'We don't do this': Even Twitter's censors rejected Adam Schiff's censorship request

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  4 weeks ago  •  11 comments

By:   Jonathan Turley (The Hill)

'We don't do this': Even Twitter's censors rejected Adam Schiff's censorship request
Apparently, there were some things that even Twitter's censors refused to do.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


"We don't do this." That response from Twitter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is a singular indictment, coming at the height of Twitter's censorship operations. Apparently, there were some things that even Twitter's censors refused to do.

One of those things was silencing critics of Schiff and his House committee.

In the latest tranche of "Twitter Files," journalist Matt Taibbi revealed that Twitter balked at Schiff's demand that Twitter suspend an array of posters or label their content as "misinformation" and "reduce the visibility" of them. Among those who Schiff secretly tried to censor was New York Post columnist Paul Sperry.

Sperry drew Schiff's ire by writing about a conversation allegedly overheard by one of his sources. Sperry's article, which appeared in RealClearInvestigations, cited two sources as overhearing two White House staffers discussing how to remove newly-elected President Trump from office. The article raised the possibility of bias on the part of an alleged key player in launching the first Trump impeachment, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. The sources reportedly said that Ciaramella was in a conversation with Sean Misko, a holdover from the Obama administration who later joined Schiff's staff. The conversation — in Sperry's words — showed that "just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him."

Rather than simply refute the allegation, Schiff wanted Sperry and other critics silenced. His office reportedly laid out steps to cleanse Twitter of their criticism, including an instruction to "remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content."

The date of Schiff's non-public letter in November 2020 is notable: Earlier that year, I wrote a column for The Hill criticizing Schiff for pushing for censorship of misinformation in a letter that he sent to social media companies. His office promptly objected to the very suggestion that Schiff supported censorship.

We now know Schiff was actively seeking to censor specific critics on social media. These likely were viewed as more than "requests" since Schiff was sending public letters threatening possible legislative action against these same companies. He wanted his critics silenced on social media. After all, criticizing his investigations or staff must, by definition, be misinformation — right?

His office seems to have indicated they knew Twitter was using shadowing-banning or other techniques to suppress certain disfavored writers. In the letter, his staff asked Twitter to "label and reduce the visibility of any content."

Twitter, however, drew the line with Schiff; one of its employees simply wrote, "no, this isn't feasible/we don't do this."

The "this" referred to in this case was raw political censorship. And even a company that maintained one of the largest censorship programs in history could not bring itself to do what Schiff was demanding — but the demand itself is telling.

Not only does it show how dishonest some politicians have been in denying censorship while secretly demanding it, it also shows the insatiable appetite created by censorship. The article in question, written by Sperry, is a good example. Sperry has denied ever supporting QAnon conspiracy theories, as Schiff's office charged. Yet even if Sperry's account about Schiff's staffer was wildly untrue, that should make it easier to rebut publicly.

The move by Schiff to ban Sperry and others on Twitter — and to remove content — is highly ironic. Schiff has been criticized repeatedly for promoting "misinformation" and for relying on unidentified "sources" for his claims of Trump's criminality. For example, Schiff pushed the false claim that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation; he also was criticized for pushing false narratives of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.

Nevertheless, I would equally oppose any effort to ban Schiff from social media, although that is hardly likely given the demonstrated political bias of past censorship efforts. For his part, Sperry was later permanently suspended by Twitter, which I also criticized.

Schiff is unlikely to be deterred by the release of these communications. He recently sent a letter to Facebook, warning it not to relax its censorship efforts. His letter, written with Reps. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), reminded Facebook that some lawmakers are watching the company "as part of our ongoing oversight efforts" — and suggested they may be forced to exercise that oversight into any move by Facebook to "alter or rollback certain misinformation policies."

Schiff's actions embody the slippery slope of censorship. By labeling his critics as QAnon supporters or purveyors of "misinformation," he sought to have allies in social media "disappear" critics like Sperry — yet he found that even those allies could not stomach his demands. Given Twitter's censorship of even satirical sites, it was akin to being turned down by a Kanye West podcast as being too extreme.

With the disclosure of apparent FBI involvement in Twitter's censorship program, the release of the Schiff files is another rare insight into how government officials attempted to enlist social media companies for censorship by surrogate or proxy. That is precisely why many in the media, political and business establishments have mobilized against Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter who has released these compromising files.

In a recent tweet, Schiff chastised Musk and demanded more answers from the Twitter CEO. While insisting that "I don't support censorship," Schiff asked Musk if he would "commit to providing the public with actual answers and data, not just tweets?" Well, Musk just did precisely that.

The "actual answer" is that Schiff has long sought to silence his critics, and Musk has exposed the underbelly of censorship — which is where we found Adam Schiff.



Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Thank you Elon Musk

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

Twitter continued to crackdown on dissenting political views this week with the permanent suspension of columnist and commentator Paul Sperry. 


 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

Looks like Schiff and some of his House Democrat cohorts have been abusing their power.

Republicans had better look into this; and if true remove Schiff and Co from all committee appointments. Better to remove the fangs from the snake before finding out where it intends to hit next.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @3    4 weeks ago
Looks like Schiff and some of his House Democrat cohorts have been abusing their power.

Turley calls it the underbelly of censorship.


Republicans had better look into this; and if true remove Schiff and Co from all committee appointments. Better to remove the fangs from the snake before finding out where it intends to hit next.

No matter who the next Speaker is, Schiff will be barred. We can thank Pelosi for setting the precedent.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Ronin2 @3    4 weeks ago
Republicans had better look into this; and if true remove Schiff and Co from all committee appointments.

And revoke their security clearance privileges.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Schiff is a menace to the Country. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 weeks ago

He has lied & leaked. He was one of Pelosi's favorites.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 weeks ago

And with all this we are supposed to believe the Democrats are honest with their "investigations".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5    4 weeks ago

Just wait until they have to turn over all those internal documents.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    4 weeks ago

The fall out from that will be very entertaining.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

If we ever get there!

 
 

Who is online

Ender
CB
Hallux
pat wilson
Ed-NavDoc
Tessylo
Trout Giggles
JohnRussell
Kavika


34 visitors