Republicans, Who Have Made Sure The Federal Election Commission Can't Do Anything, File A Complaint About Twitter's Moderation Practices
from the this-is-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
Last week, Senator Josh Hawley (who knows better) sent a ridiculous letter to the Federal Election Commission claiming that Twitter and Facebook’s decision (based on different reasons) to limit the sharing of a sketchy NY Post article was election interference. We explained why that was nonsense, but it appears that the Republican Party no longer gives a shit about what the law actually says when it can play the victim.
On Friday, the Republican National Committee filed a formal complaint with the FEC as well. Before we get into the details of why this complaint is horseshit, it is worth noting that the FEC cannot meet right now because it does not have enough members for a quorum. And this is on the Republicans themselves. Last year, the FEC also was without a quorum, which prevents it from issuing fines, making rules, or conducting audits.
Earlier this year, the FEC very briefly had a quorum, when the Senate confirmed Trey Trainor to a spot in May. Yet a month later another Commissioner, Caroline Hunter, resigned. And, once again the FEC cannot conduct most business. And while Trump has announced who he “intends” to nominate, there is no indication that that nomination was ever officially sent to the Senate. At the very least, the Senate has shown no sign that it is moving ahead with the nomination. And that means there will not be a functioning FEC from now until at least the election.
Given that, it does seem at least somewhat ironic that the Republicans are now demanding FEC action over Twitter’s content moderation practices. The FEC can’t actually do anything right now. Because Republicans in the Senate haven’t filled the seats.
And, of course, even if they did, this complaint would go nowhere for a variety of reasons (including that the person Trump is nominating has strong 1st Amendment credentials). But, more to the point, whether you agree with their policies or not, both Facebook and Twitter showed clear, long-standing policy reasons for why they slowed the spread of the NY Post story. And in neither case was it “because we want to help Joe Biden.” That wasn’t the rationale, and it’s silly for Republicans to pretend otherwise. And for it to be an FEC violation, it would have to have been “for the purpose of influencing an election.” There is no way that either company’s actions qualify for that, no matter how many whiny Republicans insist that that is the reason.
On top of that, not wishing to host certain stories is not, in any way shape or form, making a “contribution” to a political campaign. If it was, Fox News has spent most of its life “interfering” with Democratic candidates, and providing “contributions” in the form of news coverage “of value… for the purpose of influencing an election.” And, indeed, in the past some have argued that Fox News has violated campaign finance laws — but the FEC has responded by pointing out that this is allowed under the 1st Amendment.
The same thing is true of Twitter choosing not to host a link as well. It has a 1st Amendment right not to be compelled to host speech it disagrees with. You would think that the party that fought hard to make sure a baker didn’t have to bake a cake with a message it disagreed with would understand that concept.
Finally, this move goes against Republicans long-standing support for Citizens United, in which they insisted (and took to the Supreme Court and won) the claim that effectively says the 1st Amendment cannot be overruled by campaign finance law.
It is an incredibly ridiculous move for these very same Republicans who have long fought battles on the other side to now try to argue that Twitter’s totally justifiable (even if I think wrongly decided) policy decision is somehow a campaign finance violation. It’s not, and it’s both cynical and hypocritical for Republicans to claim otherwise.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, electioneering, fec, republicans
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Republicans, Who Have Made Sure The Federal Election Commission Can't Do Anything, File A Complaint About Twitter's Moderation Practices”
If they believe that Twitter and Facebook doing moderation on the article is election tampering, shouldn’t they be going after the NY Post for election tampering also? Oh wait.. the original article was critical of their political opponent, thats just fine and hunky dory.
I really don’t understand how this many otherwise smart and shrewd individuals can’t grasp the notion that the 1st ammendment applies to the government. There is nothing in it that says an individual (and thanks to Citizens United, corporations get 1st amendment rights to) can’t censor and moderate speech however they want.
The eternal hypocritical victims whine again
It’s simple really, corporations should be able to do anything they want only so long as that benefits the GOP or it’s donors. Much like their stance on basically everything these days, if it helps Trump’s GOP it’s acceptable, if it doesn’t it’s a terrible crime that needs to be shut down.
Fox News will get it right
Who cares about your pointy-headed ideas about these things.
I’ll tune in to Fox News to get the real story. They will sort it out for me.
Re:
Now that’s some good-ass satire.
Re: Fox News will get it right
True. They looked at the story before the NY Post had it and didn’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
How do you stop Trump going on a rampage because he lost, and placing right wing trolls in as many positions in federal agencies as he can?
Re:
I imagine that, as political appointees, such “trolls” would be subject to firing by the next president right after the inauguration.
Re: Re: Re:
But what about all the competent staff who left, rather than be bullied by them, and the replacements that the trolls bring in? Rebuilding the agencies could take decades, and involve decades of court fights.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only thing you can do with the non-political staff that has left is ask them to come back. A bad administration can wreck institutional knowledge for over a decade.
Re: Re: Re: Rebuilding will take decades
Yes, we’ve had this conversation dozens of times throughout history, that one tyrant can wreck the progress of ten generations of good governance.
But traditionalists these days feel that we can’t let the people govern themselves, nor can we equip them with the civic awareness and critical thinking skills enough to know their own best interests and speak / vote / adjudicate accordingly. No, rather they are all suckers to be played by would-be tyrants.
And so they elect tyrants and ten generations of progress gets wrecked when they do.
Funny how that played out. Shall we try again?
Re: Re: Re:2 Rebuilding will take decades
Educated workers draw higher wages, so amoral capitalists wreck our institutions of learning.
Obsessed with money, and their default move is to exploit other people. Probably devoid of any sense of fairness. Remember Brett Kavanaugh throwing a tantrum and saying if he was denied a seat on the US Supreme Court, then that would be an injustice of seismic historical proportions?
Twisted and weird beyond my ability to comprehend.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Twitter is supposed to be an open platform, while Fox News is not. If Twitter wants to not appear to be making a political contribution, then they need to stop engaging in editorialization while operating an open platform.
Re: Re:
If their moderation was driven by politics, its not its driven by user complaints, so what, its not as though there are not alternative platforms with a GOP bias. The lack of users on those platforms is a good indicator of how popular that bias is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The number of followers for Trump, along with other conservatives on Twitter, is the reason why Twitter is engaging in corporate censorship. Twitter has a political bias, and it drives them insane that they have as many followers as they do. They are desperate to prevent Americans to hear the other side of the argument.
Re: Re: Re:
Then why doesn’t Twitter get rid of those conservatives? Twitter has that right. The conservatives can go to Parler and build their little shitpile there; they have no legal right to force Twitter into hosting speech.
(Answer: Twitter, like Facebook, is bending over backwards to be nice to conservatives so the service doesn’t appear “biased”. An account that reposts Trump’s tweets verbatim would get [and has been] suspended/banned for saying the same exact thing as Trump. How is that not “special treatment” for conservatives?)
Re: Re: Re:2 "Special treatment" for conservatives
According to Twitter’s justifications, it’s special treatment for VIPs. Trump’s twitter feed would not be tolerated if he were not President of the United States. Word has it President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey also says shit on Twitter that is only tolerated because he is an official leader of a country.
Re: Re: Re:3
I sincerely hope Twitter gives Trump the boot about one second after he leaves office.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the other side of the argument is nothing but a bunch of concocted bullshit, then yes, they are desperate to prevent Americans from hearing and spreading said bullshit. Just because it doesn’t exist on Twitter, doesn’t mean the bullshit is not available online.
I mean look how gullible you are Kody, spewing bullshit you’ve heard from somewhere else regarding your views on internet censorship and section 230.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cannot do that, as they cannot prevent people also using other platforms. It not as if you cannot use one platform to stay in touch with family and another to follow the politics that you prefer. Also, quite few people will follow Trump not because they support him, but because he is a source of news, or that his latest tantrum will give a clue as to what stocks to buy and sell.
Re: Re: Re: "the other side of the argument"
What argument is that?
Convince me here.
Re: Re: Re:2 "the other side of the argument"
"What argument is that?"
Fuck Liberals of course.
The virtues of which are, apparently, self-evident to any upright god-fearing (white) christian. And if you can’t spot the virtue in it you must be a liberal leftie out to subvert the human race on behalf of your lizard lord paymasters in the global satanist pedo ring running the New World Order.
/s…because with Baghdad Bob back on the forum Poe’s Law reigns.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Fuck the leftists"
I think that’s the point, Twitter may have figured out fuck the leftists is just like fuck the Jews (e.g. Blood Libel, or Holocaust denial), those aren’t conservative positions, but rumors to justify dismissing large swatches of population.
If Senator Cruz specified that Twitter was censoring him when he talked about the Deep State, or the Comet Ping Pong basement trafficking ring, or Satanists controlling the DNC, he’d be laughed off the floor.
But our Twitter-censorship conspiracy hypothesists know this, and so when they argue Twitter is censoring them they keep ambiguous about what is being censored.
Which makes it hilarious when Koby’s suggests that it’s a super-compelling argument that is convincing to anyone who hears it.
Let’s bring the UFOs and reptilians into the sunlight so we can all scrutinize their validity!
Re: Re: Re:4 "Fuck the leftists"
"Let’s bring the UFOs and reptilians into the sunlight so we can all scrutinize their validity!"
All good conspiracy theories are, by now, religions all their own. They’d produce the same argument poor Galileo was delivered when he pointed out that according to his telescope the moon was NOT a perfect sphere because you could see mountains and craters.
The learned theologians, after careful observation of the moon through his device, then postulated that the moon must be covered by an invisible and undetectable substance evening out the uneven surface – because according to church doctrine the celestial bodies HAD to be perfect spheres.
A halfway convinced conspiracy theorist has been enlightened. He sees the fnords. He knows better than to trust his own lying eyes, let alone yours. Especially because if you doubt him you are part of the conspiracy. And, given the normal type of nutcase we discuss, probably a black jew on top of it.
At some point to uphold the conspiracy theory the actual adversaries become superhuman. They have to be to keep a lid on all their foul plans. The very least they’re capable of is mind control, but in some cases it’s obvious they also possess time travel and reality-bending powers.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They are desperate to prevent Americans to hear the other side of the argument."
When the other side of the argument is telling me to inject chlorine, I tend to not be interested in hearing it – and it really is not much of an argument anyways.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They are desperate to prevent Americans to hear the other side of the argument."
Truly the mildest display of desperation I’ve ever (barely) seen.
Re: Re:
It’s interesting that your argument is that one company isn’t allowed to make "political contribution" while another one is. It’s almost like you think entities that doesn’t agree with your viewpoint should be "censored" for their political views. Didn’t you complain that all social media censor conservative views, and here we have you saying that social media should be silenced.
And if we are going to talk about "editorialization", which company does more "editorialization", Twitter or Fox? And why is one company’s "editorialization" ok while the other one’s aren’t?
You hypocrisy is astounding.
Re: Re: Re:
But … but … everyone knows Fox is full of shit. Just look at the filings on the Tucker Carlson case.
/s — but really it isn’t… or at least shouldn’t be?
Re: Re:
There was I ready to satirize Koby with some lame-ass stupid argument and damn, he beat me to it…
Re: Re: Re:
Poe’s Law;
"Without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."
Bluntly put you can’t satirize Koby about free speech topics because no matter how bad the satire you just appear to genuinely be Koby.
Re:
So what?
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, and what is open platform supposed to mean anyways?
Re: Re: Re:
Koby is making the mistake of conflating the term “open platform” with the concept of public forums/public spaces.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
That’s what I suspected.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Does it still count as a mistake when it’s deliberate and intentional? I have no doubt that he’s been corrected on that in the past(multiple times at that), so at this point if he’s still saying it he’s doing so knowing that it’s not true.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes. It’s a deliberate and intentional mistake, but it’s a mistake all the same.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hmm, different definitions I suppose, as for me for something to be a mistake in that context it requires a lack of intent, for someone to not realize that they’re wrong, such that with that realization it goes from mistake to deliberate deception/lie.
Unless perhaps you mean mistake in the ‘he used it without realizing that his use hurts his argument rather than helps it’ sense, a mistake in tactics rather than terminology?
Re: You have a strange idea of "open platform"
Kobes, dude, open platform means that the company has made it free to sign up for and free to use their technology platform as long as you abide by their rules. Because they are not a government entity and this is not a de facto "public forum" like a courthouse or government owned square (no matter how many times anyone tries to say it is), they are allowed to exercise their 1st amendment rights and allow or disallow speech that breaks their rules just as much as any other company.
Re: Re: You have a strange idea of "open platform"
"open platform means that the company has made it free to sign up for and free to use their technology platform as long as you abide by their rules."
I wonder if Koby agrees with that definition.
Not trying to cause trouble, I am curious.
Re: Re: Re: You have a strange idea of "open platform"
It seems to depend on the platform.
When it’s the social media platforms people actually want to use then kicking people off for violating the rules is tyranny and trying to silence their perfectly acceptable speech, when it comes to shitholes like Parler then people getting kicked off is perfectly fine because they were violating the platform’s rules.
Re: Re:
Twitter is supposed to be an open platform
What does that even mean? Do you not believe in private property any more? Should every website be forced to host all speech? Is Twitter allowed to remove spam?
If Twitter wants to not appear to be making a political contribution, then they need to stop engaging in editorialization while operating an open platform.
Does the 1st Amendment not mean anything to you Koby?
Re: Re:
"Twitter is supposed to be an open platform…"
Dude, that’s a marketing slogan. You’re basically claiming that this should trump the Constitution, while is quite a thing to lean so hard into…
If the senate has not even seen the official nomination tweet, Twitter may have censored it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Beat them in the face… Knock out their teeth… That will make you feel better.
Influence when everything is politically polarized
So when every little bit of information is potentially political, how does that even make sense?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
NOT SKETCHY. More quotes from Glen Greenwald.
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous-than-what-they-censor/
However, MASNICK claims the First Amendment empowers corporations to arbitrarily suppress the speech of others! MASNICK sez: "And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
NOT SKETCHY. More quotes from Glen Greenwald.
https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-more-dangerous-than-what-they-censor/
However, MASNICK claims the First Amendment empowers corporations to arbitrarily suppress the speech of others! MASNICK sez: "And, I think it’s fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content-free-speech.shtml
Re: NOT SKETCHY. More quotes from Glen Greenwald.
Your whole argument is a contradiction, by saying that a government cannot impose speech requirements should impose speech requirements.
Re: NOT SKETCHY. More quotes from Glen Greenwald.
So is that an invitation for everyone to go ahead and advertise their business on your lawn without you removing it?
… or is it, your lawn, your rules?
Re:
Dude, Glen Greenwald literally said the law empowers corporations like Facebook and Twitter to “arbitrarliy suppress the speech of others” (i.e., moderate third-party speech). The First Amendment gives you the right to speak freely; it doesn’t give you the right to make someone give you a platform.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Greenwald refutes:
Also "Constitutional" — as determined by lawyers — doesn’t mean that People must sit silently ahd be oppressed. America is explicitly founded on moral principle of individual humans having inalienable Rights which sum up to FAIRNESS regardless of wealth or status. — Don’t nag me that originally included slavery because I’m about to refute you: else Abolishment must have stopped with Supreme Court decisions, and neither would the Civil Rights Movement have any validity. The labor movements and anti-trust actions of last century were exactly to wrest arbitrary power from The Rich and their giant corporations.
But legalistic masnicks wish a return to royalism, just with corporate fronts. Masnick explicitly views even 1A as empowering the Rich to rule over the rest. While claiming he’s so for Free Speech that urges Facebook to host videos of murders, he doesn’t want neutral hosting of Public Forums in mere text! Masnick isn’t wishing for the gov’t to quit harassing corporations, he wants the gov’t to confer POWER on them!
Re: Re:
Four years in power and your cockmaster still hasn’t put Hilary in jail yet. But instead of asking him for a refund you’re surgically grafting your lips around the dildo he uses for a cock.
Your side lost, blue. I’m genuinely surprised you haven’t swallowed the COVID cumshot yet.
GOP Logic
So if twitter had allowed the sharing of the link to the NYPost article, and it was later revealed to have been mostly fabricated, or based on lies, would that too be deemed as "Election interference" by the GOP ?
Re: GOP Logic
No, Trump would denounce the revelations as "fake news" and keep on spouting the lies.
For the duration, the FEC may be un-sueable...
Posit: The FEC decides, screw it, we’re going to conduct business regardless.
Lawsuit: You can’t do that! It’s in your bylaws!
FEC: If you acknowledge our responding in this suit, you acknowledge our right to conduct business. If you declare we cannot respond to your suit because of our bylaws, we also cannot take any action in response to your suit.
Re: For the duration, the FEC may be un-sueable...
Not quite, all they’d need to do is point out that according to the agency’s own rules any actions they might take or orders they might try to hand out were null and void, and as such unenforceable and nothing but a PR stunt.
Re: Re: For the duration, the FEC may be un-sueable...
And if the enforcers decide to act on the orders anyway?
(That’s called ‘civil war.’ I know. That won’t stop Trump and whatever little green men decide to take his orders.)
Re: Re: Re: Eve of destruction
The summary execution of Michael Reinoehl was a big fat spark, especially considering how Dear Leader mulled it over in public about that’s how we have to deal with rioters.
November is looking super exciting this year.
And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend…
latin women
Find Pets blog posts and articles on Sooper writing
5 Essential Pet Food vitamins and minerals in a Healthy MealWhen you buy pet food, Make sure that it has the correct quantity of macronutrients such as fats, sugars, And meat. Some volume of vitamins, lime, Zinc and other micronutrients is also vital. It is the reason why any structural damage or safety hazards are detected before you move into your new home. but unfortunately, in common situations it can be daunting, specially when the dog is not housetrained and you need to spend a lot of time cleaning around and making sure your belongings are not damaged. And this is why it is only dogs that are trained to become psychiatric support dogs for people living with mental disorders. sadly, It has taken the lives of more than one million people throughout the world. But keeping it simple and logical, These can be split into few major points. when you’ve got a cat as a pet, It isn enough to headache a cat scratcher and a sack of crystal cat litter. You have to know very well what your cat needs and how you can help it.. In their standpoint, These tools are always harmful to your pet and you must never use them. But is truly true? Are these power tools cruel and harm your pet? very well, it depends. Thanks to today’s technology, there are numerous air purifiers for different room sizes. All you need are some tips to make the choice. use, To buy the best quality pet collars, You must first need to pick the right luxury designer pet collar. Most pet owners have busy schedules and they enjoy the idea of being allowed to [url=https://www.bestbrides.net/how-to-survive-your-first-date-with-a-chinese-lady/%5Dchineseladydate%5B/url] purchase everything they need for their pets online, while not having to leave their place. They have ascertain what food they should buy for their pets, How often employed feed them, the alternative supplies they need and so on. Caring for a pet is a bit more complicated than it sounds and as a consequence reputed Pet Store helps pet.
[—-]