Newsmax Censors My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell During Segment About Twitter's Censorship of Mike Lindell

You want more censorship? Go ahead, repeal Section 230.


My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump who wrongly believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen, appeared on Newsmax Wednesday to discuss his suspension from Twitter.

The topic of the segment was supposed to be Big Tech's censorious efforts to silence Lindell. But the businessman immediately veered off-topic and into conspiracy theory territory, forcing producers to abruptly cancel the interview—and inadvertently making an important point about Section 230, the federal law that protects social media companies from liability and has undeservedly become an object of conservative ire.

The interview began with the host prompting Lindell to address his company's suspension from Twitter.

"[My Twitter account] was taking down because we have all the election fraud, with these Dominion machines," said Lindell. "We have 100 percent proof, then they took it down…"

At that point, anchor Bob Sellers interrupted him and informed viewers that "we at Newsmax have not been able to verify any of those allegations, and there is nothing substantive that we have seen." The host and Lindell then talked over each other for a while. Watch below:

This raises a question that more conservative critics of social media should be asking themselves: If it's censorship when Twitter yanks Lindell off its platform for making false and potentially defamatory claims, is it not censorship when Newsmax does the same thing? Have conservative news outlets that refused to interview Lindell effectively silenced him in the same way Facebook has?

The answer, obviously, is no—of course Newsmax is under no obligation to permit Lindell to make such statements. Neither is Twitter. Neither is Facebook.

Newsmax is under greater pressure to deplatform Lindell, of course. The network is facing a potential defamation lawsuit from Dominion, the voting machine company wrongly maligned by many Trump surrogates. Bringing Lindell on the airwaves and letting him make defamatory statements puts Newsmax in significant legal jeopardy.

Unlike Newsmax, social media companies cannot be held liable for Lindell's defamatory comments. Section 230 establishes that internet platforms are not responsible for users' content, except in a few special cases. Social media companies can take action against concerning content, of course—they just aren't required to do so.

Many conservatives—most notably, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.)—have fallen in love with the idea of repealing Big Tech's liability protection, perhaps in order to really stick it to Facebook and Twitter. But the results of such a move are easy to predict: Without Section 230, Facebook and Twitter would moderate even more content.

Indeed, a social media platform deprived of Section 230's protection wouldn't suddenly become a more careful steward of conservative speech, but the opposite. It would be forced to behave exactly the way Newsmax did with Lindell. It would silence anyone whose speech was remotely likely to cause legitimate complaints. It would have no choice.

This is a prospect that delights many Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), both of whom support 230's repeal. That pro-Trump Republicans want to aid them in this effort is truly perplexing.

NEXT: Trump's Lawyers Say He Can't Be Impeached for Trying to Subvert the Election Because He Was Just Expressing an Opinion

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “But the businessman immediately veered off-topic and into conspiracy theory territory, forcing producers to abruptly cancel the interview ….”

    Naturally, we all understand it is the speech itself that “forces” the censorship, just like the cookies in the jar “force” the fat ass, just like the big tits and tight clothes “force” the rapist.

    Fucking gimps, all of you.

    1. How can you “wrongly” believe something?

      1. You could wrongly believe that the Democrats and their allies in big tech aren’t actively working together towards single party control of the federal government.

        1. During his first week in office, Biden also abolished a Trump-era rule that imposed some measure of accountability RGbv on the federal bureaucracy.……..MORE READ

          1. “It’s all coming back faster than we ever thought,” Biden said. “We’re going to have a fantastic third quarter. 2021 year is going to be an incredible year for jobs. Here is Job opportunity for everyone! Because of Corona Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you can work with your own working hours. You can work this job As part time or As A full time job. You can Earns up to $1000 per Day by way of work is simple on the web. It’s easy, just follow instructions on home page, read it carefully from start to finish Check The Details…. Latest USA Govt Jobs

            1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy MOY is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

              Give it a shot on following website……..READ MORE

              1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular ASG office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page……..MORE READ

    2. Florida Gov. Ron Desantis proposes daily fines for Big Tech companies that deplatform political candidates

      Finally, a legislative solution to Big Tech’s censorship of Republicans, libertarians and others with different views, which other Red states are likely to replicate and improve upon.

      I cannot envision Google, Facebook, Twitter or other large Big Tech companies owned/run by left wingers shutting down all of their business in Florida (in an attempt to evade FL statutes).

      1. What a statist and anti-libertarian thing for Desantis to propose.

        A private company should have the right to associate/not associate with whomever it wants.

        1. They’re free to do so. Consequences, of course, can follow. C’est la vie.

          Uganda had the right idea on social media.

          1. Except the consequences you want are statist and regulatory in nature. It’s literally the government inserting it’s hands into the free market. What is libertarian about that?

            1. The new administration nixes a change that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine.The Trump Administration didn’t attempt either approach to justify it’s guidelines, but argued HHS has the authority to “eliminate the requirement QXwz that physicians with a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration number apply for a separate waiver to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder treatment,” which would effectively cover almost all practicing physicians in the U.S..……..MORE READ

    3. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link………..INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    4. Real online home based work to make more than $14k. Last month i have made $15738 from this home job. Very simple and easy to do and earnings from this are just awesome for details. For more detail visit the given link………..INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    5. Did I miss the in-depth, hard, fact finding NewsMax expo on the Election fraud and how through their investigation they reviewed all evidence gather was indeed false?

      Nah that’s what they said so it must be true. Talking heads with a arm up their ars moving their mouths. STFU

      I did buy two pillows last night directly from his website, just for the fact he has the spine to even talk about it.

      1. Same here. I don’t remember any squashing of talk regarding the blatantly fake Russian “collusion” investigation that dragged on for more than two years. Moreover, I have seen no thorough fact-finding investigation by any news outlet – just arm waving and saying there is no evidence of “widespread” election fraud. Truth is, there did not need to be widespread fraud – just enough in a few swing states to put Biden over the top. The fact that it was not seriously investigated and was quickly “forgotten” by the press is an almost certain indicator that Biden’s win was, indeed, fraudulent.

        1. They are just staying on the talking points they have been given.

          Avoid and stop any and all conversations, mention or suggestions of Voter Fraud!

    6. actually…they were just scared of more lawsuits…since libel and slander and libel charges are in play for Newsmax and others. Looking forward to these nutter claims failing in court.

      1. I doubt that – I’m not a lawyer, but who would have standing against Newsmax for vague claims that someone defrauded an election where hundreds of millions of votes were cast?

    7. Come on, how can you expect a guy to NOT rape a woman when she wears a short dress? She MADE him do it.

      Fuck libertarians. The GOP needs to work on banning them from all ballots so money can stop being spent on these gimpy idiots.

  2. That pro-Trump Republicans want to aid them in this effort is truly perplexing.

    No because they actually want to get censored so that they can say, “We had to resort to violence. It was our only option.” They are intentionally obnoxious and offensive and embrace various conspiracy theories to achieve their goal.

    But the fact is, most refused to fight for Trump online, and the few who did got their asses handed to them repeatedly.

    If anyone out there wants to fight for Trump, I am happy to work with you. If instead you attack me then fine but that’s why Trump lost. Don’t blame ‘election fraud’.

    1. Know your audience, and your battleground. Have fun on twitter. Keep up the good fight.

      1. “Trump supporters like me are scared to fight online. That’s how I know Trump won and there must have been election fraud. Prove I said that you liar.”

        HAHA nah.

        1. See above.

          1. Gosh if you had only shown this persistence before the election, Trump might have stood a chance. But you didn’t and now it’s too late. Don’t blame ‘censorship’. The fault is yours.

            1. This has to be a parody account.

              1. Like I said, they want to get censored so they can come here and accuse people of ‘parody’ for exposing their agenda (and justify the killing of capitol police and deny it).

                1. Ha, ha?

                  1. I’m not sure, but I think it might be sarcasmic. He sounds drunk and angry, and makes weird accusations like sarc.

                    1. Sounds more like that retard MollyGodiva …

                    2. Sounds more like that retard MollyGodiva …

                      AddictionMyth and MollyGodiva are both really old Shreek (now known as Sarah Palin’s Buttplug) sockpuppet accounts. He hasn’t used AddictionMyth in about 8 years, then he suddenly resurrected it right after the election. Dajjal is also a Shreek sockpuppet, which he frequently confused with his AddictionMyth sock to the point where he actually had the same blog post linked to both accounts for a time because he’s retarded.

                  2. Gosh if only you had fought for Trump with the same persistence that you now fight his supporters. If only.

                    1. Do you like Trump?

                    2. Join me on twitter to fight for him and for libertarian principles. Or keep losing, up to you.

                    3. “Join me on twitter to fight for him and for libertarian principles.”


                      I’d rather join you at the bottom of the ocean to fight for air.

                    4. Exactly – you are just looking for excuses for violence, like I said. But you won’t find that with me.

                    5. “Join me on twitter to fight for him and for libertarian principles”

                      Please stop.
                      You’re not helping.

                    6. Nobody is going to follow your dumb ass to twitter.

                      Fuck off.

  3. Ultimately section 230 helps the little guy much more than the billionaire big tech firms anyway. Even without 230 Twitter could easily afford to hire the best lawyers to swat away or delay forever any defamation lawsuits. The little guys like Parler, however, would be bankrupted by them.

    Repealing 230 is not the answer. Developing a censorship-proof internet infrastructure is.

    1. “Repealing 230 is not the answer.”

      Amen! I am SOOOO glad to see that SOME folks around here recognize this rare beast… A pro-freedom law, a law in RESTRAINT of the powers of Government Almighty… When they SEE the fabled rare beast! It DOES exist, from time to time!

    2. “Developing a censorship-proof internet infrastructure is.”

      What does that mean, exactly?

      1. It means;;;;; I’ve been looking for a Facebook ‘alternative’ and have yet to find a semi-decent one… I find it astonishingly baffling that out of 320-Million people complaining about ALL the wealth of Big Tech Facebook not a SINGLE-ONE has thought; hey, there’s an awesome opportunity to get wealthy here…

        The DEMAND is there; where’s the SUPPLY?

        1. The problem is getting all my sisters, aunts, grandma, mom, cousins, etc. to migrate there.
          Keeping up with them was my only reason to use Facebook. The platform itself is buggy junk.

          1. If a good alternative platform could be found; It really shouldn’t be hard at all to have people migrate there. Everyone I know would migrate in a second. I’m baffled as to why an ‘alternative’ doesn’t exist.

            1. It does: Minds.Com

        2. You mean besides the firms then pressuring web hosts to drop them and banks to not process payments for them?

          This is not a free market. At all.

    3. “Repealing 230 is not the answer.”

      Repealing the Good Samaritan clause found in 230 certainly is though. If you want the special protections 230 affords, then you don’t get to curate according to your whims.
      Choose to be either a publisher or a platform. If the latter then leave the illegal stuff to the police.

      1. I hear this a LOT: Either you’re a publisher, or an impartial conduit of posts; you can NOT be both! Well, this is an authoritarian power-pig stance, no matter if you persuade 51% or 97% of your fellow authoritarians, or not! NO inflexible law of physics, chemistry, or yada-yada prohibits Section 230 to straddle the middle!

        Let me draw an analogy to this black-and-white empty-headedness: Because I (and 51% of the voters) say that your teeth bacteria are either utterly evil, or are pure-white good and have souls, you must either: ‘1) Nuke your mouth once a day with ionizing radiation, or ‘2) you may brush your teeth, but if you do, you MUST find a good home for EVERY bacteria that you put out on the streets!

        Colgate MUST decide, are they ruthless killers of ALL mouth bacteria, or are they enablers of goodness and kindness for good, soul-bearing bacteria! They may NOT straddle the middle, as enablers of free-will choices of the consumers, because I, and 51% or more of the voters, have said so!

        Alternately, it can NOT, and dare NOT, be both a dessert topping, AND a floor wax… Because I said so!

        Power-pig authoritarians all of ye!

        1. I only read this first paragraph, but what a nonsensical retard you are.

          If you can’t argue like a human, I’m going to keep spamflagging you.

          1. What an authoritarian asshole YOU are… Because I said so!

            THIS is the summary of moose-fucker Mamma the authoritarian…

            “Because I said so!” And you have NO further facts, citations, arguments, or ANYTHING to back you up, other than, “Because I said so!”

          2. It cannot and flagging makes more sense than reading it.

    4. The Best Lawyers are always the best lawyers, sometime the Best Lawyers are really just the expensive ones.

      Seems to me that if there is a case there is a Lawyer ready to take it to Trial. Those are some pretty big CASH COWS just ready to be milked. They may have lots of money but there are attorneys that if they felt they have enough of a case will not take money. I’d take a case if I felt I could win millions if not Billions at the end of it, who wouldn’t. Lawyers don’t have sides they have clients.

    5. Yes, Parler was helped tremendously

  4. supporter of former President Donald Trump who wrongly believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen,

    Robby, dude, I happen to agree with you; but why on Earth would you insert that word there? You wrote that paragraph to set the factual stage. Keep your point of view in your pants until it’s time.

    1. He’s signaling so he doesn’t get canceled.
      To his credit Robby picks a lot of socially dangerous topics, but he still isn’t very brave.

    2. Agreed. That was weird. Although he’s been doing that since before it became de rigueur for journalists, it’s a little too much like the “without evidence” qualifier that suddenly crept into “news” stories during Trump (as though a lying politician was a new phenomenon).

      1. To be sure.

    3. Exactly. Robby should stop using the leftist language.

      If a story was about a guy who believed the earth was flat, you wouldn’t say “wrongly”. You’d just say what he believed, with no editorializing.

      1. I’ve seen and heard a lot of that from Reason folks in the last 2-3 months. It’s been really disappointing to see them behaving just like all the rest of the media.

  5. “Unlike Newsmax, social media companies cannot be held liable for Lindell’s defamatory comments.”

    Neither can Newsmax.

    1. This has to be a parody account.

      1. Fuck off back to Twitter.

        Unless you like the abuse, in which case there is a club within a club here for people like you.

          1. Once you’re in the club, you’re in for good. You don’t have to do this.

            1. Yeah, it’s sarc. Around this time of night he doesn’t have much for brains (after drinking all day) so he often resorts to parroting.

              1. It’s not, it’s shreek. This sock his really, really old. If you run a google search you’ll find it. He abandoned it for years and just recently dug it back out after the election along with Dajjal and MollyGodiva.

                1. Good to know.

            2. That parody sock this morning must’ve really gotten under his skin.

              1. You guys should join me on twitter to fight for Trump and libertarian principles. Or you can keep shouting slogans into each others’ ears in your echo chamber here – up to you.

                1. Piss off. You’re not fooling anyone.

      2. Geiger is likely correct according to past legal rulings such as New York Times v. Sullivan. So long as news programs add qualifiers and malice cannot be shown, Newsmax is likely to prevail in any lawsuit. Even in the case of a show that contains opinion and not news, such as Tucker Carlson’s, he managed to win a case last year because (as I understand it – I may not be 100% correct) the court found that the show was presented to viewers as largely opinions, not as factual presentations of a nature subject to slander liability.

    2. they can if they air them without context or qualification… fact I believe they have been.

  6. Wrongthink. Just can’t have it.

  7. I fully support Section 230, but the problem with Section 230 is that it’s an ex-parrot at this point.

    Once the antitrust suits were launched, Section 230’s demise was assured. The question wasn’t whether to keep Section 230 around. The question was whether the Trump administration or the Biden administration would negotiate its replacement in the consent decree.

    We haven’t had the funeral for Section 230 yet. We haven’t buried it yet. But Section 230 is as good as dead. There isn’t anyone in any position of power who wants to resuscitate it when it stops breathing either. We might as well be arguing about whether Nixon should go back on the gold standard. That boat has sailed. It’s over.

    We might argue about whether it would have been better if Trump had been reelected. If Trump had been reelected, requiring social media to tolerate the speech of conservatives, when he negotiated the consent decree, was probably preferable, from a libertarian perspective, to Biden forcing social media companies to block the speech of conservatives. But, again, that’s spilt milk at this point.

    All they need to kill it is one Republican Senator?

    It’s dead, and when they bury it, every politician that matters will dance on its grave. And, yes, conservatives will largely be purged from the public square as a result.

    1. The net result, regardless of what happens to Section 230, is an internet broken into two largely insulated and mutually exclusive intellectual ecosystems. Everything taken as true and right in one, will be false and wrong in other. The chasm between these ecosystems will ultimately grow to be insurmountable. The culture will fracture irreparably, followed shortly thereafter by the fracture of the nation.

      I don’t actually have a problem with this progression, provided the separation is peaceful.

      1. We’re looking at a future where opposing affirmative action is racist, opposing abortion is misogynistic, opposing gay marriage is homophobic, and supporting a wall is xenophobic–and all of that is to be blocked in the public square as hate speech. That every conservative in the country holds one of those positions is beside the point.

        We’re looking at a future where contending that the Second Amendment is meant to make it so that we can defend ourselves against an oppressive government is always blocked from the public square for advocating violence.

        We’re looking at a future where alleging that Hunter Biden may have been peddling influence on behalf of his father is always blocked as a crazy conspiracy theory.

        I think the two sides may be regular society and the underground. It’ll be like hardcore and extreme metal before the internet. It wasn’t on the radio. It wasn’t even in most record stores. If you didn’t hear about it by word of mouth, someone didn’t hand you a ‘zine, some fan girl didn’t hand you something she got through tape trading, or you didn’t go to the shows to see it yourself, you wouldn’t have known about it at all.

        Without the radio, tv, mainstream record stores, or the internet, bands like the Misfits and Slayer became world famous anyway. So, there’s hope. But the underground is all there will be for conservatism anymore. The left might manage to make things like ‘zines and going to church cool again!

        Conservative publications might be like pr0n used to be before the internet–and maybe before the VCR. Every 15 year old boy got his hands on it, even back then, somehow. You’ll have to really want it to find it.

        1. It’s all about the party. Which is the Democratic party. Same as the Communist Party no difference.

        2. It sounds crazy on the face of it… until you read publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic… you know, crazy fringe publications….

          They are openly arguing for what sounds like a hyperbolic parody of some Marxist alternate history of America. Literally arguing for a Truth Commission and a Reality Tzar.

      2. provided the separation is peaceful.

        It wont’ be. Totalitarian scum of the earth will never allow anyone to leave their sphere of influence. That’s why we had the first civil war to begin with. Abraham Lincoln didn’t discover his warm feelings for the negro until halfway through the war.

      3. “The net result, regardless of what happens to Section 230, is an internet broken into two largely insulated and mutually exclusive intellectual ecosystems”

        My god this is overly dramatic. You people that spend all day bickering on social media like preteen girls REALLY over-estimate the relevance of this shit. You are like reporters that live on Twitter and can’t understand that the vast majority of America doesn’t.

        1. True, but the apathetic majority does not write the narratives or set policy. And at some point the policy will intrude on the apathetic. The question is, will they push back?

        2. You underestimate its relevance.

          The schism is happening, whether you want to admit it or not. After years of covert and, now, overt censorship, the censored are taking the mocking advice the Left has been hurling at them and following it.

          “Build your OWN Facebook!”
          “Build YOUR own Twitter!”
          “START your own newspapers, and networks, and ….”

          And it’s happening, and it will continue to happen. The alternative sphere is being shaped and it is insular — not because of censorship, mind you, but because the Left will never leave their bubble.

          It is only a matter of time before the Left finally bite the bullet and say:

          “Build your own GOVERNMENT!!”

          And guess what? They will.

          1. And thanks to the open Internet, you CAN start your own things now. 30 years ago the mainstream media was all you had. There was no alternative. But now look at the explosive growth of “non traditional” media online that is infinitely harder for society’s gatekeepers to squash. This is major progress, why do we want to screw it up?

            1. My point was that the proliferation of alternative media that censors all other alternative media will create distinct intellectual ecosystems and, ultimately, a fractured society where everything right and true in one ecosystem will be denounced as wrong and false in the other.

              Censorship is bad. Creating alternate realities for people to occupy, especially with respect to the fundamental values of governance, will lead to the destruction of this country in its present form.

              Imagine two people being forced to live in a studio apartment and each being thoroughly convinced that the other is secretly plotting to kill them. That is no way to live.

              1. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that both of the roommates’ beliefs are false. I can unequivocally state that in this analogy, this is an erroneous assumption.

                A simple scan of today’s headlines and opinion pages will clearly demonstrate that at least one of the roommates is committed to the notion of binding and gagging their roommate, placing them in a gimp mask and locking them in a trunk in the basement. They are of the firm belief that this is not only permissible, but it is the only honorable and just way to proceed.

            2. And thanks to the open Internet, you CAN start your own things now

              Tell that to Parlor.

  8. And now we must ban the sale of these “hate pillows”.

    1. Correction: We are **forced** to ban the sale of hate pillows.

  9. Why should non progressives care about repealing section 230? We are already getting censored

      1. Yeah. Hard to say “You’re already being fucked. Don’t let OTHER get fucked” as a good reason to continue bad policy.

        Oh no, without Section 230 the Right will be censored…as they are right now.

    1. I just saw a scientific study that scientifically proves that this is not true.

    2. It’s a good question.

      My libertarian instincts are repealing 230 is just back door Net Neutrality. A new way to give government more direct control over outlets, because ultimately someone has to decide who is a neutral platform and who isn’t.

      But seeing how far the throttling has gone already, it’s hard to give two shits. I guess the question would be: in what way will progressives use the removal of 230 to grant themselves even more power over speech once they have the power over it?

  10. The interview was supposed to be about the censorship of Lindell, he tried to turn it into something else, and they dropped him. Newsmax didn’t censor him. He fucked up.

    1. The whole thing was a complete clown show.

      “So, why did you get censored?”
      “Well, it’s because I was talking about election fraud …..”
      “WHOA! WHOA!”
      “What? I was censored because ….”
      “We are NOT going to discuss THAT ….
      “But that is why I was …..”
      “This interview is over.”

      Seriously, why the fuck did they even bother asking?

      1. This is not the case. Mike Lindell went immediately to making a accusations against a company. There was plenty of room for Lindell to talk about getting censored without making accusations. The fact is Lindell is under threat of suit himself and his own lawyers should have told him not to talk like this.

        By the way, if Lindell has 100% proof he should show it and not just talk.

        1. It is the case, and fuck off.

        2. People are trying. Your lot is stopping them.

          What Mendacious4ever’s team is doing:
          “If he hit you, where’s the bruise”
          “Right here, I’ll lift up my shirt and show…”
          “Woah pervert, why are you taking off your clothes! What a pervert, someone punch him, he deserves it, pervert”

          1. I call BS. No one is stopping anyone from showing their evidence. The fact is all people like Lindell and Trump have are accusations. The House Impeachment Managers have asked President Trump to testify. He can go up in front of a national audience and lay out the evidence. Simple as that.

    2. Agreed.

  11. If it’s censorship when Twitter yanks Lindell off its platform for making false and potentially defamatory claims, is it not censorship when Newsmax does the same thing?

    No, because that’s not what Newsmax did. This is hardly the first time in history an interview has been dropped due to an unruly guest. He had no intention of staying on topic.

    1. I thought the topic was “why were you censored?”.


    Twitter on Monday temporarily blocked dozens of accounts and tweets in India at the Hindu nationalist government’s request, including those of a prominent news magazine and farmers staging mass protests in the capital.

    An Information Technology ministry source told the AFP news agency the government had directed the social media giant to act against about 250 Twitter accounts and tweets that posed a “grave threat to public order”.

    1. Order or freedom. Choose one.

  13. Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $17529 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here… For more detail.

  14. We all agree social media is cancer, so why shed tears about the demise of Section 230? It won’t end free speech online, because you cannot stop speech in a decentralized network. We don’t need Twitter or Facebook for free speech; we never did, and they don’t aim to protect speech anyway. And we don’t need Section 230 either.

    1. Wow. You’re a sheeple.

      Social media is the greatest advancement in the history of human communication.

      1. You’re…kidding, right?

        There is nothing negative in killing off social media.

    2. “We all agree social media is cancer, so why shed tears about the demise of Section 230?”

      Because the Internet is a lot more than just social media?

    3. We all agree

      Guess where I stopped reading.

    4. agreed. libertarians crying for regulation doesn’t make a lot of sense. the internet survived without “Net Neutrality”. it will survive without section 230.

      1. You’ll survive in prison too.

        Free speech is an inalienable right because the founders of the constitution recognized that mere survival was not enough.

        1. Shut up, Nazi

  15. Yes; News-max censored EXACTLY like Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon did after being requested to by Democratic Politicians.

    For all general purposes; A redress of grievance about an obviously fraud-ed election is now a CRIME and becoming MORE-SO everyday…

  16. I trust Newsmax 1000% over anything the current Reason magazine has to say. Nobody is perfect, least of all Reason, and live is very different from print of online posts.

    1. or online posts.

  17. If Dominion wants to sue anyone, they can sue Lindell.

    Free speech requires letting people talk. That exonerates the hosting platform.

  18. That pro-Trump Republicans want to aid them in this effort is truly perplexing.

    It’s almost like both parties want more government and less freedon.

    1. It only hurts when I laugh.

    2. That’s a load of h*rseshit……
      Democratics – Repeal Section 230 so we can use Gov-Guns to censor.
      Republicans – Repeal Section 230 so we can use Gov-Guns to STOP private censorship.

      Repealing section 230 IS a desire for more Gov-Guns but the purpose behind each party is 100% different.

      The only ‘likeness’ is from the Companies perspective of having Gov-Guns pointed at them if they defy the political purpose.

  19. Why censor Lindell. Perfect chance to challenge him for the evidence.

    1. That is exactly the question I have been asking. Conspiracy theories usually crumble upon scrutiny and, in the process, expose the conspiracy theorists as people that believe things without sufficient evidence.

      But the way the people asserting that this was the “freest and fairest” election in the history of human existence are **acting** is exactly how you would expect people that committed massive fraud to act.

      “Shut the fuck up and never talk about it again,” is a strange way to assure people that everything was legitimate.

    2. ^THIS It’s not about ‘evidence’ anymore it’s about CANCELLING the evidence.

    3. Because at a certain point the news outlet decides to distance themselves to protect their own credibility.

      Anyone ever try the pillows? Are they any good?

  20. There is no proof the election was ‘stolen.’ That is not the same as saying it wasn’t. Look at the Lois Lerner/IRS thing – no proof at all, but the statistics smell like dead fish.
    Imagine you made a bet with a man that he couldn’t flip a quarter 20 times and get nothing but heads – paying you $1000 if he lost and him $5000 if he won. Because of Covid, you had to stand six feet away and he wore nitrile gloves. He gets nothing but heads and tosses his quarter into an open bag of 100 quarters, shaking the bag.
    The odds of him getting 20 in a row is 0.0001%. Not impossible, but practically so. You fish around in the bag and find a two-headed quarter, but no fingerprints on it.
    You will never have proof, but you know you were cheated.

    1. Great post, I’m stealing it.

      1. Me too

    2. Except the odds of Trump losing were about 50/50 not .000001 and you haven’t found a two headed quarter. Where is it?

      1. The 90%+ Biden favor quarter on 60,000 quarters; idiot.

      2. Pennsylvania. A 50-50 battleground state where the mail-in ballots broke 2-1 for Biden. Now mail–in ballots were more pro-Biden nationwide, but in no other battleground state did the pro-Biden mail in percentage favor Biden like that. The PA percentage approached that of California, where in-person voting was also 2-1 for Biden.

        And somehow all the news networks knew the mail-in ballots would overcome Trump’s 400K vote lead on Election Day, before they were counted.

        1. Before the votes were counted? We were told that this would happen way back in August. This is why they all pledged not to announce any winners on election day. Because we had been warned that even though it may appear that Trump had won in a landslide on election day, the Biden legal team was deployed across the country, and by the time all of the counting was done, it would show that Biden had won in a landslide.

          In August, we were warned that this would happen. And that it might take days or even weeks for the outcome to be clear.

          This, at a time when it was pretty much unfathomable that Trump would even be close, having a 16 point deficit in all of the polls.

  21. The IRS picks your return for audit because your taxes paid seem low vs your income. Based on that crazy science called “statistics”.

    You reply I rechecked my tax return and its just fine buzz off you have no proof. To question me is treasonous. Does that work?

    Of course not. Do they have proof before they investigate things like income statements and receipts. Of course not.

    We live amongst clowns

    1. The fact that they’re demanding the results of an investigation, before being willing to accept the idea that there should be an investigation, demonstrates that they are being willfully dishonest and are stalling.

      1. That is not how the legal system works. Say I want to sue you for defamation. I have to present at least preliminary evidence that I have a plausible case which I will then build on before I get a jury trial.

        Otherwise the court system would collapse with frivolous unmerited cases.

        Same here you need to have some merit to your allegations or we would never have elections. They would all be held up forever.

        1. “I have to present at least preliminary evidence that I have a plausible case which I will then build on before I get a jury trial.”

          That is also not how the legal system works. Cases proceed on the basis of allegations. No presentation of evidence is required. That which is alleged in the pleadings is, at the outset, presumed to be true on the basis of the allegations alone, and nothing else. The court system has not collapsed with frivolous cases.

          1. Fair enough.

    2. Another worthless analogy. There were recounts in three contested states all of which confirmed the results, There were something like 54 legal challenges near all of which were thrown out of court or ruled against.

      The IRS can audit you any time for any reason. The laws in each state concerning grounds for a recount are entirely different. You need a plausible case before they do that.

      There is no evidence that the election was stolen and Trump won. None. It is a fiction. I don’t even have a dog in this. I voted for the nice professor lady.

      There is no two headed quarter. What are the odds of 54 court cases making essentially the same allegations and all failing yet being true?

      Anyway I am breaking my own rules. There is no point in arguing with a fixed ideation. And the IRS sucks.

      1. Worthless reply.

        The recounts were done by the same people who originally did the counting

        Try not being a trad.

        1. Which is how conspiracy theories work. If the results don’t come up the way you want then the results are simply another cover up.

          It is all a giant plot involving thousands of people.

        2. the recounts occurred after the ballots were harvested. they did prove the machines weren’t tampered with.

      2. “There is no evidence ….”

        Because you, personally, do not find it persuasive does not mean there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence.

        1. No plausible evidence.

          1. Well, in order to make that claim, you’d have to actually review the evidence, would you not?

      3. “which confirmed the results” —
        LIES, LIES and more LIES! GA found Thousands of UN-counted votes and telling the counters to use the “machine counts” before the whole recount began was also a load of h*rseshit.

        The fact that the EXACT same people were used to recount a count and pretending it was an ‘audit’ is another load of h*rseshit.

        It’s like accusing someone of stealing your car and then asking them to “check again”… Oh, nope; SAME F*CKING STORY; Dude, I didn’t steal your care.

        The court cases were ‘thrown out’ on locality standing. They didn’t get investigated..

        BUT what good does arguing about this make; YOU either want a transparently authentic election or you DON’T and one thing is clear as day; Those CANCELLING the evidence want NOTHING to do with authenticating future elections.

  22. “The answer, obviously, is no—of course Newsmax is under no obligation to permit Lindell to make such statements. Neither is Twitter. Neither is Facebook.”

    Yes they are obligated Robby. Don’t be so willfully stupid.
    All three advertise themselves as different sorts of platforms for free expression.
    None of them warn that if you hold the wrong sort of opinion on election integrity they will cancel you. Particularly given the arbitrary nature of the censorship as Hillary Clinton is still permitted to make dubious accusations about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    Best case scenario is that they are conning consumers as to the nature of their operations, which is a violation of their obligations.

    1. No they don’t advertise themselves as free expression. Twitter and Facebook have lots of rules which they can change at any time. Even then they have no legal obligations. This website is not an outlet for free expression either. They are loose about the comments but they could change that as well.

      Even then I don’t see how any of that is an obligation.

      I don’t have a right to be published in the NYT or appear on Fox News.

      Tyranny is not just telling people what they cannot publish it is also telling them what they must publish.

  23. There is more evidence for the Loch Ness monster than for the claim that the election was stolen.

    Difference is that Nessie is harmless while this claim is far from it.

    1. Now do 2016.

      1. Now do 1876 or 1960. So what?

      2. 2016 got investigated, they’re refusing to look into 2020.
        Echospinner is dishonestly arguing that he needs to see the results of an investigation, before agreeing that an investigation is needed.

        1. Are you talking about a congressional investigation? You seem confused about how our political system works, or doesn’t, here in America.

          1. Specking of political investigations; Did you miss the Pennsylvania one when the vote count made the entire committee laugh-out-load because the numbers were so far-fetched?

        2. I was specifically discussing the legal suits, not congressional investigations. Now you are being dishonest and bringing up a different topic.

        3. Personally I don’t pay attention to congressional investigations. It is all partisan political theater.

    2. Hey everyone.
      Read JohannesDinkle’s post immediately above for a good refutation of Echospinner’s pathetic fifty-centing here.

      1. Pollsters are imperfect but 538 had Biden at 10:1. Then again they were wrong about the prior election so I just gave it even odds.

        1. Tard harder?

    3. A “dangerous” claim? A “cancer”?

      You don’t have much faith in your ability to discern truth from lies. You’d prefer your benevolent leaders did it for you. They’ll tell you what’s good and bad for you and you’ll love them for it.

      Grow up. The US was born with a constitution to prevent exactly that.

    4. It seems that you do not quite understand the legal definition of the word evidence, or even the regular definition.

  24. You want more censorship? Go ahead, repeal Section 230.

    I feel like it’s time to remind you that Section 230 doesn’t apply outside of the united states.

  25. How do we know he “wrongly believes” it? Just because it wasn’t proven doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    1. You can’t prove a negative. Frankly, it’s surprising how many insist this is not the case.

  26. Never heard of this Bob Sellers douchebag before today, and now I know that he’s not a newsman.


  27. Regarding censorship, I just did a google search with the words
    “Scott Atlas herd immunity” and the first 100 articles that appeared on the search (i.e. all article on the first ten pages of the search) demonized, lied about and/or otherwise trashed Scott Atlas (for truthfully claiming that the vast majority of people who have been infected with covid developed immunity).

    But not one article from Reason exposing the truth about herd immunity, or defending Atlas’ truthful claims.

    1. And not one article in Reason criticizing Google’s monopoly or its censorship of truthful information (and those who tell the truth).

      1. You’re observation is valid. Though I disagree. What now?

        What the fuck is going on? Don’t we have peer reviewed scientific methods? Experts who respect the evidence of logic and science.

        I think the years of agenda driven pseudo science, propaganda, has weakened our grasp on reality. The experts have rightly lost our trust.

        Social media has brought this to a head, fortunately, and exposed the greatest danger of speech, censoring it.

        Only uncensored rational debate will separate the experts from the shills.

    2. Scott Atlas is excellent in Neuroradiology and MRI. How he got involved in this I do not know.

      Herd immunity is misunderstood. Here is a link to what is happening in Manaus Brazil which had a seroprevalence rate of up to 76% so they opened everything up and figured it was over. They are now experiencing a devastating second wave.

      There are mass graves there and people are lining up for the dwindling supply of oxygen tanks.

      1. People are becoming reinfected with symptoms within 90 days of resolving their initial infection.

        1. Would the same be true of taking the vaccine as well?

  28. “My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump who WRONGLY believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen,”

    He believes what he believes…there is no wrong or right. Media is a crack-whore that just doesn’t care about actual journalism and instead acts as if they are the all knowing, be all, end all…FUCK YOU REASON and the rest of our media for making me defend people like Trump and the pillow guy!

  29. RE: “ letting him make defamatory statements puts Newsmax in significant legal jeopardy.”

    Say what? Allowing free speech & personal opinion on a news program puts a news org in significant legal jeopardy?

    What is happening to Reason?

  30. RE: “ letting him make defamatory statements puts Newsmax in significant legal jeopardy.”

    Say what? Allowing free speech & personal opinion on a news program puts a news org in significant legal jeopardy?

  31. Mike Lindell and John Stossel: separated at birth? Both have the same cheesy moustache you normally only see on cops and ’80s porn stars.

  32. I would find it immensely comforting if a news organization would investigate and carefully address the more serious aspects of the suspected voter fraud in the 2020 election.
    Instead, all the networks seem to have simultaneously started using the same language about it, as they did when they went from stating that “Trump claimed without evidence today that….”, and it changed to “Trump falsely claimed that …”. To put it like that implies that either you have carefully investigated the claims and found unambiguous proof that they are false, or the claims are impossible.
    On the second point, the current election system is just too complicated for anyone to make a blanket claim that it cannot be compromised. Any reasonably clever person can think of several ways to vote fraudulently, with little or no risk of discovery. Proving that such things did not happen is probably possible, but would take a very in-depth examination of the results.

    But my basic point is that the best way to fight disinformation is better and clearly accurate information, and lots of it.
    Looking at the election count report timelines from a couple of contested states, one thing that keeps appearing is subtracted votes, as in at a certain time, a negative number of votes is added to Trump’s total. Obviously in a simple counting system, votes are only added. I can see that perhaps provisional votes might be voided to a preliminary count. I cannot see how votes can possibly be switched from one candidate to another.
    I don’t understand why election workers would stop the counting, send the observers home, then produce apparently hidden ballots and count them through the night. Furtive action implies dishonesty.
    I don’t see why, in some cases, large stacks of ballots were fed into the counting machines multiple times. My understanding is that ballots that the machines could not read would be separated for further examination. It does not seem sensible that hundreds or thousands of ballots would need to be run through the machine three or four times.
    If there are simple and honest explanations for these and many other observed irregularities, they should be addressed rather than just reflexively labeled “false”.
    Lindell seems like an earnest and hard working person. He is certainly doing what he thinks is right. I have never before heard that news organizations are themselves responsible for any claims made by interview subjects.

    1. its really great oppertunity of this post but..READ MORE

    2. Oddly, after the 2000 presidential election was decided and the winner sworn in to office, several news organizations banded together to conduct their own recount of the state of Florida in hopes of proving that the election results were wrong.

      They did hand recounts of all ballots in Florida. The result? Al Gore actually lost by 10,000 more votes in their recount than he did in the final official result, which only recounted democrat strongholds (in hopes of picking up votes in only those jurisdictions, benefitting Gore).

      Strangely, we have seen no such interest after this election.

      The real action is in explaining the discrepancy between the “day of” voting, which swung in favor of the Republican candidate by some 60/40 ratio, and the mail in voting, which favored the Democrat candidate by some 80/20 ratio.

      It is quite odd that there is no curiosity at all from the 4th estate on this matter. Nor is there any curiosity about the methods of validating the voter casting each ballot, which differs radically from in person voting to mail in voting. In the case of mail-in voting, there were questions as to the application of the standards. In no jurisdiction was this put to the test. One might suspect that the press would be interested in performing such an audit, as was done in 2000.

      1. Why can’t we have two factor authenticated decentralized-storage voting, that’s what I want to know. Blockchain.
        I have not seen any modeling of newsroom interactions based on ideology and personality. But I imagine it can be modeled like chaotic attractors. Outlying individuals either collapse toward the charismatic ideologue or wind up captured by another gravity source.
        Why newsrooms and academia contain these charismatic ideological gravitational attractors, I can’t imagine. But the discussion has become quite streamlined. I do recall the recount you describe. I doubt any part of the fourth estate would try that now, the gravitational sources would yank them back in.

        What they need to do and might do is try very hard to drum up support for increasing security for the next elections, but I don’t think it will happen everywhere, but they have to try. ID and signatures are very 20th century. We need something better.

        Discovering fraud might mean discovering multiple competing attempts. None of the opinion makers want their side’s attempt revealed. There is no reason to think any of it stopped.

        I still think Trump was a tool. Him actually winning was not necessary. “Legitimate transfer of power” is being destroyed and the press is indeed scared to look, because they might wrongthink and it would make them a bad person. There are no more Bidens in the wings and I don’t know if Harris will emerge as a strong enough leader to win in 2024/28 depending on Biden’s health. The Bezos-Kanye West ticket might be disturbingly successful.

        1. What would have been cool is if the republicans had made a deal with the democrats that Trump goes with no republican protest, but with a guarantee of modifying election policy so that elections will be fair and completely transparent from now on.
          I am surrounded by conservatives, but I don’t know any of them who actually like Trump in particular. They are freaked out, but mostly at the idea that the democrats will implement so many changes to the voting system that they will have total control of the process from now on.
          Most Americans, especially those who have been through a few election cycles, are used to the idea that sometimes your team loses. When you have faith in the fairness of the system, that is seen as a minor and temporary setback. People’s faith in the fairness of the system is much more important than whether it is actually rigged or not.

          1. People’s faith in the fairness of the system is much more important than whether it is actually rigged or not.


  33. Wow Robby, you are regressing. Not your best work at all.

  34. Haha, than interview was entertaining. Another psycho banned from Twitter making bad business decisions just to prove Trump won the election. He will soon lose all the resellers of his shitty pillow.

  35. Robby you are going full CNN with your adding unnecessary adjectives like “wrongly” before ‘believes’. Do you feel the need to ‘affirmatively” show that you are in solidarity with the right thinkers when you write articles like this?

  36. who wrongly believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen

    Someone who was reasonably objective would just say he “who believes . . .”, but Soave has to insert his biased judgment based on what he’s told to think. This reduces any credibility on any other points he may be trying to make.

    1. I wonder if Reason is ever going to acknowledge the existence of that Time Magazine article boasting about how the election was rigged?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.