The Twitter Files

User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:45 pm

It's being reported that Katie Hobbs, while acting in her role as Arizona Secretary of State, was also sending requests to Twitter to censor her opposition in the gubernatorial race. https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/investigati ... on-voices/ That's some seriously illegal shit.
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:04 pm

Maddy wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:45 pm
It's being reported that Katie Hobbs, while acting in her role as Arizona Secretary of State, was also sending requests to Twitter to censor her opposition in the gubernatorial race. https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/investigati ... on-voices/ That's some seriously illegal shit.
Yeah but I heard out of 100 requests coming from government to censor people almost 1 on average came from a Republican. So see.......it's not a right or left issue lol.
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Mark Leavy » Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:02 pm

Xan wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:44 pm
I thought James Baker III was "that" James Baker.
Fair enough 8) That's the James Baker that I think of also. But I'm old.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:36 pm

Xan wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:44 pm

Mark Leavy wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:15 pm

Meanwhile, on the twitter files...

It looks like James Baker. Yes, that James Baker was holding up the release of additional documents. It turns out that Sir James left the FBI in 2020 and became the Deputy General Counsel for twitter. Oops.

He got his walking papers today.


I thought James Baker III was "that" James Baker.


SAME here!!! I was wondering how someone his age had all of a sudden popped back into prominence after not having heard from him since the 2000 election?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by glennds » Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:37 pm

Maddy wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:45 pm
It's being reported that Katie Hobbs, while acting in her role as Arizona Secretary of State, was also sending requests to Twitter to censor her opposition in the gubernatorial race. https://www.wnd.com/2022/12/investigati ... on-voices/ That's some seriously illegal shit.
So here's the alternate version of the story I think you are referencing: https://www.azmirror.com/2022/12/06/hob ... op-claims/

The two tweets in question were allegations that the voter registration system was owned and operated by "foreign actors", a claim which has yet to be proven, at least at the standard required by the courts. This was during the time Sidney Powell and her Kraken Dominion Voting Systems claims were getting their 15 minutes of fame.
And the notice reporting these tweets to Center for Internet Security (who in turn forwarded it to Twitter) was sent on January 7, 2021, the day after the January 6th riots, several months before any candidates had entered the AZ gubernatorial race. So how is this censoring any "opposition"?

Listen, if anyone is truly censoring opponents, I would be as outraged as you. But only if it really is happening.

Here we have one subject, two stories, two realities. Reminds me of the line out of the Dire Straits song - "Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong".
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by boglerdude » Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:11 am

User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:33 am

glennds wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:37 pm
The two tweets in question were allegations that the voter registration system was owned and operated by "foreign actors", a claim which has yet to be proven, at least at the standard required by the courts. This was during the time Sidney Powell and her Kraken Dominion Voting Systems claims were getting their 15 minutes of fame.
And the notice reporting these tweets to Center for Internet Security (who in turn forwarded it to Twitter) was sent on January 7, 2021, the day after the January 6th riots, several months before any candidates had entered the AZ gubernatorial race. So how is this censoring any "opposition"?
Whether the substance of the censored communications was true or false has no bearing on the question whether this state official utilized her position as Secretary of State to silence her political opposition. The perceived merits of a particular political viewpoint do not determine whether that viewpoint is entitled to constitutional protection. To the contrary, our constitutional system of government was founded on the longstanding belief that it takes a free market of ideas to ferret out the truth.

Nor does the timing of that official action matter, except as it might pertain to the issue of causation in an action for election fraud. It seems quite clear that her collusion with a left-wing media giant to prevent the airing of viewpoints challenging the integrity of the state electoral process constituted a flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens (both those who had a right to be heard and those who had a right to hear). The fact that the censored communications concerned alleged improprieties in the voting system that she oversaw and that would declare her winner in a gubernatorial election less than two years later, is simply frosting on the cake which would support allegations of official corruption, conspiracy, etc.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by glennds » Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:09 am

Maddy wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:33 am

Whether the substance of the censored communications was true or false has no bearing on the question whether this state official utilized her position as Secretary of State to silence her political opposition.....
Take me to school here Maddy. The Constitution is succinct on what the 1st Amendment provides:
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.
Congress wasn't involved. No new law was passed that was at issue here. So how was this incident a flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens?
Even if we agree that the AZ Secretary of State's office should not have sent the notice, and even if we agree that Twitter should not have responded to it by taking down the two tweets, I fail to see how anything unconstitutional occurred.

Unless you feel the use of a social media platform like Twitter is a constitutionally protected right. Is that your position?
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:56 am

glennds wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:37 pm
The two tweets in question were allegations that the voter registration system was owned and operated by "foreign actors", a claim which has yet to be proven, at least at the standard required by the courts.
The Fantasy Island series ran for 7 years. Here's to 2023 and the show going off air again.

The majority of American citizens are done with this topic, the associated BS and lies. Everyone pretty much knows who Jesus isn't at this point.

Matthew 13:9-16
SilentMajority
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2022 9:10 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by SilentMajority » Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:02 pm

glennds wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:09 am
Maddy wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:33 am

Whether the substance of the censored communications was true or false has no bearing on the question whether this state official utilized her position as Secretary of State to silence her political opposition.....
Take me to school here Maddy. The Constitution is succinct on what the 1st Amendment provides:
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.
Congress wasn't involved. No new law was passed that was at issue here. So how was this incident a flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens?
Even if we agree that the AZ Secretary of State's office should not have sent the notice, and even if we agree that Twitter should not have responded to it by taking down the two tweets, I fail to see how anything unconstitutional occurred.

Unless you feel the use of a social media platform like Twitter is a constitutionally protected right. Is that your position?
Looks to me like the only thing that happened here that was illegal was probably campaign contribution violations. Twitter employees made de facto contributions to democrat campaigns, either as individuals working at the company or at the direction of corporate HQ. The contributions were using their company to magnify support for their favored candidates in the Democrat party and remove from the open discussion things that their favored candidates didn't like. And they did it at the specific request of those candidates and government employees, most of whom were appointed and not elected.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:22 pm

SilentMajority wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:02 pm

Take me to school here Maddy. The Constitution is succinct on what the 1st Amendment provides:
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.
Congress wasn't involved. No new law was passed that was at issue here. So how was this incident a flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens?
Even if we agree that the AZ Secretary of State's office should not have sent the notice, and even if we agree that Twitter should not have responded to it by taking down the two tweets, I fail to see how anything unconstitutional occurred.
The protections of the First Amendment were made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. If I'm recalling correctly, the U.S. Supreme Court case was Gitlow v. New York. Subsequently, the case of Palco v. Connecticut, the Court adopted the broader doctrine of incorporation, which made most of the protections enunciated in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Xan » Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:24 pm

Maddy wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:22 pm
SilentMajority wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:02 pm

Take me to school here Maddy. The Constitution is succinct on what the 1st Amendment provides:
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.
Congress wasn't involved. No new law was passed that was at issue here. So how was this incident a flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens?
Even if we agree that the AZ Secretary of State's office should not have sent the notice, and even if we agree that Twitter should not have responded to it by taking down the two tweets, I fail to see how anything unconstitutional occurred.
The protections of the First Amendment were made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. If I'm recalling correctly, the U.S. Supreme Court case was Gitlow v. New York. Subsequently, the case of Palco v. Connecticut, the Court adopted the broader doctrine of incorporation, which made most of the protections enunciated in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
I'd also be quite surprised if similar protections were absent from the Arizona constitution.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by glennds » Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:07 pm

Xan and Maddy,

I'm not raising a state vs Federal issue.
In fact, let's accept that the state of AZ is subject to the 1st Amendment. Even then, why would Twitter's removal of the two tweets be a constitutional violation?
Do all of us have a right to post on social media platforms pursuant to the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution?

The AZ Secretary of State's office sends notice to a nonprofit cybersecurity agency that they are concerned that two tweets contain false information about voting systems. That agency then notifies Twitter, who eventually removes the two tweets.

Maddy says this is a "flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens (both those who had a right to be heard and those who had a right to hear)".
I'm just not seeing the connection.

Unless you're saying the Secretary of State's office violated the Constitution by submitting the two tweets for review to the nonprofit agency in the first place? In which case I don't see that connection either.
Last edited by glennds on Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:11 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:24 pm

I'd also be quite surprised if similar protections were absent from the Arizona constitution.
Yes, good point--Parallel protections in state constitutions are oftentimes broader than those in the U.S. Constitution.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:47 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:56 am

glennds wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:37 pm

The two tweets in question were allegations that the voter registration system was owned and operated by "foreign actors", a claim which has yet to be proven, at least at the standard required by the courts.


The Fantasy Island series ran for 7 years. Here's to 2023 and the show going off air again.

The majority of American citizens are done with this topic, the associated BS and lies. Everyone pretty much knows who Jesus isn't at this point.

Matthew 13:9-16


The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today basically saying that they want the Republican Parter to be done with Trump? How the Walker non-election was just a long string of elections that Trump has lost?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:50 pm

glennds wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:07 pm

Xan and Maddy,

I'm not raising a state vs Federal issue.
In fact, let's accept that the state of AZ is subject to the 1st Amendment. Even then, why would Twitter's removal of the two tweets be a constitutional violation?
Do all of us have a right to post on social media platforms pursuant to the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution?

The AZ Secretary of State's office sends notice to a nonprofit cybersecurity agency that they are concerned that two tweets contain false information about voting systems. That agency then notifies Twitter, who eventually removes the two tweets.

Maddy says this is a "flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens (both those who had a right to be heard and those who had a right to hear)".
I'm just not seeing the connection.

Unless you're saying the Secretary of State's office violated the Constitution by submitting the two tweets for review to the nonprofit agency in the first place? In which case I don't see that connection either.


How do first amendment rights apply to anything a private business decides to do? Does not it only apply to official acts of government?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Xan » Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:18 pm

vnatale wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:50 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:07 pm
Xan and Maddy,

I'm not raising a state vs Federal issue.
In fact, let's accept that the state of AZ is subject to the 1st Amendment. Even then, why would Twitter's removal of the two tweets be a constitutional violation?
Do all of us have a right to post on social media platforms pursuant to the 1st Amendment or any other part of the Constitution?

The AZ Secretary of State's office sends notice to a nonprofit cybersecurity agency that they are concerned that two tweets contain false information about voting systems. That agency then notifies Twitter, who eventually removes the two tweets.

Maddy says this is a "flagrant infringement of the first amendment rights of a large number of citizens (both those who had a right to be heard and those who had a right to hear)".
I'm just not seeing the connection.

Unless you're saying the Secretary of State's office violated the Constitution by submitting the two tweets for review to the nonprofit agency in the first place? In which case I don't see that connection either.
How do first amendment rights apply to anything a private business decides to do? Does not it only apply to official acts of government?

I don't know anything about the particular situation under discussion. But it gets very murky indeed if the government "leans" on the private business's decision-making process. That can be both very subtle and very real.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Kbg » Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:50 pm

There is nothing prohibiting US government officials from "leaning" on people or entities. Happens daily, as it does in the corporate world.

Whether or not a law is broken is based on how the lean is done. Savvy senior government officials know where that line is and don't cross it...quite a few civil and criminal charges are brought against government officials who were too stupid or lazy to lawyer up (or more likely read and pass off their ethics training and the particularities specific to their job).

Interestingly, those who tend to get "leaned" on and are smart also know where the line is...and can lean back pretty effectively.

This is the way.

Would it be nice to live in a world that doesn't involve leaning, yep.
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Mark Leavy » Thu Dec 08, 2022 6:04 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:50 pm
There is nothing prohibiting US government officials from "leaning" on people or entities. Happens daily, as it does in the corporate world.
Whether or not a law is broken is based on how the lean is done.

{other valid points excised in favor of brevity}
True enough.

The line moves around. It flows with the dominant ideology of the time. Overconfidence leads to carelessness. And when a plurality of the population feels that it has gone the wrong way, they start looking for heads to roll. Pour encourager les autres. We may be approaching that situation now.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:57 pm

Part 2 - Twitter's secret blacklists
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Maddy » Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:28 am

vnatale wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:50 pm

How do first amendment rights apply to anything a private business decides to do? Does not it only apply to official acts of government?
It's well established, in a long line of cases, that a constitutional violation can be established where (1) a private actor assumes a role traditionally assumed by the government, or (2) there is sufficient enmeshment, or collaborative action, between private and public actors to warrant attributing the action to the government. There may be other carve-outs as well, but constitutional law is not my forte, so I'd have to review the recent cases (which can be a laborious process and one that I don't presently have the time to do). As I'm recalling, the issue was well developed decades ago in the context of criminal searches and seizures, where investigative agencies were attempting to circumvent the constitution by enlisting the assistance of private parties to do their dirty work. Correctly, the courts cried foul.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by glennds » Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:56 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:56 am
glennds wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:37 pm
The two tweets in question were allegations that the voter registration system was owned and operated by "foreign actors", a claim which has yet to be proven, at least at the standard required by the courts.
The Fantasy Island series ran for 7 years. Here's to 2023 and the show going off air again.

The majority of American citizens are done with this topic, the associated BS and lies. Everyone pretty much knows who Jesus isn't at this point.

Matthew 13:9-16
I couldn't agree with you more, but I think you might be missing the point.
The discussion I'm prompting isn't as much about election claims as it is about the tendency of some (many?) people to rattle the Constitution sabre whenever something is not going the way they'd like. Or stated differently, it might be about the difference in what our Constitutional rights really are versus what many people seem to think they are.
Some days I think we're at the point as a society where we're ready to assert Constitutional right infringement when there's no parking spaces at the grocery store.

But thanks for bringing back some good memories. I always thought Mr. Roarke was the definition of suave.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:54 am

glennds wrote:
Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:56 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:56 am

glennds wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:37 pm

The two tweets in question were allegations that the voter registration system was owned and operated by "foreign actors", a claim which has yet to be proven, at least at the standard required by the courts.


The Fantasy Island series ran for 7 years. Here's to 2023 and the show going off air again.

The majority of American citizens are done with this topic, the associated BS and lies. Everyone pretty much knows who Jesus isn't at this point.

Matthew 13:9-16

I couldn't agree with you more, but I think you might be missing the point.
The discussion I'm prompting isn't as much about election claims as it is about the tendency of some (many?) people to rattle the Constitution sabre whenever something is not going the way they'd like. Or stated differently, it might be about the difference in what our Constitutional rights really are versus what many people seem to think they are.
Some days I think we're at the point as a society where we're ready to assert Constitutional right infringement when there's no parking spaces at the grocery store.

But thanks for bringing back some good memories. I always thought Mr. Roarke was the definition of suave.


The "Free Speech" is a big one. Usually overlooked is that Free Speech generally only applies in regards to government restrictions, not restrictions made by either private business / organization/ employers. Also, a lot of the "Free Speech" advocates seem to not understand that it does not mean "Free Speech with no consequences". Yes, you can say what you want, as we all do here, but it does not mean you are free from being criticized for what you have stated.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by vnatale » Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:55 am

https://www.c-span.org/video/?524613-3/ ... tter-files

DECEMBER 9, 2022 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 12/09/2022
Washington Journal
Joseph Clark on Elon Musk's Release of the "Twitter Files"
Joseph Clark talked about Elon Musk’s release of the “Twitter Files” and the company’s decision to suppress a New York Post story about Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: The Twitter Files

Post by Mark Leavy » Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:07 pm

Another drop.


Screenshot 2022-12-09 at 4.07.11 PM.png
Screenshot 2022-12-09 at 4.07.11 PM.png (77.91 KiB) Viewed 4797 times
Post Reply