(Photo by Wojtek Laski/Getty Images)
via CNS RSS Feed Navbar
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/
Tom Fitton: Deep State PROTECTING Hillary Clinton to Help Overthrow President Trump
In this episode of “Inside Judicial Watch,” host Bruce Schlesman joins JW President Tom Fitton to discuss the latest news on the Clinton email scandal, the Deep State targeting President Trump and protecting Hillary Clinton, Judicial Watch’s battle for election integrity, & more!
via CanadaFreePress.Com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/
Trump EO to colleges: Protect free speech or lose funding
Promise delivered? Earlier this month, Donald Trump told a packed house at CPAC that he would force college campuses to protect speech rights for conservatives and pro-life activists. This afternoon, Trump will sign an executive order that threatens to cut off federal funding for schools that do not take steps to ensure free speech on their campuses.
US News contemplates how Trump’s EO will complicate efforts by schools to do a “balancing act” between free speech and hate speech:
Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order Thursday afternoon that would withhold federal funding from public and private colleges and universities that do not protect free speech on campuses.
As explained by a White House senior official, in order to qualify for federal research dollars, public colleges and universities would have to certify that they are complying with the First Amendment, and private colleges and universities would have to certify that they are in compliance with their own policies. …
The move comes as schools across the country have grappled with how to protect the right to free speech on college and university campuses, including for those who may harbor white supremacist, anti-Semitic or other hateful views. The balancing act encompasses ensuring the safety both of on-campus speakers and students who may feel threatened by their views, as well as how to safeguard the campus community from demonstrations associated with such speakers.
The safety issue is a smoke screen. Colleges use it to penalize speech they don’t like by burdening speakers with extra costs and unmeetable conditions. Private schools have the latitude to do so, but public schools shouldn’t. Besides, despite constitutionally impaired media analyses such as these, “hate speech” is still covered by the First Amendment, outside of Brandenburg-level incitement to violence, and cannot be shut down by the government.
What impact will the EO really have, however? Until we know more about the follow-through, it’s impossible to tell:
Public universities will have to show they are adhering to the First Amendment, while private schools will have to show they are living up to their “intended policies” on “open inquiry,” according to the official.
Both public and private schools will have to “certify” that they are following the existing criteria and the new ones for free speech, the official said. But the official was unable to describe in any depth just how the Trump administration will verify those certifications.
Such “implementation details” will be finalized in “a few weeks,” the senior official said, adding the EO will direct the Department of Education to compile a report on risk-sharing for higher education institutions related to student loans.
Given the resistance to using federal authority to dictate matters within the GOP and in the Trump administration, it might be safe to call this merely an advisory EO:
The order comes as some leading Republicans, like Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, and members of Trump’s Cabinet, like Education Secretary Betsy Devos, have voiced opposition to the federal government defining free speech.
Since DeVos would have to enforce the EO, one can assume that enforcement won’t be terribly assertive. CNN worries that anything heavier than just a guidance might tend to quash more speech than it liberates, but also inadvertently points to the problem:
There are valid concerns about the climate for free expression on campus. Protests have silenced invited speakers. Students have mounted national campaigns to get professors fired for offensive Facebook posts and tweets. Administrators have shut down campus art exhibits deemed objectionable.
Certain terms, topics and theories are now deemed so offensive on racial, gender, religious or other grounds that for many the easiest answer is not to speak them at all, even if for purposes of scholarly analysis. Hardly a week goes by without a group on the left or right calling to silence those on campus with whom they disagree.
President Trump has declared that his forthcoming order will use the cutting or denial of federal research funds as a cudgel to force compliance with free speech edicts. Such provisions are a recipe for politicization. Tie-ins between campus speech and appropriations or research funds are meant to strike fear in the hearts of administrators, prompting them to consider the political leanings at the state and federal level in deciding which speakers to invite and how to adjudicate speech-related controversies.
Such measures are intended not to keep speech open, but rather to put universities on notice that they are being watched and will face the consequences if their decisions fall afoul of politics.
Actually, that’s the problem now. Speech on campuses hasn’t been open and free to all viewpoints for a generation or more thanks to longstanding politicization within Academia, where anything to the right of Cory Booker routinely gets cast as “hate speech” and efforts made to shut it down. Almost all of the shutting down goes in one direction, and it’s not to the Left. Administrations set these rules in place long ago; conservatives want to return the favor by politicizing the politicization.
Calling the situation as it exists now as “ripe for politicization” is an outright laughable line.
Of course, the problem here is that we’re compounding the problem rather than solving it. That may be because there’s no really good solution to politicization of Academia short of starving it to death, which isn’t as good of an idea as it sounds. Starving it of market-distorting federal subsidies is actually a good idea for other reasons, which efforts like this might needlessly politicize. And this sets a precedent for federal intervention into campus speech that conservatives might not like when the next president is Kamala Harris rather than Nikki Haley.
But hey, we stopped worrying about precedent and unintended consequences years ago. Some day, when our backs are against the wall and a “Democratic Socialist” president issues EOs declaring national emergencies that require the nationalization o the energy and health-care sectors and bars free-market speech in campuses, conservatives will rally against expanding federal authority and executive power. But today is not that day.
The post Trump EO to colleges: Protect free speech or lose funding appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com
Pentagon’s $80 Billion in Unspent Funds Shows Need for a Better Budget Process
Inside Defense magazine recently reported that the Department of Defense returned $80 billion to the Treasury in canceled funds over the past six years. That has drawn charges from some corners of Congress that the Pentagon has more money than it knows what to do with.
If only.
While $80 billion is indeed a startling number, the return of canceled funds is more indicative of the byzantine nature of our federal budget than evidence of mismanagement, waste, or excessive appropriations.
Article I of the Constitution states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That places Congress, the appropriating branch of government, squarely in the driver’s seat regarding the use of taxpayer dollars.
Congress, therefore, makes rules to ensure that the money it appropriates will be spent on a certain thing during a certain time frame. But while these rules facilitate oversight, they do not ensure efficiency.
The result is that the defense
funds are spread through multiple accounts, each with differing expiration
dates and rules. For example, operations and maintenance funds must be
obligated in the same year as they are appropriated, whereas military
construction funds can be obligated over a five-year period.
After the initial period for all obligating funds, the Defense Department has an additional five years in which it can adjust expenditures and outlays of those funds, but it cannot incur any new obligations.
What the heck does that mean?
Well, suppose that over the five-year period, a project needed less personnel than expected. The Pentagon can’t just take those “savings” and spend it on something else. At the end of the five years, the unspent funds are “canceled” and must be returned to the Treasury.
Those canceled funds, reportedly totaling $80 billion between 2013 and 2018, are the ones that have so recently captured the attention of Congress in news reports.
Naturally, since this is government, it’s not as simple as it sounds. Further complicating the Defense Department’s efforts to budget and spend efficiently is Congress’ all-too-frequent failure to enact appropriations when it’s supposed to.
Too often, lawmakers fail to agree on appropriations by the start of a new fiscal year, leaving government to operate on continuing resolutions—i.e., last year’s budget.
The longer lawmakers dither over appropriations, the less time the Pentagon has to obligate the new fiscal year’s funds. Instead of one year, there might be a little under five months, as was the case in 2017, or 9-1/2 months, as in 2015.
Adding up all the days spent under a continuing resolution in between 2013 and 2018, the Defense Department lost, on average, 4-1/2 months of every fiscal year.
Considering the reduced time available, it’s impressive that the Defense Department was able to obligate most of one year’s worth of resources in under eight months.
That raises the question of how much does the $80 billion represent of the defense budget. According to the data available, the Department of Defense returned an average of $13.5 billion per year. Over the past six years, the base defense budget (excluding war funding) has averaged $509 billion. Thus, on average, the department had 2.6 percent of its budget canceled.
When you consider that the planning process for the defense budget, under ideal circumstances, starts close to three years before the start of the fiscal year and ends eight months before, getting it 97 percent right is an amazing accomplishment.
If you were budgeting your lunch money for three years from today, you would probably be delighted to get it 90 percent right.
It becomes even more impressive when you consider the volatile and uncertain environments in which the Pentagon operates—namely, war zones, contingency operations, and evolving technologies.
Another important caveat is
the “use it or lose it” pressure that exists at every level of every government
agency. Washington is littered with stories of financial managers who reach the
final months of the fiscal year with leftover money and rush to spend before they
have to hand it back.
Economists Jeffery Liebman and Neale Mahoney have determined that, in the area of information technology, projects approved near the end of the fiscal year have substantially lower quality ratings.
If the choice is between returning the money to the Treasury or making a bad-quality decision with taxpayer dollars, the preference should always be to return the money.
The $80 billion returned to the Treasury is not a sign of waste, mismanagement, or budget padding. Rather, it is a symptom of a budget process that optimizes oversight, not efficiency.
The constraints and limitations that Congress imposes on the Pentagon will inevitably lead to a fraction of the resources being returned to the Treasury. Until we change our current convoluted system, it’s an unfortunate part of the cost of doing business.F
The post Pentagon’s $80 Billion in Unspent Funds Shows Need for a Better Budget Process appeared first on The Daily Signal.
via The Daily Signal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/
VICTORY! Parents Sue San Diego School District For Trying to Force Pro-Islam CAIR Propaganda On Their Kids – AND WIN!
This is how it’s done.
Terror-tied CAIR took a huge hit after vigilant parents sued San Diego School District for promoting pro-Islam propaganda to their kids.
Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator of the largest terrorist funding case in US history, slithered their way into the San Diego School District shortly after the 2016 presidential election.
In 2017, CAIR introduced their “Anti-Islamophobia Initiative,” which: (i) singled out Muslim students for special protections; and (ii) empowered Islamist CAIR to change the District’s curriculum to portray Islam more favorably, reported the Middle East Forum.
Recall, TGP posted a video in May of 2017 of a furious father and patriot named Christopher Wyrick who stood in front of the San Diego Unified School District board and unleashed on the members because he was fed up with Islam being shoved down his child’s throat.
“You’re gonna have to drag me outta here,” Mr. Wyrick said as the board members tried to silence him.
Watch again for inspiration:
?Dad Christopher Wyrick,Finds Out School Is FORCING #Islam #ReligionBeliefs Down His Son’s Throat!His #PATRIOTIC Reply Goes VIRAL!#BanSharia pic.twitter.com/8yKcFvOiRk
— TRUMP ANOMALY® (@ANOMALY1) May 4, 2017
The Middle East Forum, who largely funded the lawsuit against the school district on behalf of five brave San Diego families explains the settlement agreement:
The District enacted its initiative in 2017 at the behest of CAIR, which claimed that “Islamophobia” was sweeping through schools after the November 2016 elections. According to the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund – which brought the lawsuit on behalf of five San Diego families – CAIR activists were teaching schoolchildren “how to become allies to Muslim students” and conducting Islamic education workshops for teachers, among other inequities.
Under the terms of the court settlement:
- “Educators should treat each religion with equal respect, with the time and attention spent discussing each religion being proportionate to its impact on history.”
- “Educational material on religious subjects must be neutral and may not be presented in a manner that promotes one religion over another.”
- “Educators or other staff sponsoring guest speakers at District events must ask them not to use their position or influence on students to forward their own religious, political, economic or social views and shall take active steps to neutralize whatever bias has been presented.”
- “Guest speakers from religious organizations are not permitted to present to students on religious topics.”
“This is a tremendous victory, because CAIR intended this plan to be a pilot program for a nationwide rollout,” said Daniel J. Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund. “I thank the Forum for its support of this critical case.”
Thank you, Michelle Malkin, a fearless warrior and contributor to the Middle East Forum helping to stop ‘Creeping Sharia’ in the United States and beyond.
Parents sued San Diego school district that tried to force CAIR propaganda on their kids. They won – with big help from @meforum !
Moms & dads, be on guard. More of this on the way. Forewarned is forearmed.
Protect your children. Protect your country.https://t.co/s0RyXJ726T— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 20, 2019
The post VICTORY! Parents Sue San Diego School District For Trying to Force Pro-Islam CAIR Propaganda On Their Kids – AND WIN! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com
Dunce Rep. AOC Want’s To Install Solar Panels On LaGuardia Airport As Part of Green Plan – Before She Eliminates All Air Travel
Guest post by Bright Start News
“Idiot” Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to place solar panels on the roof of Laguardia Airport.
Meanwhile as folks wring their hands over a nonbinding #GreenNewDeal, I spent this AM touring LaGuardia airport + discussing:
– Securing solar panels on every roof
– Living wage jobs
– Electric shuttle fleets
– Building for rising sea levels coming in
– Centering community issues pic.twitter.com/GriEO7ew9U— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 20, 2019
AOC might want to hop on the internet and do a little research about the amount of sunlight LaGuardia gets in an average year. It ain’t much.
Partly Sunny Days have cloud covering from 40% to 70% of the sky during the daytime.
There are only 96 days a year that have clear skies. The rest of the time, the cloud cover is anywhere from 40-100%.
That means Cortez scores about a 26% on this effort. An F-
FLASHBACK: AOC’s Green New Deal to eliminate air travel in favor of trains.
Maybe she can order all those solar panels from Amazon? Oh. Wait. Never mind.
The post Dunce Rep. AOC Want’s To Install Solar Panels On LaGuardia Airport As Part of Green Plan – Before She Eliminates All Air Travel appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com
Deployed Dad Gives Son Surprise Of A Lifetime During Taekwondo Practice
Via Daily Caller: A deployed father of six gave his youngest son, Luca, the surprise of a lifetime Monday. U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Rob Cesternino, who had been serving a 10-month deployment with the Tennessee National Guard in Kuwait, Jordan, and southern Syria since May of 2018, arranged to surprise his nine-year-old son four days […]
via Weasel Zippers
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us
Cruz, Military Experts Slam U.N. Report Suggesting Israel Committed War Crimes Responding to Gaza Border Riots
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and experts in military affairs on Monday castigated a new United Nations report that suggests Israel committed war crimes while responding to violent Palestinian demonstrations at the Gaza Strip border last year.
The report, produced by the U.N. Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, alleges that Israel killed 189 Palestinians during the riots.
"The Israeli security forces committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law," said Commissioner Kaari Betty Murungi of Kenya. "Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately investigated by Israel."
The Israel-based Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center found that about 80 percent of those killed in the riots were affiliated with Hamas, which controls Gaza, and other terrorist organizations. Israel says that Hamas has used the demonstrations as cover to launch operations to breach Israel’s border fence and attack Israelis.
Cruz said in a conference call that the U.N. report is a "dishonest" characterization of a more complicated situation in the Gaza Strip, citing reports that Hamas will often insert its fighters into crowds of protesters to incite violence and escape immediate detection from the Israeli military.
"It is a repeated and deliberate strategy of Hamas to use human shields," said Cruz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "The U.N. report ignores that reality."
Cruz also called out the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is reviewing the report, for its long-standing anti-Israel bias, and said that its actions should not deter the United States from supporting Israel.
"America stands with Israel for many reasons, but none more important than standing with Israel furthers our own national security interests," Cruz said.
Geoffrey Corn, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who served in the U.S. Army for 21 years, was also on the call and echoed Cruz’s sentiments. Corn is a co-author of a new report by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, or JINSA, on "legal and operational challenges in Hamas-Israel clashes" during both last year and this year.
"Not everything the military is doing is going to be like a battle against a defined enemy," he said, in reference to the U.N. report’s claim that Israeli soldiers killed civilians in Gaza.
Corn went on to criticize the report for framing the demonstrations as purely civilian protests when Hamas used them to try to attack Israel. During the border riots, some Palestinians tried to breach the security fence between Israel and Gaza and attacked Israeli soldiers with Molotov cocktails and other weapons. Some Gazans launched firebomb-bearing kites over the barrier to attack Israel.
"Framing the confrontation as just another civilian protest was unjustified," Corn said, adding that the U.N. report does not take into account the numerous threats that Israel faces in the Middle East every day.
Retired Navy Vice Adm. John Bird, who worked on the JINSA report, was also on the call Monday. He said that Israel’s response to the riots was as non-lethal as it could have been, and may have even "saved lives" of innocent Palestinians.
The post Cruz, Military Experts Slam U.N. Report Suggesting Israel Committed War Crimes Responding to Gaza Border Riots appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
via Washington Free Beacon
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com
Devin Nunes Sues The Bastards; Hits Twitter With $250 Million Lawsuit
Fake news and Silicon Valley censorship is not going to be resolved by a corrupt on-the-take Congress that rakes in millions of dollars from the Silicon Valley tech tyrants but there may be a day coming when the systemic censorship of pro-Trump voices will get a day in court.
Following the defamation lawsuits by the victimized Nick Sandmann that have been filed against fake news factories CNN and the Washington Post, a member of Congress has joined the party by filing his own $250 million lawsuit against Twitter for the practice of shadowbanning conservatives.
Republican Congressman Devin Nunes who has been one of the few members of the House Of Representatives to aggressively demand answers about the FBI-DOJ coup against President Trump and the Obama regime’s flagrant abuse of the nation’s anti-terrorist surveillance apparatus for political purposes filed the defamation suit against @Jack on Monday.
Rep. Devin Nunes Files $250M Defamation Lawsuit Against Twitter, Two Anonymous Twitter Accounts https://t.co/fT9ZXdWg7z via @thedailybeast
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 19, 2019
Via Politico, “Rep. Devin Nunes suing Twitter for $250 million”:
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is suing Twitter and three of its users for $250 million in damages, alleging that he was defamed and that the social media juggernaut engages in the “shadow-banning” of conservative opinions and selectively enforces its own terms of service to benefit opponents of the Republican Party.
Nunes also claims in the 40-page lawsuit, dated Monday and addressed to the Virginia Circuit Court in Henrico County, that Twitter sought to influence his 2018 re-election race and interfere with his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Nunes oversaw that inquiry as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — a role he held until Democrats officially retook the House in January.
Fox News on Monday uploaded a copy of the complaint to its website. It was unclear whether the suit had actually been filed, since the copy did not bear a case number. Nunes’ lawyer could not be reached for comment Monday night.
Among the suit’s defendants are a Twitter user purporting to be the congressman’s mother, a Twitter user operating an account called “Devin Nunes’ cow,” and GOP communications strategist Liz Mair.
Nunes discussed the lawsuit with Fox’s Sean Hannity on Monday night.
CHECK IT OUT:
SUE THE BASTARDS! Then break them up!
via Downtrend.com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com
Devin Nunes suing Twitter for defamation, shadow-banning, and censoring conservatives and ignoring lawful complaints of abuse
Conservatives angry over the suppression of their views on social media may be getting their day in court thanks to Rep. Devin Nunes, who yesterday filed a lawsuit in Henrico County, Virginia (full complaint here) seeking:
… $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of “shadow-banning conservatives” to secretly hide their posts, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints, and totally “ignoring” lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior. (snip)
Nunes claimed Twitter wanted to derail his work on the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired until 2019, as he looked into alleged and apparent surveillance abuses by the government. Nunes said Twitter was guilty of “knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform.”
The lawsuit alleged defamation, conspiracy and negligence, as well as violations of the state’s prohibition against “insulting words” – effectively fighting words that tend towards “violence and breach of the peace.” The complaint sought not only damages, but also an injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he said harassed and defamed him. (source: Fox News)
I presume that Nunes chose to file in Virginia to avoid exposure to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California and District of Columbia juries, drawn from a pool that votes overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Rep. Nunes appeared last night with Sean Hannity and promised more lawsuits to come:
Grabien screen grab
Rush transcript via Grabien:
RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
>> Sean: Just hours before, for Intel chairman community Devin Nunes filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter in Virginia state court, alleging the social media company negligently failed to remove defamatory and malicious tweets about the congressman and his family per Twitter is declining come in tonight, but here to talk about this lawsuit and much more. Congressman Devin Nunes. You do have a high bar. We all need that. If you are a public figure, you need actual malice and what’s known as a reckless disregard for the truth. Or else I would sue people every hour of every day. But it’s harder. It’s not like in the case of the commenting high school kid. Tell us about the suit.
>> This is the first of many, Sean, we are actually going after Twitter first because they are the main proliferator and they spread fake news and slanderous news. People can look on Fox News, it’s all there. The case we were basically looking is this is an orchestrated effort. So people were targeting me, anonymous accounts that were look, there are — these accounts aren’t supposed to exist pretwitter says they don’t have accounts that do this. This is the first of many lawsuits that are coming. But there were several fake news accounts, whether its regards to the Russian investigation or to me, and we have to hold all of these people accountable. Because if we don’t, our First Amendment rights are at stake here. This isn’t 20 years ago, Sean. What’s happening is that Twitter becomes the gas lighting for all the news. When they are regulating us, they’re regulating what people can see on my tweets, which they have done, and they are proliferating out things that they agree with with the algorithms that they develop, they need to come clean. They are a content developer. That’s right. If you remember last summer, they shadow banned me.
>> Sean: He denied that ever went on, and he said he wants to be fair. But your analysis has not shown that it is fair across the board and that a lot of these social media sites are in fact using those algorithms, if you are well, or they have behaviors to advance one side, which would then be, what, a political donation for Democrats?
>> Well, how is it that every day there’s conservatives that are being banned? Look, they don’t want to college had a banning, that’s fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. The fact of the matter is people cannot see my tweets. If you get emails from Twitter, it’s commonly fake new stuff. If they don’t want to be a content developer can make us all your algorithms. How is it possible I can be attacked relentlessly hundreds of times a day by fake accounts that they claim their terms of service should not be there. I can put something that’s sexually explicit, attacked someone, they would say stop it, this is a sensitive tweed. They would never say that to people coming after me or other conservatives. This is more than just conservatives. Every American should care about that if they should care about the First Amendment. The price has changed, you said it numerous times for the press is dead. If we do not clean this up, I’ve said this on your show a few weeks ago. This is part of the continuing Russian investigation. We are not going to let this Dell make these fake news stories, written about this investigation, we are going to challenge every single one in court.
>> Sean: The thing is it so influential. Talk about so many, if not millions and billions of people. Facebook and some others. It’s incalculable how much that assists a narrative or point of view. Let me ask you this. As the former house Intel
A key element in the lawsuit is a challenge to Twitter’s claim of protection under:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [that] says they should not “be treated as the publisher or speaker” of the content — allowing the platforms to exist without having to preapprove every post for potential legal issues. (via the New York Times)
But if the complaint’s allegations are true, then Twitter, by favoring some viewpoints over others, is in effect a publisher with responsibility for the content that it favors, not a platform equally accessible to all, and therefore not liable for whatever content appears there.
Senator Josh Hawley has been pushing for a modification of the Communications Decency Act, and recently discussed this for ten minutes at CPAC:
No doubt, Twitter will seek to have the lawsuit immediately dismissed, but if it is allowed to proceed, the key will be the discovery process, in which the plaintiff (Nunes) can demand disclosure of the algorithms used by Twitter, a well as all internal documents discussing moderation, identification of accounts it regards as problematic, and other evidence of possible bias. More than any actual damages (although a quarter billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at), access to this information couldbe very important.
The New York Times’s accuunt of the lawsuit is unusually blatant in its bias, starting with a headline that ignores many of the specifics of the complaint:
The text of the article takes Twitter’s denial of shadow-banning as established fact:
Mr. Nunes repeated the debunked claim that the social network was “shadow banning” Republicans, including him. Shadow banning — the act of a platform allowing someone to post but not allowing others to see the post, effectively making them invisible — became a political catch phrase in July, when a Vice News article used the term to characterize a Twitter bug that was affecting some prominent conservatives.
The Times is not alone in seeking to cast the lawsuit in negative terms. CBS starts its article with the loaded language, “Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California, the controversial, arch-conservative….” But this time, the Washington Post was fairly straightforward in its report.
The lawsuit also identifies Republican consultant Liz Mair as the author of allegedly libelous content. She has (so far) four times asked for donations to a legal defense fund on her Twitter feed since the lawsuit was announced late yesterday.
Conservatives angry over the suppression of their views on social media may be getting their day in court thanks to Rep. Devin Nunes, who yesterday filed a lawsuit in Henrico County, Virginia (full complaint here) seeking:
… $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of “shadow-banning conservatives” to secretly hide their posts, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints, and totally “ignoring” lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior. (snip)
Nunes claimed Twitter wanted to derail his work on the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired until 2019, as he looked into alleged and apparent surveillance abuses by the government. Nunes said Twitter was guilty of “knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform.”
The lawsuit alleged defamation, conspiracy and negligence, as well as violations of the state’s prohibition against “insulting words” – effectively fighting words that tend towards “violence and breach of the peace.” The complaint sought not only damages, but also an injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he said harassed and defamed him. (source: Fox News)
I presume that Nunes chose to file in Virginia to avoid exposure to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California and District of Columbia juries, drawn from a pool that votes overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Rep. Nunes appeared last night with Sean Hannity and promised more lawsuits to come:
Grabien screen grab
Rush transcript via Grabien:
RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
>> Sean: Just hours before, for Intel chairman community Devin Nunes filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter in Virginia state court, alleging the social media company negligently failed to remove defamatory and malicious tweets about the congressman and his family per Twitter is declining come in tonight, but here to talk about this lawsuit and much more. Congressman Devin Nunes. You do have a high bar. We all need that. If you are a public figure, you need actual malice and what’s known as a reckless disregard for the truth. Or else I would sue people every hour of every day. But it’s harder. It’s not like in the case of the commenting high school kid. Tell us about the suit.
>> This is the first of many, Sean, we are actually going after Twitter first because they are the main proliferator and they spread fake news and slanderous news. People can look on Fox News, it’s all there. The case we were basically looking is this is an orchestrated effort. So people were targeting me, anonymous accounts that were look, there are — these accounts aren’t supposed to exist pretwitter says they don’t have accounts that do this. This is the first of many lawsuits that are coming. But there were several fake news accounts, whether its regards to the Russian investigation or to me, and we have to hold all of these people accountable. Because if we don’t, our First Amendment rights are at stake here. This isn’t 20 years ago, Sean. What’s happening is that Twitter becomes the gas lighting for all the news. When they are regulating us, they’re regulating what people can see on my tweets, which they have done, and they are proliferating out things that they agree with with the algorithms that they develop, they need to come clean. They are a content developer. That’s right. If you remember last summer, they shadow banned me.
>> Sean: He denied that ever went on, and he said he wants to be fair. But your analysis has not shown that it is fair across the board and that a lot of these social media sites are in fact using those algorithms, if you are well, or they have behaviors to advance one side, which would then be, what, a political donation for Democrats?
>> Well, how is it that every day there’s conservatives that are being banned? Look, they don’t want to college had a banning, that’s fine. They can call it whatever they want to call it. The fact of the matter is people cannot see my tweets. If you get emails from Twitter, it’s commonly fake new stuff. If they don’t want to be a content developer can make us all your algorithms. How is it possible I can be attacked relentlessly hundreds of times a day by fake accounts that they claim their terms of service should not be there. I can put something that’s sexually explicit, attacked someone, they would say stop it, this is a sensitive tweed. They would never say that to people coming after me or other conservatives. This is more than just conservatives. Every American should care about that if they should care about the First Amendment. The price has changed, you said it numerous times for the press is dead. If we do not clean this up, I’ve said this on your show a few weeks ago. This is part of the continuing Russian investigation. We are not going to let this Dell make these fake news stories, written about this investigation, we are going to challenge every single one in court.
>> Sean: The thing is it so influential. Talk about so many, if not millions and billions of people. Facebook and some others. It’s incalculable how much that assists a narrative or point of view. Let me ask you this. As the former house Intel
A key element in the lawsuit is a challenge to Twitter’s claim of protection under:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [that] says they should not “be treated as the publisher or speaker” of the content — allowing the platforms to exist without having to preapprove every post for potential legal issues. (via the New York Times)
But if the complaint’s allegations are true, then Twitter, by favoring some viewpoints over others, is in effect a publisher with responsibility for the content that it favors, not a platform equally accessible to all, and therefore not liable for whatever content appears there.
Senator Josh Hawley has been pushing for a modification of the Communications Decency Act, and recently discussed this for ten minutes at CPAC:
No doubt, Twitter will seek to have the lawsuit immediately dismissed, but if it is allowed to proceed, the key will be the discovery process, in which the plaintiff (Nunes) can demand disclosure of the algorithms used by Twitter, a well as all internal documents discussing moderation, identification of accounts it regards as problematic, and other evidence of possible bias. More than any actual damages (although a quarter billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at), access to this information couldbe very important.
The New York Times’s accuunt of the lawsuit is unusually blatant in its bias, starting with a headline that ignores many of the specifics of the complaint:
The text of the article takes Twitter’s denial of shadow-banning as established fact:
Mr. Nunes repeated the debunked claim that the social network was “shadow banning” Republicans, including him. Shadow banning — the act of a platform allowing someone to post but not allowing others to see the post, effectively making them invisible — became a political catch phrase in July, when a Vice News article used the term to characterize a Twitter bug that was affecting some prominent conservatives.
The Times is not alone in seeking to cast the lawsuit in negative terms. CBS starts its article with the loaded language, “Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California, the controversial, arch-conservative….” But this time, the Washington Post was fairly straightforward in its report.
The lawsuit also identifies Republican consultant Liz Mair as the author of allegedly libelous content. She has (so far) four times asked for donations to a legal defense fund on her Twitter feed since the lawsuit was announced late yesterday.
via American Thinker Blog
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/