Alex Berenson Banned From Twitter After White House Complains? Reinstated via Lawsuit?

I am assuming that not getting the vaccine increased my chances of catching Covid, and hence increased my chances of dying. If you don't want the vaccine, then consider moving to North Korea; they don't have any vaccine there.

If you're so afraid get your jabs, boosters and stay in your cave. Don't tell anyone else to abdicate their nationality and rights to satisfy your cravings for retaliation.
 
A) As long as it's not being regulated by the government, you have no free speech rights on Twitter. Honestly, the government's presence in this story is the only red flag; it could easily be argued that even if the white house asked nicely without any threat of coercion, Twitter's action could constitute a violation of of the first amendment.

With this being said, if all it takes is the presence of a government official merely requesting something to violate the law, Trump will have broken the law in Georgia (re. all he needed was 11K votes). The fact that he's not in jail for it right now suggests that the government CAN be involved in such requests without legal interference automatically taking place.

B) Public health/safety was being risked by the fake news right-wingers crave. The government - as coordinator of pandemic response/efforts - had a duty to intervene.


There's no indication yet that any power was misused. It was certainly used, though.

As long as the banning was solely at the discretion of Twitter, nothing unethical was done.
Only showing the lie that Twitter is an open platform.
 
Only showing the lie that Twitter is an open platform.
"Open" is-and-always-has-been relative. There are a great many things no one is ever going to be allowed to say on the internet.

So, calling Twitter being an open platform a "lie" is itself a lie. It's never been completely open, and only people who strive to misrepresent it would ever claim otherwise.

In other news, there is no right to free speech on the internet...
 
A) As long as it's not being regulated by the government, you have no free speech rights on Twitter.
At least read the links instead of shooting from the hip based on ignorance. Go back to my #7
Honestly, the government's presence in this story is the only red flag; it could easily be argued that even if the white house asked nicely without any threat of coercion, Twitter's action could constitute a violation of of the first amendment.
Could have? The court ruled and twitter ban lost. The rest of your post is more lies
 
"Open" is-and-always-has-been relative. There are a great many things no one is ever going to be allowed to say on the internet.

So, calling Twitter being an open platform a "lie" is itself a lie. It's never been completely open, and only people who strive to misrepresent it would ever claim otherwise.

In other news, there is no right to free speech on the internet...
Yes the left does not like free speech.
 
B) Public health/safety was being risked by the fake news right-wingers crave. The government - as coordinator of pandemic response/efforts - had a duty to intervene.
But when the government is wrong like on Covid? They have been wrong more than they have been right. They caved to the teacher's unions on what they wanted to happen, the CDC folded like a cheap suitcase.
 
But when the government is wrong like on Covid?
The government is often wrong; it happens. With the COVID the pandemic, the government had to fight with emerging science and technology, not to mention the rank partisanship which always complicates decisions/organization. In short, it got some things wrong, but any government in that situation will perform similarly. This is also true of the Trump government; it was trying to fight a complicated battle, and insofar as Trump was NOT the main force behind the government's response, that government deserves as much benefit of the doubt as Biden's.

They have been wrong more than they have been right.
Don't feel the need to support the above with links - but I'm highly skeptical that this is true. If they were wrong more than right, the effects of the pandemic would not have been mitigated to a significant degree.
 
The government is often wrong; it happens
Thank you for admitting that.
Don't feel the need to support the above with links - but I'm highly skeptical that this is true. If they were wrong more than right, the effects of the pandemic would not have been mitigated to a significant degree.
The government said you get the vax and you will be protected from Covid. Biden and Fauci got the vax, multiple boosters, and still got Covid. Fauci was arguing against natural immunity, it's better than a vax. The lockdowns, especially in the schools was ineffective. Many European countries kept their schools open as children were the least likely to get the Covid. Most of the people who died had serious co-morbidity problems, especially the elderly.
 
Thank you for admitting that.

The government said you get the vax and you will be protected from Covid.
They said it, it was true, and it's still true.

Biden and Fauci got the vax, multiple boosters, and still got Covid.
Yes, of course. The vaccine never gave you 100% protection from catching COVID; it:
  • lessened the chance that you'd catch it.
  • lowered the chance that if you caught it, you'd be hospitalized from it
  • lowered the chance that if you caught it and were hospitalized, you'd die from it.

Fauci was arguing against natural immunity, it's better than a vax.
This claim has been removed from the context in which Fauci argued against natural immunity. He never said natural immunity wouldn't work. Instead, he argued that natural immunity is (by itself) an insufficient standard of protection for the general population. Vaccination and natural immunity combined are (and have always been) the way to go.

The lockdowns, especially in the schools was ineffective.
This is debatable. The lockdowns helped prevent the virus being transmitted to the older more vulnerable population by school kids. This absolutely was effective. Still, we know more about the virus now, and it's mutated enough that our concerns are more tightly focused than they were.

Many European countries kept their schools open as children were the least likely to get the Covid.
This varied by the strain of the virus in question, and also by the extent to which those European countries had to worry about the pandemic. It did not affect every country the same way. For example, those countries which didn't have as many people coming in and out of them were able to get by with mitigation procedures that wouldn't have worked with larger, more economically-vibrant populations.

Most of the people who died had serious co-morbidity problems, especially the elderly.
This is true, but I don't see how it's relevant.
 
The country should use science as the standard when it comes to medical treatments.
Not the rants of random people on the internet.

You mean only the science you agree with...since there are well known epidemiologists who disagree with your view, the CDC and your lord Fauci.
 
The problem is they have become the defacto town hall and censorship is against all that this nation stands for.
A private company banning an individual from social media is not censorship.

You have the right to speech, not the right to a platform.
 
They said it, it was true, and it's still true.
No, that is not true.

  • lessened the chance that you'd catch it.
  • lowered the chance that if you caught it, you'd be hospitalized from it
  • lowered the chance that if you caught it and were hospitalized, you'd die from it.
I knew that was coming next. The absolutely, positively said getting the vax would prevent you from getting Covid. That was one big fat lie as we all now know.
 
I am assuming that not getting the vaccine increased my chances of catching Covid,
Assumptions based on delusion.
and hence increased my chances of dying.
You increase your chances of dying going out your door.
If you don't want the vaccine, then consider moving to North Korea; they don't have any vaccine there.
I don't know if they do or don't but you would make a better fit in Korea. :geek:

 
Free speech as a Constitutional right has restrictions, like all Constitutional rights.
What you miss is that the government has no right to intrude on that right of free speech by using a private company as their agent, and that is what they did because they knew they had no legal leg to stand on if they had arrested Mr. Berensen for his opinion. The latest is that since he won his lawsuit against Twitter, he is now suing the White House for violating his 1st Amendment rights, and that is a good thing. If the suit is allowed to go forward, those Marxists in the White House will have to answer some very uncomfortable questions. Let's hope he succeeds.
 
What you miss is that the government has no right to intrude on that right of free speech by using a private company as their agent
Actually, as long as no coercion or retribution of any kind can be shown, the government is allowed to advise privately-owned companies of the need for censorship. The final decision is up to the company, of course, but as long and they're the ones making the changes (and not the government), no violation of free speech rights has taken place.

So, the real question is to the status of the legal filings against the government. How is it doing? Is there any evidence the Biden administration threatened or coerced Twitter in any way?
 
Back
Top