BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 
Missouri AG Announces Bullshit Censorial Investigation Into Media Matters Over Its Speech
from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is currently engaged in numerous legal battles over speech which can more or less be summarized as “criticism of people Andrew Bailey likes is censorship,” but “criticism of people Andrew Bailey doesn’t like is good and just and important to the marketplace of ideas.”
Andrew Bailey is a hypocrite.
But that’s no surprise.
What’s worth calling out, however, is just how hypocritical Missouri AG Andrew Bailey is, and how he, while pretending to be a supporter of free speech, is abusing the power of his office to suppress speech he disagrees with and to silence voices.
While he wasn’t Attorney General when the lawsuit began, Bailey is currently leading the Missouri v. Biden case, which the Supreme Court is about to hear an important piece of in the renamed Murthy v. Missouri. That case raises serious questions regarding the boundaries of where the government can seek to pressure others regarding free speech. As I’ve discussed in detail, I agree that the government should not be pressuring anyone to be silenced. But there need to be clear rules to determine the difference between mere persuasion and information sharing, and coercion and intimidation.
But it’s important to be clear on what Bailey/Missouri’s position in this case is: it’s that any efforts by government officials to challenge the speech of anyone is an inherent violation of the 1st Amendment.
Except, that seems to only apply to cases where the government is run by Democrats and they are criticizing Republicans. When the scenarios reverse, AG Bailey seems to have a very different take. This has been true for a while. For example, we noted that Bailey had no problem the very day after he received an early victory in the Missouri v. Biden case, publicly threatening the retailer Target over its support of an LGBT organization.
Having gotten away with that, Bailey is taking this kind of thing up a notch. We had mentioned a few weeks ago that he had tweeted about how he was “looking into” whether or not Media Matters engaged in fraud in response to that organization’s article highlighting that big name advertisers had ads appear next to blatant neo-Nazi content.
And this week, Bailey announced a more formal investigation, sending a letter to Media Matter’s executive director that is so batshit crazy that it should call into question the competency of anyone who voted for Bailey. Bailey also tweeted about the investigation, which makes him sound even more ridiculous, because he’s literally admitting that he’s doing this investigation to protect ExTwitter which he (laughably) claims is “the last platform dedicated to free speech in America.”
It’s not even close to that, and I’ll note that this suggests Donald Trump’s own Truth Social is not viewed positively by Bailey.
But, again, remember, Elon Musk’s own lawsuit against Media Matters admits that Media Matters’ report was 100% true. He merely disputes that the ad/content combination that Media Matters reported on was common. But, Media Matters did not claim that the combination was common, just that they saw it. And the lawsuit admits that the organization did. He just doesn’t like it.
Nor does Bailey.
So here, we have Bailey launching an investigation into a private organization over its speech criticizing another private organization. That’s way more of a 1st Amendment violation than the White House sending a note to Twitter telling them of someone impersonating a politician and asking if it violates Twitter’s policies.
But, more ridiculously, Bailey claims that this obvious attack on free speech (using the taxpayer-funded, power of the government to intimidate and stifle speech he doesn’t like) is somehow in support of free speech. Here’s Bailey’s statement:
We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America….
Enemies of free speech are attempting to kill X because they cannot control it, and we are not going to let Missourians be subject to fraud in the process.
I’m fighting to ensure progressive tyrants masquerading as news outlets cannot manipulate the marketplace in order to wipe out free speech.
It’s that last line that’s really telling. He admits that his effort here is based on ideology and is an attempt to attack an ideology he disagrees with. He is publicly admitting his desire here is to suppress speech from those he disagrees with. The claim that it is “manipulating the market” is also quite telling. What Bailey is really admitting is that he does not believe in the marketplace of ideas, because if progressives are allowed to speak, they might convince people of their views — something Bailey is publicly admitting is unacceptable.
Imagine if a Democratic AG did the same thing to Fox News. Or the Daily Caller. Or the NY Post. Or the Federalist. People would be rightly up in arms about this being a violation of the 1st Amendment. Because it would be.
Bailey’s letter to Angelo Carusone at Media Matters is even dumber.
I have reason to believe that your firm’s alleged actions may have violated Missouri consumer protection laws, including laws that prohibit nonprofit entities from soliciting funds under false pretenses. E.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020.1. I am especially concerned that Media Matters’ actions, if proven true, have hampered free speech by targeting an expressly pro free speech social media platform in an attempt to cause it financial harm while defrauding Missourians in the process.
Does anyone think Bailey could find a single person who donated to Media Matters and feels defrauded based on the organization’s report about ads next to Nazi content?
The demands from Bailey are intrusive, intimidating, and a clear attempt to suppress anyone else’s future attempts to investigate or publicly criticize Musk. He demands that Media Matters preserve all sorts of internal, editorial discussions that are none of his fucking business:
- Communications with third parties regarding your strategy to target advertisers on X, formerly known as Twitter, and your efforts to manipulate those advertisers into pulling their ads from the platform.
- Communications with IBM, Lions Gate Entertainment, Apple, Disney, Warner Brothers Discovery, Paramount Gold, NBCUniversal, Comcast, Sony, Ubisoft and Wal-Mart regarding your strategy to target advertisers on X, formerly known as Twitter, and your efforts to manipulate those advertisers into pulling their ads from the platform.
- Internal communications regarding your policies, strategies or operations related to generating stories or content intended to “cancel,” “deplatform,” “demonetize,” or otherwise interfere with businesses or organizations located in Missouri, or utilized by Missouri residents.
- Communications and documents related to soliciting charitable funds from residents of Missouri in relation to the webpage at the URL stated above.
Again, imagine if California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, demanded the same of the Federalist? The entire GOP would scream loudly (and, for once, accurately) about it being a clear and obvious attempt to influence and intimidate critical media coverage.
Yet, I’ll bet that not a single GOP or GOP-supporting site, which claims to be about free speech, will call out this move by Bailey.
But, really, it’s quite incredible how Bailey’s views are so different depending on the type of speech. When the government is concerned about speech he likes, it’s censorship. When a private entity says stuff he dislikes, he’ll mobilize the vast investigatory powers of his state to intimidate and threaten them into silence.
Andrew Bailey is no friend to free speech.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, andrew bailey, fraud, free speech, hypocrite, investigation, missouri
Companies: media matters, twitter, x
Comments on “Missouri AG Announces Bullshit Censorial Investigation Into Media Matters Over Its Speech”
Now there, dear trolls, is an example of a government official using the power of his office to silence speech based on political ideology. Y’all want to keep talking about viewpoint discrimination, so take a long look at what it really looks like for once in your miserable lives.
Re:
Unfortunately, they won’t care.
After all, it is not “viewpoint discrimination” if it’s done by their people.
Re:
FAFO!
Re: Re:
Apparently, “FAFO is a modern-day slang term for “F— around and find out”, according to Urban Dictionary. The tweet was sent by Elon Musk, who confirmed the suspension of rapper Ye, who had been accused of inciting violence and anti-Semitism” (https://www.ibtimes.com/what-does-fafo-mean-elon-musks-tweet-decoded-3642814). Confirmation, if it were needed, that Musk is indeed a hypocrite.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I agree. This AG’s attitude towards Media Matters is the same as BestNetTech’s owner towards X – admire censorship of opinions you dislike, and screech about free speech that you hate. I hope this AG gets slapped down by the courts, since he, unlike the owner of BestNetTech, is bound by the 1st Amendment, although no less of a hypocrite.
Re: Re:
Thanks for taking the bait, dipshit.
Unless Elon Musk is forcing people to stop expressing ideas and opinions he hates (e.g., “you can find ads placed next to Nazi content on Twitter”) on other platforms in both meat- and cyberspace, his criticism of that speech—and any refusal to host it on his private property—isn’t censorship. A state Attorney General threatening to investigate a journalistic outlet for speech that is wholly protected by the First Amendment—speech that even Elon Musk’s lawsuit against said outlet agrees isn’t defamatory—is absolutely censorship because it’s an attempt to intimidate that outlet into retracting and never repeating the speech that pissed off Elon Musk.
I don’t know about you, but I want Attorneys General to uphold the law, including the First Amendment. Any AG that lets Elon Musk put a leash on them and command them to censor any outlet that says mean-yet-true things about Musk is an AG that cares more about their political career than their official duty.
Re: Re: Re:
Which he is trying to do with lawsuit against MM. Removing their posts on X would be moderation, hauling them into court is censorship.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:2
🥱
Re: Re: Re:2
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
Re: Re: Re:3
Deep cut…
Re: Re: Re:2
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it any more true.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
It doesn’t need to be “any more” true, beyond being simply true. It needs to be said over and over again because people are wrong over and over again.
Re: Re: Re:4
Then it needs to be true in the first place. You have yet to present a coherent and logical argument for why it’s true that also takes into account the “I have been silenced” fallacy. Saying a thing over and over and over without an argument to back it up doesn’t make the thing you’re saying true by default—so put up an argument or shut the fuck up.
Re: Re: Re:5
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient”. Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.
~Wikipedia
censorship does not require a global effect to be such. The act of removing, baring, blocking, content is censorship. That you can access the content elsewhere does not change the loss of that content locally.
Re: Re: Re:6
Definitions are subjective observations by some party regarding their perception of how a word has been used, not a prescriptive decree of how it must be used or how it is being used by others universally. It does not, and cannot, include every context in which a word is used. Citing a definition is not some gotcha that proves your point. You’re literally just saying that the writer of the definition wrote a definition you agree with. There are also other definitions of the word that don’t recognize private actors. Words can have multiple meanings. And some uses of particular words are attempts by disingenuous speakers trying to associate the stigma regarding one definition with another.
There is also historical context in which private actors who were called censors were not the same as social media platform moderators, but rather lawyers and corporate employees who feared running afoul of standards in broadcasting and thus censored writers and actors in the production of shows and music and other productions where those being “censored” were employees rather than some random social media user. The meaning of words can change with usage over time. Calling moderation censorship is an attempt to associate big bad authoritarian government oppression with the act of a private platform owner (whether it’s a massive corporation or just some random guy on the internet hosting a forum on his own website) exercising their own 1st Amendment-protected freedom of speech to host speech that they agree with.
Watering down the word just makes it meaningless. By that loose definition you provided (“The act of removing, baring, blocking, content is censorship.”) would apply to individual social media users being able to block spam and trolls. I don’t see the posts of people I’ve blocked on Reddit or Lemmy or Mastodon. So much censorship! Why use censorship as a word at that point if just calling it blocking would be more accurate? …Because the reason people use the word is to conjure the associated negative connotation. “You blocking me when I spout the n-word or endorse genocide or push conspiracy theories that could kill people or disenfranchise them is CENSORSHIP!!!!111!1!!” Trolls use the term to try to shame honest people into letting them troll more, freeing the trolls of the consequences of their antisocial behavior. And you’re abetting them by pretending the word must be used as prescribed.
Re: Re: Re:7
Only very very recently as a means to dodge the word for its factual connotations.
The fact that something has been removed and is no longer available, or has been banned from availability.
I’ve done no such thing. Censorship is censorship. Even if you choose to call it something else. Cleanflicks and Pure Films called it sanitising. It’s still censorship.
Because you have censored your feed to your desires. And that is your right. Just as the platform has the legal right to censor content they do not wish to have available.
That doesn’t mean others don’t have the right to call out and display such censorious actions either.
I believe in every person’s right to speak as they wish. And my right to not listen. That’s the difference between some right wing posters here and myself. I don’t demand any person stop speaking. And I don’t demand forced speech.
But I will not pretend it’s is not censorship just because someone wants to pretend they are censoring.
Censorship should always be called out for what it is. As that is the very truth in the advertising of the content available and not available.
If you want access to something and can not find it you go elsewhere. To a location that did not censor that content. And if you don’t like what content is available, you go elsewhere. Where such content is not available.
Most people simply don’t care and ignore the content they will never see themselves. Notice how little global movement has occurred on X? No real mass exodus of users despite changes in content. As that newly available content has nearly zero chance of ever making it to a user not looking for it in the first place.
Advertisers complaining are nothing more than brand theatrics. And sites like here and NYT and anyone else discussing it have fallen for the game they are playing, free advertising based on not advertising.
I honestly wonder how much of this whole advertising pull is it just smart planing… make a big deal and others will push your brand for free, rather than pay for less eyes, as opposed to actual care about content.
I’m not surprised to see that some companies in the US that have pulled adverts still have subsidiaries in other countries running advertisements there.
Ultimately, if you want something not available, go elsewhere. If you don’t like what is available, go elsewhere.
And why, how, did we get two generations of people who are so devastated by words?
When I was growing up there was this old phrase; sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
If words of a stranger are an issue, you have a bigger problem than being called something you don’t like. Reading something you don’t like.
Re: Re: Re:6
You go on and on about what you define censorship to be and yet what are you going to do about it? Whine and moan some more?
There is no law that says a citizen is not allowed to censor others who are on their private property. You put your campaign sign on my lawn expect it to be in the trash.
Re: Re: Re:7
Exactly. And no law that says you must do what a minority of users demand either. Bingo. Notice, I have absolutely never demanded that anyone be forced to host speech they don’t wish to.
Re: Re: Re:4
It wasn’t true the first time, either. That was implicit in my original comment.
Repeating the same thing over and over again verbatim makes people less likely to listen to you, if only because you’re not worth the annoyance of dealing with the copy-pasted replies.
You also never explain why your assertion is true or why the arguments made against it are unsound or irrelevant, so no one who doesn’t already agree with you (even if they were previously neutral) will be convinced by you. If no one—including neutral parties—will gain any information as a result, there is no need or good reason to say it more than once.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sure, Hyman.
Unless you’re the censor and “only I get to invade your house and do whatever I want” is the idea.
In which case, I’m also free to do the same.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Being free to censor does not make the act of censorship not be censorship.
Re: Re: Re:4
But you know what your “free speech” entails?
Property rights, and their attendant right to kick anyone out of your property, disappearing.
Pulling a gun on me when you advocate for me screaming in your face, in your own house about how you’re an actual Nazi means self-defense is now an option.
Your definiton of “free speech” means I am free to go into your house and use YOUR house as a soapbox, and you are NOT allowed to pull a gun on me because I have that right to go into your house and berate you on your life choices.
Are you willing to give up your right to kick me out of your house for no reason whatsoever?
Re: Re: Re:2
The ability of the “silenced” to speak elsewhere means no censorship occurred, dumbass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant, because the actions of the censors are no different.
Re: Re: Re:4
You say this, but you don’t explain why that’s true. How is being able to practice one’s right to speak on any other platform hampered by losing the privilege to speak on a specific platform that didn’t have any obligation to host someone’s speech in the first place?
Re: Re:
I am unclear why you continue to insist I hold views I do not hold and have never held. At no point have I advocated for more moderation (what you falsely claim is “censorship.”) I have simply highlighted that anyone who runs a platform needs to understand the tradeoffs of their positions on moderation, which Elon does not.
My continued calling out of Musk has never, not once, been to argue that he’s “wrong” on his decisions, but just to make clear how little Musk seems to understand those tradeoffs, which every other platform learns over time.
Also, I’m not sure why you continue to falsely insist that I supported Twitter’s old moderation scheme when I directly criticized it repeatedly.
So, one day, I hope that you grow up and learn to deal in the land of reality, not the land of fantasy that you currently inhabit.
Re: Re: Re:
This is the oddest irony – Mike gets criticized for supposedly supporting censorship, or even just moderation, by trolls who are still able to post on his platform because he sticks to his guns about not having heavy moderation or account privileges on his platform.
The funniest part is when you realize that despite the content of what the trolls post, the fact that they’re still able to post at all on a private platform disproves their accusations of any kind of censorial iron fist wielded by Mike.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sadly, this level of logical deduction and reasoning is beyond their capabilities.
Re: Re: Re:3
Pretty sure it’s not a matter of a lack of logic or reasoning capabilities so much as honesty. Reality disproves their claims and rather than admit to being wrong they just lie about reality.
Re: Re: Re:
“Also, I’m not sure why you continue to falsely insist that I supported Twitter’s old moderation scheme when I directly criticized it repeatedly.”
The individual you’re responding to also doesn’t understand basic concepts due to non-neurological learning disorder, and so, for a completely different reason than people with intellectual disabilities, is nowhere near the intellectual level required to search your post history.
Re: Re: Re:2
I thought it was cranial posterior inversion
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.bestnettech.com/2022/03/30/why-moderating-content-actually-does-more-to-support-the-principles-of-free-speech/
We’ve been through this before in the comments section on that article. I do not call moderation censorship. Moderation restricts what may be said based on the form of the speech, while censorship restricted what may be said based on the viewpoint of the speech.
You insist that large generic speech platforms silencing the Babylon Bee is not censorship, just protection of a community that experiences harassment. But it is censorship. A community that feels harassed by having the lies it believes called out for what they are does not get to silence the people who tell the truth and have that not be called censorship. A generic speech platform that silences such speech is violating the principles of free speech regardless of whether they have a 1st Amendment right to do so. When you support such silencing, you too are violating the principles of free speech, and using the excuse of private action to try to reconcile the cognitive dissonance of claiming to support free speech while supporting having speech silenced.
Re: Re: Re:2
And yet you continue to lie. Why? What motivates you to lie so regularly and so often about my views?
The problem here, as anyone can recognize, is that people like you insist that moderation based on the form of speech is falsely interpreted by assholes like yourself as being about the viewpoint.
The Babylon Bee was not moderated for “calling out lies.” It was moderated for making a statement that violated Twitter’s rules against harassment based on misgendering someone.
I understand that you, and your deep, sick, infatuation with what genitals are in whose pants, but back here, in the real world, some of us recognize that deliberately misgendering someone for the sake of attacking their identity is a clear form of harassment, one that has been shown to lead to an increase in suicide.
I, unlike you, do not wish to encourage more suicide. It helps if you’re not obsessed with someone else’s genitals, something that I believe is none of my business. You, in making it your business (besides being perverted and disgusting) are also deliberating trying to abuse and harass people.
It is why I have told you, repeatedly, not to do that on my property.
Being a fucking asshole, gleefully attack people and bullying them in a manner proven to increase suicide, is a good recipe for anyone asking you to leave.
I have asked you to leave. Not only do you refuse to leave, and refuse to respect the rules I have set down for using my property, but you also then lie about me.
You really should stop. You are a sick person who needs serious help. You should stop obsessing over the genitals of other people. And you should also stop misrepresenting my positions because you’re too shallow, too ignorant, and too fucking stupid, to understand complex topics that don’t fit neatly into the culture war you’ve stupidly bought into.
Re: Re: Re:2
Distinction without a difference. You could say “we should kill f⸻ts” or you could say “we should round up queer people and imprison them forever”, but you’d still be expressing the same shitty viewpoint. Whether you choose to use an anti-queer slur is irrelevant. And even though this fact makes you exceptionally upset, even you know that every website has the absolute and unassailable right to decide what viewpoints it will and will not host. That decision is not censorship because the use of a website that you don’t own is a privilege; losing that privilege is not the same thing as being forced to give up a civil right.
It isn’t. No interactive web service, regardless of how “large” it is in size or how “generic” it is in terms of topic or allowed speech, has an obligation to host anyone else’s speech. To say otherwise is to deny that service the right of association and force that service to host speech it wouldn’t host (which would be a violation of the First Amendment). If you don’t want a bakery run by a homophobe to be forced by law into decorating a wedding cake for a gay couple, you can’t also want the law to force Twitter into hosting homophobic speech if Twitter’s owner doesn’t want to host that speech and avoid accusations of hypocrisy on the topics of censorship and free speech.
Are they silencing the “truth-tellers” on one platform or all platforms, either by demanding that the government shut them up or by threatening lawsuits or violence? If the answer is “no”, that’s not censorship. Again: Losing the privilege of using an interactive web service that you don’t own is not the same thing as being denied your right to express yourself anywhere and everywhere else. You need to stop believing in the “I have been silenced” fallacy, Hyman Rosen.
A platform owner telling someone “you can’t say that here” is free speech. That platform owner booting that person for not listening is also free speech, in that it expresses a desire for that platform to not be associated with that person and the speech they tried to express. If anything, the banned person trying to use lawsuits, violence, or threats thereof to get back on that platform would be an attempt at censorship.
Again, Hyman Rosen: You really need to stop falling for the “I have been silenced” fallacy. Someone losing the privilege of posting on a single platform that they don’t own is not the same thing as being sued into a fear of expressing ideas they had no problem expressing before the lawsuit. A Twitter ban is not the same thing as facing down a SLAPP suit or being told “say that again and you die” by a guy with a gun. If you really believe otherwise, that’s your problem—and you can fix that yourself, you pitiful pissant.
Re: Re: Re:2
Ask your parents how they feel about being told that they are üntermenschen and that they should be shipped by train to the nearest camp? Which is an entirely valid and normal viewpoint to hold. It’s short, polite, to the point and very much not bad form. For a Nazi.
And that summarizes up how you view the world, you think what you say are entirely reasonable but what you can’t fathom is that you don’t set the standard for how other people view you and your shitty views, you don’t get to decide who they want to associate with, you don’t get to decide what words actually mean, you don’t get to dictate anything at all.
That you haven’t been able to clue in on this fact, that you are a loon that nobody want to associate with, is mindboggling. By nobody I mean people who aren’t loons themselves or consummate hateful bigots, and the most fascinating thing about that is that you have even been kicked from other places which are far more forgiving of unrepentant assholes.
Btw, there is no such thing as a “generic speech platform”, you had to invent that stupid word-salad to imply that the owners of social media sites has no 1A rights in controlling who and what they want to be associated with.
I think I’ll invent a word-salad to: “generic property ownership” and use that to claim that I can live rent free anywhere if the property owner is big enough and argue it’s morally wrong of them trying to kick me out because that infringes the principle of me having the right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects.
See? If you are assholish and disingenuous enough you can act like an entitled leech and complain that you aren’t allowed to use other peoples property as you see fit against their wishes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You are in favor of government pursuing private business for fraud all the fffing time. SO is Masnick.
The only difference here is that the fraud happens to ahve hurt someone you don’t like.
That’s it, that’s the whole thing. I happen to think in most cases fraud is better fought through private torts. But if this was the exact same thing against, I dunno, Infowars, You would be all about it.
You’re a hypocrit.
Re: Re:
Two things.
Re: Re:
We opposed the FBI’s investigation into Project Veritas and their handling of WikiLeaks. Why do you think BestNetTech would be partisan on this?
Is there a single Republican Attorney General that isn’t an epic piece of shit? When did they become the thugs to the Party?
Re:
No, and a long time ago.
We just hadn’t been paying enough attention, that’s all.
Re:
Nope, but then AG has become the stepping stone to more powerful positions.
The base doesn’t care if its true, if it undermines freedom, they just care that their “enemies” are being punished.
It doesn’t matter if the AG never does a single thing that makes life better for citizens, as long as they manage to punish others for wrongthink.
Re:
Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma is actually quite a good AG. He’s not perfect, but he does his job well and is unafraid to challenge the politicians in his own party.
Re: Re:
I believe you. I would say that it’s good that Oklahoma finally has something good for them, but that’s not true at all, because it’s home to a shitload of Native Americans, as well as the best TV show in existence (Reservation Dogs).
Re:
Is there a single Republican Attorney General that isn’t an epic piece of shit?
Nope. It’s a prerequisite for the job.
Re: Re:
Whew! It’s a good job you said that. I’m about to drop a log and would have flushed it away, but now I can help it obtain fulfilling employment instead.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s my freeze peach, fuckface.
Take your critique and go fuck yourself with it.
so the crime of "fraud" does not actually require fraud anymore?
or just in Missouri?
Re:
Apparently just in Missouri. Though it might be in every Republican state. I mean, last time I checked, fraud generally required misrepresentation of a material fact, knowledge of falsity, the intent to induce reliance, and justifiable reliance by the victim…. But, apparently that’s not correct anymore?
If any letter of demand ever deserved the Cleveland Browns response, this would be it. Yeah, it’s a government official, but it’s still damnably stupid.
Like Mike said, anyone and everyone who voted for this mouth-breather should be examined for cognitive dissonance. Losers should be exported to some South America banana republic, because that’s obviously what they want for Missouri. And since they like Bailey so much, he can lead them through their exodus.
Well, even the one that controls X is an enemy of free speech and is also attempting to kill X.
go get em tiger
Enemies of free speech are attempting to kill X because they cannot control it, and we are not going to let Missourians be subject to fraud in the process.
I’m fighting to ensure progressive tyrants masquerading as news outlets cannot manipulate the marketplace in order to wipe out free speech.
………………………………………
maybe when you get done stumble bumbling all over yourself with this waste of tax cattle $$$$! you can put that law degree back in the cracker jacks box where you found it!
until then. if your actually trying to stamp out fraud. then you need not any farther then MSM and the government puppets!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
When you can't clean your own house
Worst case of TDS ever. And no, I’m not a Trumpie but you’re forcing me to use their language.
Your political coverage is deranged and craven. You are clearly being handed your talking points by others. Now, when honesty would do the most good, you’re still stanning for the liars because . . . of Trump?
So weak and sad.
I can’t do this anymore. I’m deleting my account and ignoring you forever. You’ve had seven years to wise up but you’re still carrying water for the sociopathic neoliberal frauds who bought the Democrat party and turned it into an even shittier version of the Republican party.
Blather on about Missouri but what you’re really doing is trying to get people to stop thinking about Gaza where YOUR SIDE (the Biden/Hillary/Obama side) is murdering children as deliberate policy.
I have never been more disappointed in a website. I hope that at the very least they were paying you to ruin your excellent tech rep with this third-rate political bullshit.
Re:
Feel free to argue against anything in this article (which isn’t even about Trump), clownboy.
Re: buh-bye
How can we miss you if you won’t go away?
Re:
…fucking what
Re:
Talk about having a total mental meltdown.
Re: Re:
Please don’t equate tantrums with meltdowns. That’s insulting to autistic people and members of other neurodivergent groups in which actual meltdowns occur.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Agreed. We should talk more about what’s happening in Gaza – that being Hamas fucking around and finding out.
The only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian.
Re:
This post has nothing to do with Trump.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.
You don’t address the points I actually raised.
Nothing in this post is partisan or political. I literally point out that if Dems did the same thing people would be just as right to complain about a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
I’m sorry that I support the 1st Amendment over the whims of either political party, but fucking deal with it.
Maybe… take a nap?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Of course it does. Just about everything a liberal says these days is some sorta positioning vs Trump.
You hate Musk cuz he allows the wrong people to express their views. Sometimes he has the wrong views himself!
Liberals have been kinda censorious for like 30 years ago, but this all came to ahead around 2016, when about half the country started listening to a guy who said things you REALLY didn’t like.
Suddenly banning “hate speech” and “misinformation” became in vogue, even if on government order.
Musk is not actually particularly right wing, he just doesn’t accept your bullshit and wants free speech. You don’t, and that became very acute right around the time the people elected the wrong person. So now Musk is “far right” and btw, shouldn’t we eat the rich?
Yeah, you hate Musk cuz you hate free speech and that has EVERYTHING to do with Trump.
Re: Re: Re:
matt the revenge porn enjoyer
Re: Re: Re:
I notice that literally nothing you said made any actual connections to Trump. Hating free speech (which Mike doesn’t, but for the sake of argument…) has nothing intrinsically to do with Trump. Hating Musk has nothing to do with Trump.
As for your assertion that everything a liberal says these days is about Trump, doesn’t that kinda make the whole TDS thing a circular argument?
Seriously, if Trump isn’t mentioned at all, how is it about Trump?
Re: Re: Re:2
The real Trump Derangement Syndrome is thinking that buffoon has any business being anywhere near the levers of power for the country, let alone president.
Remember Donnie still brags about taking a cognitive test without having the brains to ask why they felt the need to give him that test.
Re: Re: Re:
Elon Musk is free to express whatever views he wants and to platform anyone with whatever views they want. I have no problem with him platforming anyone. It is his choice, as it is his platform.
And, on that same basis, Elon Musk and any other platform are also free not to platform anyone they don’t want.
Furthermore, I am free to highlight why some of those decisions are, in my opinion, stupid. But that is not making any comment on his rights, nor is it any commentary on how I feel personally about Musk.
The point which I have raised multiples times is not a criticism of Musk’s decision, but simply to highlight his hypocrisy in making false claims and his unwillingness to understand that in the marketplace of ideas, his decisions have consequences.
I honestly don’t care one way or the other who he platforms. But I do care when he sues to silence people for speech he dislikes. Or when he whines about advertisers pulling their ads from his site over his own commentary. That is also the free marketplace of ideas. And I am free to mock him for not liking when he faces the consequences of his own actions.
Again, my ideal world is one in which everyone has control over their own social space via protocols, and there is no central company at all that gets to decide who speaks and who does not — but that there is algorithmic choice for how people interact with that content. The old Twitter was building that before. But Elon canceled its contract with the project.
First of all, the word is censorial. Censorious means something totally different.
Second, as I wrote repeatedly, I think the idea that social media had anything to do with Trump’s election was nonsense, and no, I don’t think social media companies should have ramped up their policing of misinformation to respond to Trump. That puts way too much credit on sites that don’t have nearly as much influence as some people think.
I do think that any website that doesn’t want to become a garbage dump needs to have a basic trust & safety apparatus not to deal with disinformation, but to deal with abuse and hatred and spam. I think there are much better ways to respond to disinformation than removals, and I don’t think it makes sense to focus so much on removals.
I find it hilarious how people insist I have views I do not have.
I think it’s fair for a platform to determine its own rules on such things, especially if they believe that hate speech constitutes abuse and harassment that drive away users and advertisers.
I never said Musk was right wing.
And if he wants free speech, he SHOULD NOT BE SUING A WEBSITE OVER THEIR SPEECH CRITICIZING HIM.
This isn’t difficult Matthew.
You clearly did not read this site during that time period. I mocked those who blamed social media and who demanded more takedowns of political speech.
Again, I have never said either of those things. Did you fall on your head and it causes you to hallucinate?
Again, none of that is true. The only thing I hate is anyone who tries to violate the 1st Amendment by abusing the courts to silence people.
You, on the other hand, seem to have very flexible beliefs in free speech depending on whether or not they support who you like.
That’s the difference between you and I Matt. I have principles. I support free speech rights no matter who is doing the speaking. I have supported both Republicans and Democrats when their speech is under attack. I regularly criticize both Democrats and Republicans when they attack free speech.
You, on the other hand, always seem to support Republicans, no questions asked. Even when, like here, they’re seeking to censor and suppress speech.
You’re no free speech warrior.
You’re a weak, pathetic, pandering partisan hack who wouldn’t know the meaning of free speech if it bit you on the ass.
Re: Re: Re:2
Damn, Mike, save a little for the rest of us next time. 🤣
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m seeing a trend here.
“They’re biased against right-wing ideas!”
“Musk isn’t necessarily rightwing…”
“Well, they think he is! More evidence that they’re biased against conservatives!”
“This is writer has TDS!”
“Trump isn’t mentioned in the article at all.”
“Well, it speaks against [yadda yadda], and Trump supports [yadda yadda], so it is against Trump, therefore TDS!”
The circularity of the arguments is crazy. There can’t even be exceptions unless they prove the rule in their worldview.
Re: Re: Re:
And you hate us enough to harass us.
I am NOT sorry you’re a violent insurrectionist (aka a Nazi jackboot) who’d massacre us with no regrets.
Re:
You act like there are not a lot of Dem voters who are appalled by what the Dems in Washington supporting the genocide in Gaza, when nothing could be further than the truth.
Also, if you’re going to leave, just do it already. I haven’t been posting here as much, but I’m not a drama queen about it…
Re: Re:
I have found, over my years on the internet, that those who claim they are “going to leave” (or equivalent phraseology) do not, in fact, want to leave, nor will they do so. They will continue to plague us until the end of their or our days, because when the say “I’m going to leave”, what they really mean is “I’m going to pretend I’m going to leave”.
Re: Re: Re:
‘I’m going to leave, just you watch!’
Translation: ‘Give me the attention I so desperately need or I’m going to throw another tantrum!’
Re: Re: Re:
There is a 0% chance he’s going to stick the flounce.
Re:
This article has nothing to do with Trump at all. How is it even arguably a case of TDS at all?
Again, Trump was never mentioned in this article. Also, who’s lying here? What are the lies?
Goodbye! You won’t be missed.
Hillary and Obama have nothing to do with anything going on in Gaza at all, and the Biden administration has launched zero attacks anywhere in Gaza.
More to the point, this isn’t a site that discusses foreign wars at all except where they intersect with technology, cops acting badly, or constitutional rights.
Re:
Paging Toom1275
I think we’ve found that hallucinogen ingester that you’ve been looking for.
Re:
I absolutely believe you, totally, in exactly the same amount as I believed all those supposed former Democrats in the #Walkaway movement who all just magically appeared out of nowhere and started saying, “I used to be a non-binary lesbian social activist who believed in equity and social justice, but then I realize Trump was right and now I’m a straight Christian conservative who thinks women belong in the kitchen and gay people are the devil!”
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, including lying. That’s on you.
It’s even better because Bailey is unelected, having been appointed to the office.
-Lobbying (non-gov).
-Lobbying (non-gov).
-Opinions.
-Fundraising.
How about you preserve all of yours too, jackass.
Does anyone need to take such a letter seriously, or can they just tell him to go fuck himself with an atom bomb, or both?
Strong State and national SLAPP laws would be good, but if we really want to stop all this bullshit, what we need is personal liability for abuse of official powers. Cops and AGs get away with this all the time because – at worst – they just have to write a check from somebody else’s bank account (taxpayers).
Courts don’t want to get involved in “political” disputes, especially when a sizable portion of the populace backs the abuse, but somebody needs to be the adult in the room.
Re:
Also, Attorneys General are basically the top cops of their jurisdiction, so the abuse of power that comes with police work also comes with being an attorney general. The thing is, though, that there is at least some accountability with attorneys general, in the case of the voting booth.
First we’d have to imagine a world where the Democratic party isn’t impotent against rising fascism.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hahaha
Show some love.
https://www.facebook.com/agandrewbailey
Re:
fuck off bailey
'The only speech that counts is OURS'
More and more it seems republicans are dropping the dogwhistle and picking up the bullhorn, making crystal clear to their supporters and opponents that when they say ‘free speech’ they only mean speech they agree with and that the concept includes the right for them and theirs to say whatever they want, wherever they want, without consequence, even if that means seizing the means of (speech) production for the ‘greater good’ to ensure it.
AG demands
I’m somewhat surprised that no one else has mentioned this-
The AG have given Media Matters the perfect answer in his document demands- “We have no responsive documents relating to …..”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fraud is fraud
I happen to think this sort of thing is much better handled through private suits. But if this was gov investigation into say Infowars, you’d be all about it. You’re just a partisan hypocrite.
This is an utter lie. The complaint gives great detail to how Media Matters lied about it’s manufactured results.
And yeah, ya douche, “disparagement” is the same thing as “defamtion”, and no one says “I’m filing a disparagment lawsuit”. You’re just making up reasons to say someone else is wrong.
Actual lawyers (so, not you) say this suit has a lot of merit. So I get it, you really hate Musk, but you’re just gonna have to deal with the fact Media Matters lied and is gonna cease to exist in about a year.
Re:
clown you are a fucking clown matt
Re:
Nope. I would not support a government investigation of Infowars, as that would clearly also violate the 1st Amendment. Alex Jones is a liar and a nonsense peddler and a pusher of all sorts of propaganda, but most of that is protected speech (with the exception of what a court found as defamatory). But none of that (even the defamation) is an issue for a government investigation, and I would call it out loudly if it happened.
And I can prove that by noting I called out my concerns when the FBI raided Project Veritas, which I’d put in the same camp as Infowars.
https://www.bestnettech.com/2021/11/18/yes-even-if-you-think-project-veritas-are-bunch-malicious-grifters-fbi-raid-is-concerning/
So, no, I would NEVER cheer on an investigation of Infowars.
Your problem, Matt, is that you think that my principles are as flexible and broken as yours. Unlike you, I do not view these issues through any partisan lens. It’s why I call out Governors Newsom and Hochul as they try to push censorship laws. It’s why I’ve called out, and even filed declarations against CA AG Rob Bonta for what I Feel are his violations of the 1st Amendment.
I know that YOU are so shallow and so weak in your principles that you support based on party. But I’m not. I’ve never been a member of either party and I support the 1st Amendment.
The complaint admits that Media Matters used its system and did, in fact, see the ads next to the content it said it did. The claim of “manipulation” is only that Media Matters used ExTwitter in a manner that was different than average users. Not that it didn’t happen.
At no point do they claim Media Matters “lied.” Just that it used the platform differently than average users. The complaint admits that Media Matters did in fact see what it said it saw.
It claims that what’s misleading is that the idea that this is a common occurrence. The problem for Musk (and you) is that Media Matters never said it was a common occurrence. Just that it happened.
So, no, at no point does the complaint show a false statement from Media Matters. It just claims that Media Matters report was interpreted incorrectly by people. But, news alert, interpretations of your work don’t make you liable.
This is simply incorrect. Seriously, Matthew, GO TALK TO A FUCKING LAWYER. Disparagement has different elements from defamation.
I’ve yet to see one and I talk to a lot of 1st Amendment lawyers.
I only hate the attempt to silence someone who criticized him for telling the truth.
I’m sorry your head is so far up your ass you don’t understand basic concepts. Maybe one day, you’ll come back and join us in the land of reality rather than the fantasyland you inhabit where you have to view everything through a partisan prism. Maybe then you’ll learn what it means to be principled, rather than an ignorant partisan buffoon.
Re:
And yeah, ya douche, “disparagement” is the same thing as “defamtion”, and no one says “I’m filing a disparagment lawsuit”. You’re just making up reasons to say someone else is wrong.
More copy/pasta from the other post you made a fool out of yourself on…But you be you, you stupid sonofabitch. Just because ‘disparagment’ is over you and the other tards like you, doesn’t mean the rest of us are illiterate.
Actual lawyers (so, not you) say this suit has a lot of merit.
I’m sure they do. Because they know Musk is a sucker and will throw good money over bad at them for it.
Re:
As much as I despise InfoWars (and its owner) for what’s been done to the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, unless InfoWars/Jones has actually said or done something illegal, the government shouldn’t be investigating it any more than it should be investigating Media Matters only for pissing off Elon Musk.
At worst, Media Matters may have overblown how easy it was to find ads next to extreme right-wing content and how common such ad placement was. But it still managed to actually do the deed, just as plenty of regular jackoffs did the same when they did a hashtag search for “heilhitler”. Exaggeration isn’t necessarily defamatory, especially when the facts underpinning the exaggeration are true. And considering how Elon’s lawsuit does not have a explicit charge of defamation aimed at Media Matters…well, even I know enough to know that you have to make a claim of defamation when you want to sue for defamation.
“Elon Musk hangs out with right-wing chuds” may be disparaging (to him), but that isn’t defamatory because he actually does that shit. Telling the truth about someone in a way that’s meant to make others think less about that someone isn’t defamation; if you really think otherwise, you go right the hell ahead and try to explain how I’m wrong and you’re right on that matter. (Key word: try.)
And how many of them are aligned with right-wing organizations that would have a vested interest in taking down a journalistic outlet like Media Matters, which is devoted to cataloging and accurately presenting the words and deeds of right-wing politicians and media figures?
When this suit gets tossed and these investigations go away quietly, I’m going to come back to this comment and laugh. You think I won’t, but I’m that fucking petty. (Oh look, I disparaged myself! Under your logic, I should sue myself for defamation! 🙃)
Re:
“Actual lawyers” file SLAPP suits all the time, you fucking dolt.
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQ-B9g_RqE
Since you wont listen to anyone here, that’s a video from a lawyer who read the case and walks through exactly how wrong you are. In exactly the same way everyone else has stated you are wrong.
Re:
Given that BestNetTech previously spoke out against the FBI raid of Project Veritas, as well as the many articles calling out Democrats like Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul, Hillary Clinton, and many others for going after free speech, I’m gonna have to Press X to Doubt that accusation.
It gives great detail to how it alleges Media Matters reached its results, but it never states that Media Matters didn’t get the results it said it got. The only alleged lie mentioned in the complaint is about how common it is… which Media Matters never claimed or said anything about. There is nothing in what Media Matters actually said that is alleged to be false in the complaint.
Here’s the thing about disparagement in the law: If nothing the defendant actually said was false, there was no unlawful disparagement.
But hey, point to anything Media Matters claimed in its article, then point to the part of the complaint that alleges that that claim is false. If you can find something, then you might have a point.
“Disparagement” is similar to defamation, but for corporations and not humans. It is true that, for disparagement, you do have to prove essentially all the same elements as in defamation (false statement, made by the defendant(s), about the plaintiff(s), caused negatived consequences (aside from just hurt feelings) for the plaintiff, and either actual malice (for public figures, which Twitter definitely is) or negligence (for non-public figures)). There are still differences, though.
And the reason why humans don’t say “I’ll sue for disparagement” is because humans can’t sue for disparagement; they sue for defamation. Corporations sue for disparagement.
Devin Stone of Legal Eagle says otherwise. So does Ken White.
Can you actually name any 1st-Amendment lawyers who say that this suit has merit? Or are you just gonna stay vague about it?
Re: Re:
He isn’t actually allowed to tell us who they are, the voices in his head said so because they don’t want to be sued for disparamation.
Re: Re: Re:
The last time I asked him to cite an actual lawyer supporting his position he said “all of them prior to the NY Times v. Sullivan” ruling, which shows he is unable to ever cite lawyers to back up his claims.
The government has no business demanding, persuading, suggesting, or otherwise commenting to any speech platform, about anything. Ever.
That said, clearly this lawsuit is a joke. People know exactly what this organisation is. Nobody donated without knowing what they were paying for.
Re:
“The government has no business demanding, persuading, suggesting, or otherwise commenting to any speech platform, about anything. Ever.”
In your mind, what is the government supposed to do?
What is a speech platform? Why is the government disallowed from informing the populace about impending danger .. like maybe a hurricane .. that does not respond to sharpie markups .. on a speech platform. Is television a speech platform?
Your crusade tilting at social sites with moderation is getting a bit silly.
Re: Re:
Why is the government using private media for official communication? NOAH and NWS exist for a reason. A regional emergency push notification regionally. Like we get all the time about tornadoes and blizzards.
The government has no business on private social media.
No business posting there. No business saying things should or should not be posted. No business at all. I already have missed feelings about federal and local preemption of broadcast.
When the government “persuades” there’s little doubt it comes as a fearful threat to most people. When big government says you shouldn’t, there always a thought of or else attached.
Re: Re: Re:
Over what media? You just said the government shouldn’t use private media, that includes radio, TV, internet, newspapers and telephone in various form. Whether the media used is persistent or ephemeral doesn’t actually matter because no such distinction exists in the 1A.
Re: Re: Re:2
The government owns control of the radio spectrum in this country. Sending out a push notification, access to which can be turned on or off on quality phones, doesn’t utilise any private platform. It’s an inherent part of the spectrum division.
The government has the right, and possibly the duty, to make notifications. They have zero right to force, or even suggest, acting or repeating on those notifications.
Any “suggestion” by the government on content that is otherwise legal,
Comes with the projection of threat. Because that is historical fact. When the government makes a ”suggestion” and private industry doesn’t comply Congress attempts to make a law forcing the suggestion. No content suggestions should ever be made regarding private legal speech. It’s none of the government’s business.
Re: Re: Re:3
Sending out a push notification, access to which can be turned on or off on quality phones, doesn’t utilise any private platform.
The spectrum by itself is pretty fucking useless once you take the telcos’ equipment out of the question. And what if recipients don’t have a phone? Send them a tornado evacuation notice via US Mail?
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s what the sirens are for.
Re:
The government has a legal interest in prosecuting illegal activity, including activity on speech platforms, such as election interference (real life example being the conservatives who fraudulently told Democratic voters they could vote by text), threats of violence, libel, fraud, scams, medical disinformation, etc. Not all speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Re: Re:
True. But the government has no right to counter legal speech anywhere but their own government platforms.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh? You should look up what is included in “legal speech”, and if you demand that the government isn’t allowed to counter some of the speech that is legal it has some interesting consequences. No more truth in advertising for example, and there are some regulations that just go poof too.
The problem with your argument is that the government has a right to inform people, even using private property, and ‘countering speech is more speech, like telling people that “all toys from this manufacturer has tested positive for containing led-paint even though the company has publicly guaranteed that isn’t the case”. That’s one example of countering speech.
Re: Re: Re:2
Via government platform. They have no right to demand access to another company’s platform to do so. Nor to “suggest” removing said speech from a platform. They can not and should not ever be allowed to do more than state the fact (legality) or opinion (policy) via their own platforms.
They can send an email or letter stating something is believed to be illegal, or that they believe something is inaccurate. They have zero legal rights to “suggest” something be removed other than legal requirements.
No, they don’t. Not outside of eminent domain which is a lengthy legal process. They have no more right to demand publication on a website or in a magazine than to house troops in your home.
You realise there is a dedicated set of official sites to make such announcements, right? They have no right to demand access elsewhere. Not suggest a company remove advertising Or speech about the product that they do not sell, offer, controll.
Re: Re: Re:3
…that citizens don’t look at or use. There’s a reason for the government to broadcast on platforms that people actually use, the same way the government has previously had official announcements published in newspapers that citizens commonly read.
They don’t need to demand access. Publishing platforms and social media companies want the eyeballs that government posts will bring.
Re: Re: Re:4
And whose fault is it that someone doesn’t get official content from the official source?
Like my cell phone. I don’t use x at all, and can’t remember the last time I used facebook. Or anything else in that antisocial nonsense category for that matter. It’s. It like they work properly. They put random posts from people I never looked at or followed in the feed.
If there’s something I need to know, a push notification will tell me. If there’s something I don’t need to know but want to, I go to the official site.
That’s very different than the government contacting a company and “suggesting” about content. Sure, the government has taken to illicitly posting official information on non official services.
Re: Re: Re:
You keep on demanding that you are allowed to say what you want on any platform, but will deny the same ability to others, is that you appointing yourself as the arbiter of truth?