ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 07, 2017

Really, Twitter?

It is beyond ironic to see Twitter, of all companies, attempting to hide behind "freedom of speech":
Twitter Inc on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit to block an order by the U.S. government demanding that it reveal who is behind an account opposed to President Donald Trump's tough immigration policies. Twitter cited freedom of speech as a basis for not turning over records about the account, @ALT_uscis. The account is claimed to be the work of at least one federal immigration employee, according to the lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court.
Tell it to Milo. Hell, tell it to me. Even when you think SJWs can't surprise you with their shameless lies and hypocrisy anymore, they still somehow manage to do it.

How could the legal freedom of someone else's speech mean that you don't have to turn over your administrative records when ordered by the relevant authority?

Labels: ,

50 Comments:

Anonymous Icicle April 07, 2017 8:04 AM  

I wonder if some (or which...) political entities are behind the account.

Anonymous CarpeOro April 07, 2017 8:19 AM  

This is my shocked face. Yeah, not really.

Blogger Ron April 07, 2017 8:32 AM  

Why is it necessary for Government to have access to these administrative accounts? Unless there is some real threat or evidence of criminal activity, I don't understand why anyone should be on the side of Government in this case.

yes, twitter is a political organization and deserves to die a painful death, but I think the Privacy Rights of US citizens have been abused enough as it is. If a principle does not apply to political enemies, than it is not a principle.

The article didn't explain why the US government was asking for the identity of the user, so it could easily be they have a legitimate reason, only it is not being explained. But short of that, I get the feeling that this is not a Trump-ordered request.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore April 07, 2017 8:35 AM  

You guys are going to CRUSH me on this. Twitter is right about this because First Amendment protections exist to defend the private realm against infringements enacted by the national government (I've stopped using the term "federal"). As a private entity, it has virtually unlimited power to do as it pleases. At the same time however, Twitter is guilty of lying about it's "Terms of Service" due to its arbitrary enforcement of such. In fact, this arbitrary enforcement is political in nature. Twitter suspends and bans accounts that are "on the right side of the aisle" while permitting accounts on the "left side of the aisle" to freely violate the TOS.

Twitter's argument holds water but is disingenuous due to its arbitrary enforcement.

I'm thankful for the rise of Alt-Media (ie. Gab, Minds, VidMe, InfoGalactic) because there is greater honesty. I hope for the day that Twitter along with the other mainstream platforms (YouTube, Faceberg, etc.,) collapse. I hope the shareholders sue them. I'd love to see @jack bankrupted and forced to purchase food with an EBT card.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer April 07, 2017 8:41 AM  

Al From Bay Shore wrote:You guys are going to CRUSH me on this. Twitter is right about this because First Amendment protections exist to defend the private realm against infringements enacted by the national government (I've stopped using the term "federal"). As a private entity, it has virtually unlimited power to do as it pleases. At the same time however, Twitter is guilty of lying about it's "Terms of Service" due to its arbitrary enforcement of such. In fact, this arbitrary enforcement is political in nature. Twitter suspends and bans accounts that are "on the right side of the aisle" while permitting accounts on the "left side of the aisle" to freely violate the TOS.

Twitter's argument holds water but is disingenuous due to its arbitrary enforcement.

I'm thankful for the rise of Alt-Media (ie. Gab, Minds, VidMe, InfoGalactic) because there is greater honesty. I hope for the day that Twitter along with the other mainstream platforms (YouTube, Faceberg, etc.,) collapse. I hope the shareholders sue them. I'd love to see @jack bankrupted and forced to purchase food with an EBT card.


As you said "arbitrary enforcement" is what is going to cause them to lose this case. I am sure there are extensive government records showing that they complied with these requests under the past administration. All the sudden championing free speech because you oppose the current administration is not going to play well in court. They in effect have no policy on this issue since it was never invoked before. Further, it is highly likely that they are still cooperating with other foreign governments in non criminal cases.

Anonymous Maj April 07, 2017 8:43 AM  

They are defending their rights as a private company. Just like it is within their rights as a private company to ban you from their service.

Blogger JP April 07, 2017 8:47 AM  

Icicle wrote:I wonder if some (or which...) political entities are behind the account.

Maybe some recently unemployed negro?

Blogger SemiSpook37 April 07, 2017 8:49 AM  

The optics here are completely out of whack. There's no way that anybody can take Jerk and Twatter seriously with all of the SJW bullshit routinely coming out of that platform.

There's a reason people are looking for alternatives. Shit like this is exactly why people WANT alternatives.

Thank God for Alt-Tech. It's truly a blessing for those of us that legitimately want places to speak freely.

Anonymous Michael Maier April 07, 2017 9:14 AM  

I hope Trump prison rapes them in court. They have no principles, legal or ethical.

I bet the judge blows the SJWs though.

Blogger VD April 07, 2017 9:20 AM  

Unless there is some real threat or evidence of criminal activity, I don't understand why anyone should be on the side of Government in this case.

There obviously is. The account is claimed to belong to a federal employee, who presumably has divulged information he is not legally permitted to divulge.

They are defending their rights as a private company. Just like it is within their rights as a private company to ban you from their service.

They don't have the right to obstruct justice and interfere with criminal investigations of violations of federal law. Nor, I should note, have they banned me from their service.

You're really an idiot, Maj. You are wrong every single time you comment here. If you had any brains at all, you would realize that blind and reactive opposition to everything being said here is not a viable strategy.

Blogger Whisker biscuit April 07, 2017 9:22 AM  

Like baking cakes for fag weddings?

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus April 07, 2017 9:22 AM  

Turn it over to /pol/ and 4chan. They'll have the account's identity within 48 hours.

Blogger Ron April 07, 2017 9:56 AM  

@VD

federal employee

Thank you! Im embarassed to say I didnt notice that, especially since its literally in the first paragraph. That is a VERY different situation than the one I thought.

Anonymous Eduardo the Magnificent April 07, 2017 10:00 AM  

Virtue for thee, but not for me....

Blogger praetorian April 07, 2017 10:16 AM  

Can't they just ask the NSA for the account password?

Anonymous BBGKB April 07, 2017 10:33 AM  

Al From Bayshore stop defending twatter & bake me a cake to celebrate jewish lawyers forcing Boy Scouts to take trannies.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 07, 2017 10:42 AM  

The reason behind is because whoever it is, they have direct ties to Jack Dorsey. He probably doesn't want his anti-American twitter bots to be exposed.

Blogger Sagramore April 07, 2017 10:45 AM  

These idiots don't comprehend escalation.

For example, when you threaten someone with a fake crime like "criminal harassment" because you can't afford a libel lawyer, it can have very real consequences when there is evidence of tortuous conduct, like, say, extortion.

Twitter, take note.

Anonymous Icicle April 07, 2017 10:48 AM  

Now that all the shit about the surveillance is finally coming out, how many of these tech figures are a co-opted part of the Derp State?

Think back to the photo of that meeting with all the tech people with Obama. Derp!

Can't they just ask the NSA for the account password?

This brings up a good point. How much industrial espionage is going on since we know the agencies share the data between countries?

Blogger Cail Corishev April 07, 2017 11:01 AM  

Now that all the shit about the surveillance is finally coming out, how many of these tech figures are a co-opted part of the Derp State?

All of them, basically. It's possible that there are exceptions, but you should assume each one has been a happy participant in sharing users' data with government(s), until proven otherwise. For the most part, when ISPs receive an official-looking demand for something, they obey without question, and you can probably find something in their Terms of Service to cover that. For unofficial stuff, a little flattery from an NSA agent can go a long ways.

Blogger Tino April 07, 2017 11:05 AM  

"How could the legal freedom of someone else's speech mean that you don't have to turn over your administrative records when ordered by the relevant authority?"

Because going back to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate, anonymity has been linked to freedom of expression and there is precedent in early Constitutional Law that cannot be avoided. Ignored maybe, but not avoided. I apologize for not having chapter and verse of the Courts on this, no time to look it up.

OpenID aew51183 April 07, 2017 11:14 AM  

Just last month twitter handed over a random person's account info to that fruitloop Eichenwald over a freaking GIF IMAGE without the least bit of resistance.

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2017/03/31/twitter-assault-with-deadly-weapon/

Blogger praetorian April 07, 2017 11:20 AM  

Just last month twitter handed over a random person's account info to that fruitloop Eichenwald over a freaking GIF IMAGE without the least bit of resistance.

Who, whom.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft April 07, 2017 11:34 AM  

Honestly, if Eichenwald's epilepsy is THAT severe, he has no business whatsoever using any browser or web-com-interfaced application capable of displaying anything beyond plain text.

That being said, "assault with a deadly weapon" is the moron's argument here. Assault or possibly aggravated assault would seem to have more bearing here, because very nearly everything is deadly to someone or in some situation.

OpenID aew51183 April 07, 2017 11:39 AM  

@24
Regardless, Twitter has some stones to attempt to hide behind the 1st Amendment when this is the year it dies thanks to their compliance with the Eichenwald case.

Btw, the indictment was handed down from a Texas grand jury... yeah.. the constitution is a dead letter. Hope you're done stocking up because you're going to have domestic enemies openly declaring themselves and plundering your liberties in this case.

Anonymous Dilbert's Boy April 07, 2017 11:54 AM  

The Trump administration has made no claim as to national security concerns associated with the twitter account. The request came from Customs and Border Protection agency and cited a law allowing the agency to “obtain documents only for investigations and inquiries relating to the importation of merchandise.”

"The account is claimed to belong to a federal employee, who presumably has divulged information he is not legally permitted to divulge."

There has been no claim by Customs and Border Protection that the account divulged any information they are not legally permitted to divulge.

More likely, Trump doesn't like the "Alt_Gov" Twitter accounts that sprang up after he told all U.S. agencies to stop tweeting in January.

More than likely, this is a straight forward attempt to silence someone who opposes Trump's policies. It sounds like the work of a bitter, spiteful, authoritarian personality.

Anonymous Dilbert's Boy April 07, 2017 12:17 PM  

"Assault or possibly aggravated assault would seem to have more bearing here, because very nearly everything is deadly to someone or in some situation."

I agree. "Assault" is probably a better charge. With that said, there is a very big difference between Twitter's willingness to give over that account info and their resistance to the Trump Administration's demand. In one case you have a Twitter user explicitly attempting to cause bodily harm. In the case of the the anti-Trump Twitter user they are explicitly attempting to cause free speech.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 07, 2017 12:27 PM  

Dilbert's Boy wrote:More than likely, this is a straight forward attempt to silence someone who opposes Trump's policies. It sounds like the work of a bitter, spiteful, authoritarian personality.
No, it's a straightforward attempt to locate that son of a bitch an fire his useless, traitorous ass.

We're coming for you.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker April 07, 2017 12:28 PM  

The American Deep State - From surveillance of the Few to surveillance of the Many.

Blogger bosscauser April 07, 2017 12:30 PM  

I can't use cuck or print this blog's address on Twitter...
They lose hundreds of my followers every week...

#PresidentTrump2020

Blogger VD April 07, 2017 12:39 PM  

More than likely, this is a straight forward attempt to silence someone who opposes Trump's policies.

Good. Private corporations and people have no right to oppose the God-Emperor's policies. Or refuse to bake him a cake.

You can't hide behind the trees you cut down.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 07, 2017 12:39 PM  

bosscauser wrote:I can't use cuck or print this blog's address on Twitter...

They lose hundreds of my followers every week...

Why haven't you been banned by Twitter yet, soldier?

OpenID aew51183 April 07, 2017 12:39 PM  

@30

use the .fr or .de tld instead. Those work.

Anonymous Dilbert's Boy April 07, 2017 12:43 PM  

"No, it's a straightforward attempt to locate that son of a bitch an fire his useless, traitorous ass."

1. We don't know for sure they are a current gov. employee
2. Even if they were, they have not committed any crime that could be prosecuted as treason
3. They will lose in the lawsuit
4. Trump is in over his head

Anonymous Dilbert's Boy April 07, 2017 12:46 PM  

"Good. Private corporations and people have no right to oppose the God-Emperor's policies. Or refuse to bake him a cake."

We'll find out about that when the court rules. However, if anyone is proposing odds, I'll be happy to look at them. Anything at 1-2 or better I'll take Twitter.

Blogger Bernard Brandt April 07, 2017 12:50 PM  

How could the legal freedom of someone else's speech mean that you don't have to turn over your administrative records when ordered by the relevant authority?

Since you asked, Vox, I'll tell you. The First Amendment includes the right of a political commentor to make anonymous speech. The EFF has a good article about it, so I'll just post to that:

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

I happen to know about it because I was a principal party in a lawsuit brought by the DoJ and the IRS against the publishers of a book on Trust Administration. The DoJ subpoenaed the records of all customers of the book. We cited the related law that customer or library lists are also covered under that First Amendment protection. The DoJ backed down, and abandoned their subpoena on that issue.

Of course, and on the other hand, there are limits to that freedom. For example, you can't use that protection to hide against criminal activity, such as the folk who were selling illegal decoder boxes for satellite TV providers like DirecTV. So the customer lists of those little gadgets were subpoenaed.

Similarly, while the administrative puke who is sniping at the God Emperor probably has the general right to do so, he also probably does not have the right, as an employee of an executive agency, to unlimited constitutional protection, particularly if it concerns his job.

In short, I'm saying that the admin puke has the general constitutional right of anonymity. It probably does not allow him to hide his efforts to interfere with the head of that agency, namely, the God-Emperor.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 07, 2017 12:57 PM  

Dilbert's Boy wrote:1. We don't know for sure they are a current gov. employee
She is posing as a government employee, which is in itself a crime if you are not.

2. Even if they were, they have not committed any crime that could be prosecuted as treason
There are many forms of treason, and no, most of them are not crimes. Deliberate misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance in office for political gain are forms of treason. And theft by fraud, for that matter.

3. They will lose in the lawsuit
So what?

4. Trump is in over his head
Pure projection and wishful thinking on your part.

Blogger praetorian April 07, 2017 12:58 PM  

In short, I'm saying that the admin puke has the general constitutional right of anonymity.

It's cute because he believes the constitution still matters.

Blogger Cail Corishev April 07, 2017 1:04 PM  

@38, Yes, that point goes whooshing over their heads. We've been into who/whom territory for a while now, especially with these SJW-converged, often foreign-influenced social media and other tech companies. Constitutional niceties have given way to who has the power over whom. Companies like Twitter have had the power over others and have abused it without qualms; no one will shed a tear when it's turned against them.

Blogger Grandpa Lampshade April 07, 2017 1:20 PM  

As has already been brought up, this is really funny in light of Twitter being all too happy to cooperate in turning over @JewGoldstein's identity because the Jew Eichenwald claimed without any proof to have had a seizure from a gif image he received over the internet. SMDH some of you will be defending an enemy with "Muh Constitution" all the way over the cliff. Twitter is an enemy. Never defend enemies.

Anonymous Dilbert's Boy April 07, 2017 1:23 PM  

Well, it appears the Trump Administration learns from their mistakes. They are withdrawing their demand that Twitter unmask the @Alt_uscis account:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/7/15222298/homeland-security-twitter-lawsuit-dropped

Twitter responded by dropping the lawsuit.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 07, 2017 2:00 PM  

@Dilbert's Boy
Shut up Scoobius.

Anonymous Dilbert's Boy April 07, 2017 2:44 PM  

"@Dilbert's Boy
Shut up Scoobius."

@Snidely
Twitter and Free Speech win.
Shut up numbnuts

Anonymous Assad got Mossad'd April 07, 2017 2:45 PM  

@41

Well ain't that rich. God Emperor's cheerleaders have it real hard, these last few days. Ain't much to Big D and his administration where it counts, looks like. Yeah, corp said they'll sue and Big D just runs away, tail between his legs, all repentant like. One considers application of that sweet C word.

Anonymous Last Redoubt April 07, 2017 3:36 PM  

@44. Ass

Ah, you're one of those who insists on shoving their character defects in other people's faces. Got it.

Blogger Bernard Brandt April 07, 2017 4:02 PM  

It's cute because he believes the constitution still matters.

Yes, it still matters. But it only does so when people know what their rights are under that Constitution, and how to exercise them. So, for the most part, yeah, but not much.

Blogger Eric Hagerstrom April 07, 2017 4:03 PM  

What crime has been committed? Sure the agency is p.o'd that civil servants are talking out of school but are they leaking government secrets or merely expressing displeasure at current administration policies? The courts will hold that the First Amendment trumps in this case.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 07, 2017 6:31 PM  

Heh, spambot can't form a URL.

Blogger Dylon Winfield April 07, 2017 10:51 PM  

SJWs only care about their free speech, not that of other people.

Blogger DonReynolds April 08, 2017 3:14 AM  

This is absurd, of course.
The FACT that Free Speech is protected in this country, does not mean that the government cannot know exactly WHO was doing the speaking.

In the case of serving military or Federal employees, there is no Free Speech (without consequences).
I thought everyone knew that already.
Yes, you are free to say whatever you like.....provided it is not insubordination (yes, they still enforce that one), or diverging state secrets (uh huh), threats, confidential information (however obtained), foreign agents, and those advocating death or harm to senior members of the Federal government.
Aside from that, you are probably free to say whatever you like....and your supervisor or bureau chief can respond accordingly.
No....Free Speech does not mean Anonymous Speech.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts