With the recent revelation that the Department of Justice and the FBI suddenly care about classified documents being handled improperly by former government officials, many have rightly pointed to Hillary Clinton’s many scandals as a prime example of the two-tier justice system.
One New York Post writer did just that and woke up to find his entire Twitter account permanently suspended for even insinuating a double-standard or implying that Clinton was guilty of something.
Paul Sperry, a columnist, and commentator for the Post offered up these observational tweets referring to the Trump FBI raid and past Hillary scandals:
Funny, don’t remember the FBI raiding Chappaqua or Whitehaven to find the 33,000 potential classified documents Hillary Clinton deleted. And she was just a former secretary of state, not a former president.
DEVELOPING: Investigators reportedly met back in June w Trump & his lawyers in Mar-a-Lago storage rm to survey docs & things seemed copasetic but then FBI raids weeks later. Speculation on Hill FBI had PERSONAL stake & searching for classified docs related to its #Spygate scandal.
Neither tweet threatened violence or seem remotely worse than any of the other millions of examples of actual hate and malice on the Twitter platform.
The contents of the tweet could be debated and Democrats will take issue with it, but is that grounds for account termination on Twitter now? To actually express an opinion about the government and the way it hands down selective justice?
Attorney Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar, expanded on the Sperry incident and noted that Twitter has a history of basically deleting content it doesn’t like and CEO Parag Agrawal is fine with that:
Obviously, all of those points can be — and have been contested — by others. However, that is the point. Social media should be a place for the exchange of viewpoints as part of our national dialogue on controversies like the Mar-a-Lago raid. Twitter, however, has long dispensed with any pretense of neutrality in limiting such discussion to fit its own corporate agenda.
This is precisely why the takeover of Elon Musk is so important for free speech. The company seemingly wrote off free speech years ago. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment.
He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
Time and time again, Twitter comes down on the side of censorship and the censorship always lands on conservative points of view. A liberal view on Twitter, apart from actual threats of immediate violence, such as against Supreme Court justices, cannot ever be banned.
There is a cover-up that happens when Tweets and thoughts become too close to reality and may go viral and change the national narrative.
Hillary Clinton’s scandals of wiping 30,000 emails, keeping a private server in a Denver apartment, and not cooperating with investigators who wanted her to turn over materials is a glaring double-standard when it comes to the FBI raiding Mar-a-Lago for less than a dozen boxes of material as its alleged.
Considering the timeframe we’re in, just months from a major election, Twitter appears once again ready to shut down views it doesn’t like in favor of promoting its own progressive narrative in a bid to help Democrats avoid a wipeout in November.
