouldn’t be illegal” doesn’t mean “I like X!”, and saying “I don’t like X” doesn’t mean I think the state should forcibly forbid X.

  3. Huh. I was gonna make a case for public utilities type classification, how libertarianism isn’t anarchy, government of the public greens, etc.
    But you know what? It is at private company, and if that company wants to purposely refuse service to half of the population… well, let’s watch and see how it plays out.
    That’s my argument against public accomadation laws, too. Money talks and bullshit walks, que no?

    1. +1 DenverJ

    2. I would argue, however, that if a company has an expressed policy on how to handle a situation — they should be obligated to abide by their own expressed policy.

      However, conservatives really should stop providing Twitter free material with which they can attempt to monetize their service. Without people writing for them for free, what the hell does Twitter have?

      1. How do they violate their own policy?

        Are you aware that all Internet discussion-typoe forums have been restricting behaviors for over a quarter century?
        Including most libertarian ones.

        1. Read the original article on which you are supposedly commenting.

          1. Read the original article on which you are supposedly commenting.

            , reportedly receiving the following message from Twitter

            Anything else you’ are supposedly suggesting?

    3. The railroads were private companies at one time. The phone company was a private company at one time. The electric companies were private at one time. And so on.

      The whole point of anti-monopolistic action by the government is when specific companies come to dominate an entire industry, and run their companies as fiefdoms unaccountable to the general population and to the detriment of a significant portion of the public.

      So, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., all fit that definition these days, and should be reigned in. IMHO.

      1. Phone companies have been private for a long time and every electric company I’ve ever sent a bill to has been private.

        1. If phone companies started ending calls when they didn’t like the content, rest assured, you’d see how non-private they actually are.

          1. Correct. Or electric companies deciding to cut your power because of your political views, transportation companies refusing passage to those with unpopular views, etc.

            To pretend that Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., do not now hold a position central to modern communications is unsupportable. If you are going to stop being just a common carrier and decide you get to determine what content is allowed (outside of those forbidden by law), then you are a publisher, and I think soon the courts will agree. Then the litigation fun will really start.

            1. To pretend that Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., do not now hold a position central to modern communications is unsupportable

              Why do fascists demand government to control every large business — because it’s large,

              It’s your fascism which is unsupprotable.in a free society.

              If you are going to stop being just a common carrier and decide you get to determine what content is allowed (outside of those forbidden by law), then you are a publisher,

              You said that in public?

              I think soon the courts will agree.

              Start with finding a dictionary to agree.

          2. Ummm, phone and electric companies have a territorial monopoly, guaranteed by the state.
            And they’re necessities (phone lines less so now)

            Its kinda scary,. on a libertarian web site, to see so many trying to impose their views through state power, plus such ignorance of the issues,

            Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left

        2. Private, yes but they are highly regulated.

          1. Ok, but Austin said they weren’t private at all.

      2. Most of the transcontinental railroads were mercantilist corporate/government partnerships. There was only one that that was truly private, the Great Northern, if memory serves.

      3. So, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc., all fit that definition these days, and should be reigned in. IMHO.

        Libertarians vomit at your jack-booted mentality

        Seeing some businesses regulated and others not., libertarians would deregulate all
        Authoritarians would INCREASE state power. With a lame excuse, as always. If you must wine about monopolies it’s best not to list so many competitors.

        With an electric company you are forced to use them, in addition to their monopoly,.
        Who forces you to use Facebook,. Google, Twitter, etc. as necessities? (They all have competitors)

      4. Ye gods, I get so tired of explaining this: governments create and maintain monopolies, not protect people from them. Absent the use of force, the only way to create and keep a monopoly is to provide better, cheaper service than any competitor, forever. And if someone could actually manage that, then no one would be harmed, so who cares?

        Once, there was a phone company, which the government regulated. The result was glacially slow innovation and improvement. Why change as long as your current model makes a profit? As for customers, they could like it or lump it, but they couldn’t choose an alternative. Now there are multiple phone companies, so each has to supply something their customers want, or risk losing business to competitors. Flawed as the current telecom market is, I’ll take it over a return to the era of Ma Bell any day.

        1. Utilities are (mostly) government-created monopolies. Since they have no competition, all they have to do is provide service that’s just good enough to keep too many people from complaining. They have little motive to innovate or take any chances. In the sadly rare cases where there is competition, service tends to be vastly better. (Just one example: I was always a little puzzled by horror stories about Comcast, when they’ve always treated me pretty well. Then one day it hit me: in the town where I live, there are genuine alternatives. I can tell Comcast to FOAD any day, so they have to treat me well if they want to keep my business.)

          I frequently hear people whine about how there are no alternatives to Twitter or Facebook or whatever. This is simply not true. There are other services. If you’re too lazy to look for them, that’s your own problem and doesn’t entitle you to have the state force Twitface to conform to your desires. The more the big services alienate their users, the more competitors will grow. If, OTOH, government steps in to regulate, the most likely result is to lock in the current leaders indefinitely. The likely result would be stagnation and just-good-enough service.

          And, hey, as long as I’m ranting, I might as well indulge my inner pedant. Reign is what a king does. (Nice simple mnemonic for you there.) When you want to restrain something, you rein them in. That’s rein, no “n”, as in the straps you use to steer a horse.

          1. BINGO,. Thanks,. I usually ask such goobers how many competing electric companies should be available on their street? Cell phones and VOIP have destroyed the “natural monopoly” of phone companies.

    4. Yes, they have every right to be another Democratic Underground, but they have to be open and transparent about it.

      If they claim to be an open service welcoming of views from across the spectrum and they aren’t then they’re committing fraud, plain and simple.

      1. Since they’ve never said that , …..

    5. Twitter is rapidly headed to a condition where the thought police will only be have leftist speech to police. Having succumbed to the control urge there is simply no way they will be able to stop it. Nobody will have the ability to say ‘this far and no further.’ Some may try, but the identity mob will eat them alive.

      It’s a death spiral of their own choosing.

      1. Anyone who says “leftist” has revealed their bias.

        Big-government and alt-right Conservatives are by far the worst censors, as proven on this very page.
        Shouting down and attacking different viewpoints is the mentality of a fascist/bully,

  4. I say should, because this free service is not obligated to humor its conservative users’ desire for transparency and fairness, no matter how loudly they complain.

    If they have made a public commitment to do so (and it doesn’t involve the word “humor”), don’t they incur an obligation to follow the rules they said they would follow?

    1. Please state the commitment they made.

      1. Twitter’s terms claim that a permanent ban will be accompanied by an explanation of which policies were violated “and which content was in violation.”

        If the terms they offered and users agreed to said that users would get an explanation for why they got banned, but then Twitter banned people without said explanation, then Twitter was indeed violating their own terms, and users have a valid complaint.

        1. Please state the commitment they made.

          FAIL.

  5. If social Media sites like Twitter are going to ‘edit’ content they deem offensive, without sticking strictly to content that violates the law, then they are editors, not merely hosts. That means they have to take responsibility for what they allow to be posted, and can be sued for it. They currently operate under the theory that, since they are hosts, and do not actively oversee and approve of the content they host, they cannot be held responsible for it.

    No need to have the State come up with some elaborate law to meet the case. Just withdraw the legal protection for which they no longer qualify, and let the vultures gather.

    I don’t think they’ll like that trade.

    1. Yeah, bans like these make me wonder why websites complained about the new regulations that hold them liable for facilitating child abuse. On the one hand, they didn’t make noise before last year when they said that their protections for children are sufficient. Then when the law changes to make them liable for abuse, they complain that it’s unreasonable to expect them to guarantee that level of protection. Then they make no qualms about protecting grown adults from exposure to right-wing political opinions. At this point, I’m ready to tell social media companies that I’m too busy to defend their 1st Amendment rights.

    2. If social Media sites like Twitter are going to ‘edit’ content they deem offensive, without sticking strictly to content that violates the law, then they are editors, not merely hosts.

      Hosts have been doing that since the very dawn of the Internet.

      That means they have to take responsibility for what they allow to be posted, and can be sued for it.

      Which is why they block people — who also threaten their profits.

      They currently operate under the theory that, since they are hosts, and do not actively oversee and approve of the content they host, they cannot be held responsible for it.

      That;s almost exactly backwards.

      No need to have the State come up with some elaborate law to meet the case. Just withdraw the legal protection for which they no longer qualify, and let the vultures gather.

      Exactly how would you amend the Constitution.

      I don’t think they’ll like that trade.

      Fascism is kinda detested.
      Since when do our fundamental rights require us to liss the ass of government.
      Proggies always forget what unalienable means.

  6. One can easily see the day when people who work at and manage Twitter, Google, Facebook etc started getting dragged out of cars and homes, beaten in the streets, perhaps to disappear and never be seen again.

    Few will cry about their disappearances.

    1. Especially your ilk. Who’ll be the first against the wall.

    2. Ooo how edgy!

    3. Yes, Bruce, many conservatives are that big a threat.

  7. …especially if Twitter wishes to put a damper on the right-wing notion that social media censorship is a serious issue meriting federal intervention.

    Dems control the House next year, so unless they start holding their leftwing violators to the same standards, they have little to worry about.

    1. They already do, but Soave is paid to defend only right wing nuts. Koch libertarian.

      Best move to Gab.

      It was pleasant change of scenery for Laura Looner.

  8. This need to call out Kelly’s behavior (and thereby distance oneself from his perceived wrongdoings) before defending his right to speak freely is so obnoxious. Twitter touts itself as a platform for the free expression of ideas. Its failure to comply with that mission statement and its exclusive commitment to silencing perceived wrongdoers on the right merits condemnation. It’s not a First Amendment issue. It’s a free speech issue, and the idea that libertarians should be fine with censorship, so long as it occurs on private property, is misguided.

    Also, why have so many Reason pieces lately treated Jeff Flake like a thoughtful political leader who eschews partisan labels?

    1. He refused to submit passively to “the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders”?

      Wow. What a monster.

    2. The preceding was brought to you by the Jeff Flake of principled libertarians.

      Head over to Gab, assholes. Free speech forever.

    3. and the idea that libertarians should be fine with censorship, so long as it occurs on private property, is misguided.

      Huh. So I as a private property owner shouldn’t have the right to censor guests on my own property?

      1. No. Go to the federal government web site and read all the civil rights laws.

        1. I asked if a private property owner shouldn’t have the right, not about what the law actually says. It goes without saying that exercise of private property rights ought to be consistent with the NAP.

          If I invite you onto my property for, say, a party, and you start going on and on about how Donald Trump is so awesome, should I not have the right to tell you to shut up, and to throw you off my property?

          1. Jeff… Go fund your quotes from the baker threads about gay marriage. You literally don’t believe they have rights due to public accommodation… Or are you somehow arguing Twitter is immune to public accommodation?

            Consistency of your argument s would be nice.

            1. You go find any quote from me that defends the state forcing bakers to bake gay wedding cakes. You cannot.

      2. You can associate with whomever you want. Facebook can associate with whomever it wants. Twitter can associate with whomever it wants.

        The idea that I have to be fine with them doing whatever they want, because private property, is dumb. The idea that a large corporation can ban people for stupid reasons is also dumb. I never said that government intervention is the solution.

        1. Also, let’s not pretend that FB and Twitter don’t go after people the government doesn’t like.

    4. ts failure to comply with that mission statement and its exclusive commitment to silencing perceived wrongdoers on the right merits condemnation. It’s not a First Amendment issue

      The First Amendment restricts only government, lefty.

      And those types of restrictions have been the norm in the Internet from the beginning.
      I used them myself in 1992, as a moderator for the first-ever libertarian forum, which was at compuserve.
      Aggressive assholes scare away web traffic, which is the source of revenues.
      Learn the issues here, before demanding your fascist state

      1. Hey. Moron. I never called for government intervention.

        GFY, twit.

        1. Chill. Sluggo. I merely explained WHY it’s not a First Amendment issue, as claimed by so many uninformed goobers. Like those who are clueless about the First Amendment ….

          It’s not a First Amendment issue. It’s a free speech issue

          That’s like saying it’s about the moon, not anything lunar.

          FIRST AMENDMENT
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          Hey. Moron

          The defense rests.

  9. Somehow the loudest whining about the right of a private company to ban some asshole only happens when the asshole is a conservative.

    With commentary provided by a Koch libertarian.

    Maybe only leftists exist on Twitter.

    1. I think you forgot to name an example of when it happened to the Left.

      It’s fairly early so I figured I’d give you tons of time to mention it.

      1. The left has gotten suspensions for attacking more favored leftists groups. A feminist was just banned for not ignoring biology and talking about how transgenders do not really switch sexes.

        1. True. Lefties are banned for making other Lefties angry.

          1. Twitter doesn’t ban right-wingers. It just bans people who upset certain segments of the left. For example, you can be banned if your opposition to war extends to opposing wars Hillary Clinton started.

            It’s funny, the first articles I saw protesting the ban of Alex Jones were by a few leftists who had been around long enough to know that the left wouldn’t just want to shut up the right, but would also want to weed out dissent in the ranks.

            1. Noticed the same….

            2. “but would also want to weed out dissent in the ranks.”

              They may think that is what will happen. But that notion presumes some sort of accepted dominant orthodoxy. And that’s not how the modern left works.

              Cultural Marxism is boundless. There is no orthodoxy, it’s all iconoclasm all the time. The LGBTQWERTY brigade is in the process of destroying third wave feminism, and there isn’t a damn thing the feminists can do about it.

              Every day will be a brave new world.

    2. Somehow the loudest whining about the right of a private company to ban some asshole only happens when the asshole is a conservative.

      Aren’t they all? On these pages alone, I see more vicious thuggery than anything I see from the left. Then again, Reason is the only political site with no policies at all. As in any market, that’s like a magnet for thugs, cyber-bullies and assorted subhumans.

  10. I find it odd that Reason never seems to find people demanding the government bankrupt businesses for not doing what they want “obnoxious”.

    1. Like those people demanding that government bankrupt Facebook/Twitter for not doing what they want?

      1. Except nobody is demanding the government bankrupt them.

        Now, bankrupting a baker for not wanting to make a special cake — THAT justifies bankruptcy, amirite?

        1. “STEVE BANNON WANTS TO NATIONALIZE FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE’S DATA”

          http://www.vanityfair.com/news…..ter-google

        2. To be fair, Steve Bannon isn’t the only one who wants to bankrupt Facebook.

          “We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon.”

          http://www.theguardian.com/com…..c-interest

          1. Who the fuck is Nick Srineck? And who listens to Bannon? Honestly.

            Rock solid data.

            1. “nobody is demanding the government bankrupt them”

              Huh

              1. Nobody is. Removing their carve out protections from the terrible DMCA because they are violating the carve out is simple justice.

                1. Nobody is, huh?

                  1. You really do double down on dumb Jeff.

                  2. Yes. Nobody still.

                    Hell, “nationalizing” would make them better and more efficient, right? That’s the claim with healthcare…

                    1. You really are shameless.

                    2. Still no calls to bankrupt them. Twitter will go under on its own because it is useless. Most of the others…well, they need free content given to them to be worth anything.

          2. First… Nationalizing isn’t bankrupting idiot. Second they are talking about the data, not the platform. The data that Google Facebook et Al use to create profiles of users to sell to adverrtisers. The same profiles that contain confidential medical information based on illegal tracking to medical websites, as an example.

            1. So if the state seizes a firm’s assets and takes over the operation of the business from the firm’s owners, then that’s materially different than bankrupting the firm. Huh.

              Second they are talking about the data, not the platform.

              “We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon.”

        3. Now, bankrupting a baker for not wanting to make a special cake — THAT justifies bankruptcy, amirite?

          No, you’re wrong. You people distort the issue shamelessly.
          The issue is whether there should be a special privilege in the law, for some Christians (a minority), in a nation that guarantees separation .

          The issue is a privileged exemption in public accomodation laws. Since you don’t oppose all such laws, you argue for special privileges. By what right?

          (or you’ve been brainwashed)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves slavery.

          2. Why should there even be accomodation laws in the first place? They are a clear violation of freedom of association.

            1. Why should there even be accomodation laws in the first place? They are a clear violation of freedom of association.

              That’s my point. Again:

              The issue is whether there should be a special privilege in the law, for some Christians (a minority), in a nation that guarantees separation .

              The issue is a privileged exemption in public accomodation laws. Since you don’t oppose all such laws, you argue for special privileges. By what right?

              LOTS of dummies on the distinction that YOU got right!

      2. Who is asking to bankrupt Twitter or Facebook Jeff? They are asking to remove protections granted to then for being neutral. You are either dishonest or dumb.

        1. Your “cure” is even MORE fascist.
          But it’s you.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks he’s not a shrieking little bitch.

    2. I find it odd that Reason never seems to find people demanding the government bankrupt businesses for not doing what they want “obnoxious”.

      Their in a trap of their own making. That would lose them 75% of their commentariat.

  11. “Twitter is a private company, and can ban anyone it wants, of course.”

    Just like a baker can select his customers, and restaurants can refuse blacks, right?

    1. LTBF:
      You beat me by 14 minutes.

    2. Pretty sure the people who run this site agree with that.

      1. They’re not stoopid enough to make such a dumbass comparison.

        Balers can eject unruly customers. So can restaurants. I’m not surprised you people are so confused on that simple truth,

        1. Customers who refuse to accept your terms of service are unruly.

          Or are you saying that some terms of service are more equal than others???

          1. Customers who refuse to accept your terms of service are unruly.

            Only to goobers and right-wing wackos (same thing)

            Or are you saying that some terms of service are more equal than others???

            (lol) I’m saying your clueless about “terms of service” and “unruly.” … unless you agree bakers should post a sign at the entrance. of who they are NOT open for business too. Just as Terms of Service are stated in advance,. And like “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” for the past 50-75 years.

            Now tell us why you demand a special; exemption from public accommodation laws, based on religion, in a nation where Separation is constitutionally guaranteed. We libertarians know what individual liberty means.

            1. Because freedom of association is guaranteed, whereas public accommodation is not?

              1. Public accomodation laws have been ruled constitutional.

                NO right is absolute, not even life, if in conflict with ANY other fundamental right. By the definition of unalienable.

                Such rights are
                Life
                A package called Liberty,
                A package called pursuit of happiness
                A package of UNNAMED rights in the 9th Amendment

                As an aside, when people bitch about judges “inventing” rights, judges have been RECOGNIZING rights since the 1500s. That’s their function — and WHY so many fundamental rights are NOT specified – intentionally – by the Founders.

                I forget the Constitutional argument here. Personally, a bakery is open for business, which means for anyone, unless they post a sign saying who they will not serve — like several decades of “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” Put up a sign on who you exclude, problem solved. Long-established precedent.

  12. We really need to stop pretending Freedom of Association exists anymore. If bakers must violate their own religious beliefs to serve anyone, then companies like twitter don’t get to pick and choose either. I don’t like it, but since they forced it on us I’m no longer willing to let it be one-sided.

    1. This is such an immature attitude. “If I can’t have my toys, I will make sure nobody will have any toys!”

      The correct solution is not to take away more liberty. The correct solution is to fight for everyone’s liberty. That includes the liberty of cake bakers and the liberty of corporations.

      1. That’s an easy thing to say when your side isn’t being affected. They make the rules, they get to follow them too. If they want to take a more pro-liberty stance, I’m all for it.

        1. No it’s actually a difficult thing to say evidently, to stand up for everyone’s liberties, left or right.

          Let me put it this way: if you don’t want to respect their liberties, why should anyone care about your liberties?

          1. If you want to oppress my rights…i need to defend your right to oppress me?

            Makes sense.

            The only way to end a bad law is to make its advocates abide by it. If they dont have to, why change anything?

            1. Well that depends.

              Are you pro-liberty? Or are you just anti-left?

              Time to choose.

              The only way to end a bad law is to make its advocates abide by it.

              Huh. I can think of other ways to end bad laws that don’t result in perpetuating injustice.

              1. If there arent negative repurcussions, things do not change.

                SCOTUS didnt desegregate schools. The National Guard did.

                1. The National Guard did *because* SCOTUS did.

                  And look, desegregation of schools ended without forcing southern whites to live under the oppressive regime that they forced upon southern blacks. So much for “the only way to end a bad law is to apply it to its advocates”.

                  Gay marriage was legalized without forcing straight couples to have their marriage licenses revoked by the state.

                  Sounds like you are just finding a way to rationalize revenge against your opponents.

                  1. er, that should be “segregation of schools ended”

                  2. There was forced bussing for a long time and whites in the north and south hated it and felt oppressed by it.

                    1. Forced busing, while wrong on its own terms, was not equivalent to ‘separate but equal’.

                      If damikesc was right, the only way to end forced racial segregation of schools would have been to force southern whites to go to explicitly racially segregated crummy schools.

                    2. Forced busing, while wrong on its own terms, was not equivalent to ‘separate but equal’.

                      Didn’t say it was. Whites weren’t subject to the exact same form of oppression that blacks had been subject to previously, but it was a form of oppression in its own way. I guess I was making the point that undoing the oppression has usually involved some other form of oppression on the previously oppressed, usually as a form of retaliation or re-education.

                  3. The National Guard did *because* SCOTUS did.

                    And if they did not, SCOTUS was immaterial. The negative repurcussion opened the school. The realization that “Listen fuckers, we will MAKE you do this shit” is why they opened. It wasn’t any “Seperate but equal is wrong” bullshit. It was men with guns.

                    And look, desegregation of schools ended without forcing southern whites to live under the oppressive regime that they forced upon southern blacks.

                    The Voting Rights regime was quite terrible and was terrible for a long time. Was it deserved? Probably. But to pretend it did not exist is silly.

                    Gay marriage was legalized without forcing straight couples to have their marriage licenses revoked by the state.

                    Just bankruptcy if you didn’t applaud it. Much better.

                    1. Oh good Lord. Eisenhower did not wake up one morning and say “today I’ll end segregated schools by sending out the National Guard”. What precipitated his action was SCOTUS’s ruling. Yes men with guns ultimately enforced SCOTUS’ ruling but it was only as a result of SCOTUS itself ruling as they did.

                      The Voting Rights Act is different from school desegregation. You’re just throwing around a red herring here in the context of this discussion. And nobody has gone bankrupt for merely refusing to applaud a gay marriage.

                      I’ve pointed out two instances now of ways to change unjust laws that didn’t arise by forcing the law’s advocates to live under the unjust laws that they advocated. There are more – like actually repealing laws by legislatures, jury nullification, etc. Fact is, you just want revenge against your opponents, and are using this “justice” rationale as a thin pretext for this.

                    2. What precipitated his action was SCOTUS’s ruling. Yes men with guns ultimately enforced SCOTUS’ ruling but it was only as a result of SCOTUS itself ruling as they did.

                      Yes, the court rules and the exectutive enforces that ruling. That is how it works. Eisenhower could not have used those guns to do anything without a court ruling saying he could. You don’t seem to understand how this stuff works.

                    3. Oh good Lord. Eisenhower did not wake up one morning and say “today I’ll end segregated schools by sending out the National Guard”

                      True. He decided that he was going to make the state abide. If he did not, the SCOTUS decision would’ve been utterly irrelevant.

                      Men with guns opened the schools. The SCOTUS wrote stuff.

                      Yes men with guns ultimately enforced SCOTUS’ ruling but it was only as a result of SCOTUS itself ruling as they did.

                      Hardly. Eisenhower wanted an excuse to do it.

                      You do realize that if it happened under, say, Truman — the schools would’ve REMAINED segregated, right?

                      And nobody has gone bankrupt for merely refusing to applaud a gay marriage.

                      OR tried to bankrupt Masterpiece for PRECISELY that reason. He offered to sell them a cake. Just not to make a special one celebrating them. Therefore, the state sought to BANKRUPT the shop.

                2. What actually desegregated schools was the Nixon Administration’s threat to cut off federal funds to Southern school districts that didn’t get serious about complying with the law.

                3. SCOTUS didnt desegregate schools. The National Guard did.

                  That’s bat-shit crazy, even from you.

                  SCOTUS desegregated schools in 1954, The State Militia defended the Constitutional Rights of nine children .. in 1957.

                  Governor Faubus.was crazy enough to say he was defending the voters of Arkansas — a common claim of racists, the KKK and (later) Ron Paul.

          2. Jeff. You defended the state and the theory of public accommodation in the baker’s cases…

            1. I did? Care to point to where?

              1. He always lies when he loses, which is always.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows about liars because he sees them all the time. It’s called a mirror.

      2. “This is such an immature attitude.”

        LOL. ‘We all play by the same set of rules’ is ‘immature’ in Jefflandia.

        You really are a heaving mass of projection.

        1. WHY DO YOU FUCKING LIE ABOUT HIS WORDS, GOOBER.

          lie “This is such an immature attitude.”

          LOL. ‘We all play by the same set of rules’ is ‘immature’ in Jefflandia.
          You really are a heaving mass of projection.

          Pathetic sack of shit.

          TRUTH: This is such an immature attitude. “If I can’t have my toys, I will make sure nobody will have any toys!”

          LOL. ‘We all play by the same set of rules’ is ‘immature’ in Jefflandia.

          You are one VERY sick fuck

          You really are a heaving mass of projection.

          (vomit)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano bitchfits like a worthless sack of shit.

    2. If bakers must violate their own religious beliefs to serve anyone,

  13. Soon in Canada the media folks will get to be completely owned lackeys of the state and every news headline will also serve as a grant application as snouts get led, willingly, to the trough.

    1. As bad as Pravda Fox News?

  14. But Net Neutrality! Or some other misguided egalitarian whining point.

  15. They also banned a prominent liberal feminist who merely said that gender identity is bullshit. Trans activists got her banned last week.

    1. Source?

      1. Searching the internet is hard.

        1. So why did he fail to?

          And why did you both lie about your link?
          (That was rhetorical. I already know you two are goobers)

          Why were you also called out as a fucking liar Here?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies, calls other people liars.

  16. “Kelly’s tough-guy shtick is fairly obnoxious.”

    No disrespect Robby, but I don’t really care what you think is ‘obnoxious’.

    And Jack Dorsey is a shithead punk.

    How’s that for obnoxiousness?

    1. Then there is this

      I say should, because this free service is not obligated to humor its conservative users’ desire for transparency and fairness, no matter how loudly they complain. But the idea that major tech companies are beholden to progressive goals is becoming a major talking point on cable news; absent proper justification, Twitter’s treatment of Kelly will add fuel to this fire.

      There is no proper justification to suppor the claim that the tech firms are beholden to Progressive Goals, they just ban conservatives for no appearent reason and never do the same to progs.

      I don’t think Robby even understands what a non sequiter that is. We really shouldn’t attribute the things he writes to malace. Robby is just dumb.

      1. Soave is a progressive disciple of Saul Alinsky who fully agrees with their goals; he merely disagrees with some of the tactics being used to achieve those goals.

        If you read his stuff carefully, almost every piece he writes is really just some variation on Alinsky’s old admonition to his fellow travelers that it’s more effective to don a suit and tie than a bandana and bandolier.

        1. Careful. If that drool droops onto your keyboard, you could have problems with it. (the keyboard)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows about drooling because he does it all the time when furiously spamming his multiple personalities.

  17. I am sure communist twitter handles are a dime a dozen.

    1. Depends what they say.

  18. Did anybody notice the alt-text Robby had poking fun at himself? Nice one, Robby.

  19. Twitter is a private company and can ban anyone it wants, of course.

    Although it’s nothing more than a fantasy of mine, I’d like to see the reaction if the private backbone provider banned Twitter.

      1. You failed to notice that the wacko white nationalist site was being blacklisted by “everyone”
        The very worst haters are on the far- right and alt-right. Nothing even close on the left. (I read all)

  20. But the idea that major tech companies are beholden to progressive goals is becoming a major talking point on cable news
    At what point does a Reason writer’s “idea” become fact? Pretending the MSM (both the old networks and the new series of tubes located in Seattle) don’t carry water for progressive liberal ideas is to be willfully ignorant of history and reality.

    1. As you make the most blatantly bigoted comment on the page!

      Left – Right = Zero

  21. who punishes Twitter for internal policy violations?

    1. Twitter’s management does, Nobody else has any right to.

  22. What’s going to happen is that leftists will overrun Twitter as Conservatives go elsewhere. There will be increased divisiveness as the “tribes” separates themselves even more. The way social media is being run is exacerbating tension in society. It’s best to get off social media altogether. This goes for Twitter, Facebook, Youtube comments, etc. Probably for any political site and the associated comments.

    1. But SOME conservatives are the nastiest group in America. If that minority leaves, well, that’s the whole point. Why allow 13% of Americans to drive away the other 87%?

      Probably for any political site and the associated comments.

      AND the associated comments? Scary.
      Reason is THE only political site that allows cyber-bullying and verbal aggression.

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano gets ass-mad when he can’t get in the last word.

        1. Reason is THE only political site that allows cyber-bullying and verbal aggression.

          Irony. (lol)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano proves my point.

  23. Pandering to the right-wing conspiracy nuts.
    Twitter has to explain nothing. It’s called liberty.
    And gobs of imaginary speculation is called morally irresponsible.

    1. Dead thread-fucking AGAIN, Hihnsano?

      1. Dead thread-fucking AGAIN, Hihnsano?

        My name is not Hihn,.
        If the thread was dead, why did you post to it ….. five hours after I did (sneer)..

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies like usual.

          1. Check the time stamps The math is achievable by most 10 year olds
            Anything else?

  24. Twitter, Facebook, Google, and any internet provider with significant market share that censors political speech needs to have their defamation immunity pulled. They were given that immunity to foster free speech and they are rushing it. Let them play on a level playing field.

    1. , and any internet provider with significant market share that censors political speech

      Only government can censor.

      You’re also don’t know what defamation means. And that the same immunity was “given” to absolutely absolutely everyone. That means you are the one demanding government force to censor speech for purely political reasons.

      Let them play on a level playing field.

      Says the jack-booted thug

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano calls others thugs while crying like a bitch about cyberbullying.

        1. Calling for government censorship is the act of a jack-booted thug.
          Except to other jack-booted thugs and cyber-bullies
          (sneer)

          1. Except if it involves Russians on FB. Then all bets are off. It’s an act of war (some moron congressmen actually said this) Call in the troops.

            1. Why do you lie about what the Russians did? Which included FRAUD (how they got their lists)
              And a foreign agent who swung a Presidential election. (Only needed to switch 38,000 voters — out of 30 million targets.)

              Anything else?

              1. Why are you such a Dumbfuck Hihnsano, Dumbfuck Hihnsano?

          2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines about cyber-bullies while desperately trying to get in the last word. (sneer)

  25. I was banned for simply correcting a liberal. I said nothing nasty at all. banned for life on two accounts. I only had these accounts for maybe a week. I decided not to bother creating another one. They win I guess.

  26. Yes Twitter is a private company and should be able to ban anyone that they choose. Also Twitter has no reason not to silence the right. Twitter’s customers are all except the conservative right so if the conservative right is silenced the better for Twitter and political agenda.
    But there may be reason that even as private company that banning may not be legal since in the past there were many private organizations that ban certain people from being apart of, using services of these private companies. So it might very well contrary to federal regulations.
    If it does not then it is up to Twitter to make that choice. If the company is not interested in the revenue generated by the conservative right then they and all the other media could shut them out just because they don’t like their politics.

    1. If the company is not interested in the revenue generated by the conservative right then they and all the other media could shut them out just because they don’t like their politics.

      ummn, they wacko right COSTS them revenues.. Scares people away. Just like they do here.

  27. Awww! I’m gonna MISS the Calico Cat and the Gingham Dog–but only after they’re gone.

  28. Ya think maybe the last sentence is a bit understated?

  29. The funny thing is that Jesse Kelly is not suspended by Twitter.

    He was suspended. That much is true. But that suspension was reversed and Kelly then deactivated his own account and is pretending to be suspended.

    Any attempted navigation to a suspended Twitter profile results in an immediate redirect to a page that reads “Account suspended). That redirect is permanent. If you don’t believe me, try it with any permanently suspended user

    Kelly’s URL does not do that. Instead, the URL remains, and you are taken to an error page. That error page would only be seen in three cases: the profile or tweet URL never existed in the first place, or if the profile or tweet URL was deleted by the user.

    Kelly is not suspended.

    1. Actually they’re all stupid right-wingers.

      Web sites have been suspending people in forums since at least 1992. Reason is the ONLY unmoderated political site. Check any other and see their terms/ rules/policies for comments. 90% of all online forums/comments define acceptable rules of behavior — for a very obvious reason. Haters destroy web traffic, which brings revenues. This is why Reason ranks at the very bottom for political site web traffic.

      In 1993, I was the 3rd moderator for the very first libertarian forum, which was at Compuserve. It was more critical then, because access was sold by the hour, so they made money even from people who just scanned without commenting or clicking,. My job was to make visitors feel safe, by either baning the assholes, or shifting the thread to a “secret”page seen only by the participants.

      But thanks to Trump,. the right is now seeing conspiracies everywhere.

  30. It is a conspiracy. Twitter FB and Google seem to operate as a little cabal. There is definitely evidence of of possible anti-trust violations.

    Is it legal for a group of large companies to collude , proper use of the term in this case, to control the social marketplace?

    But we’re worried about phantom Russians on FB?

    1. There is definitely evidence of of possible anti-trust violations.

      Prove it.

      Is it legal for a group of large companies to collude , proper use of the term in this case, to control the social marketplace?

      Prove it,

      But we’re worried about phantom Russians on FB?

      That WAS proven! Which proves YOU ignorant. Or a liar.
      Alex Jones will give you a cookie. Steve Bannon a hug. And Tucker Carlson a pat on the back

  31. I’d support Mr. Kelly except that I cannot: Twitter has suspended my last account for denouncing Alexandria Ocasio Cortez for being the sticky-fingered little political bandit she is.

    I can take the opportunity here to denounce Mr. Soave’s simplistic and extremist views on internet property rights. He claims that Twitter can do what it wants on “its” site; however, that is not exactly true. Twitter owns the underlying ADVERTISING platform — THAT is what it created. But, to create that platform, it invited millions of users to create communications channels on that advertising platform, and stated succinctly, TWITTER DOES NOT OWN THESE CHANNELS (the users do).

    Twitter increasingly is attempting to become a Left-wing soapbox and reacts in an expected manner to those willing to call its vipers “vipers.” And, suspending, either temporarily or permanently the accounts of people whose politics @jack doesn’t like IS A TORT.

    So, if Mr. Kelly is listening, I suggest he get in touch with me, and perhaps together we can answer @Jack Dorsey’s arrogance with a plethora of lawsuits designed to lighten his wallet by half a million dollars a pop.

    If nothing else, this will help to guide Republicans in Congress on what changes need to be made to put a stop to such censorship.

  32. But, to create that platform, it invited millions of users to create communications channels on that advertising platform, and stated succinctly, TWITTER DOES NOT OWN THESE CHANNELS (the users do).,…

    Like WE USERS own all the phione companies?
    If you’re THAT totally deranged here, I can imagine how you handled you handled your Ocasio-Cortez assault.
    And pee my laughing (Users get free access, in exchange for ads they NEVER have to click or even read. You had free access. How many ads did you click? If none, you are mooch. By your own standards)

  33. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.