So recently the Alexandria Occasional-Cortex Ocasio-Cortez parody press account that is repeatedly marked as parody was let out of so-called ‘permanent suspension’ (seriously, never believe Twitter when they say a suspension is permanent). That brought a lot of attention to the account, as did when this exchange happened:
This might be the wine talking, but I’ve got a crush on @elonmusk
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Press Release (parody) (@AOCpress) May 29, 2023
🔥
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2023
So, this prompted this reaction from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (the real one, not the intentionally funny one):
FYI there’s a fake account on here impersonating me and going viral. The Twitter CEO has engaged it, boosting visibility.
It is releasing false policy statements and gaining spread.
I am assessing with my team how to move forward. In the meantime, be careful of what you see.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 30, 2023
And there was lots of mockery, as we reported here and here. Next thing we know, we see this:
I won. pic.twitter.com/vj8z1z2AGC
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Press Release (parody) (@AOCpress) May 31, 2023
If that’s genuine, then Ms. Ocasio-Cortez seems to have knowingly violated the First Amendment.
But, let’s use some caution, here. After all, this is a tweet from a parody account. By the very nature of the beast, you can’t 100% trust what it is saying—it might be their idea of a joke.
But let’s pretend it is true (our “gut” says it is, fwiw). New York is covered by the Second Circuit and the Second Circuit told President Trump in no uncertain terms that blocking people on Twitter violated the First Amendment in Knight First Amendment Inst. Columbia v. Trump, 928 F. 3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019). The Knight court (heh) described those plaintiffs’ winning complaint as follows:
Recommended
In May and June of 2017, the President blocked each of the Individual Plaintiffs (but not the Knight First Amendment Institute) from the Account. The government concedes that each of them was blocked after posting replies in which they criticized the President or his policies and that they were blocked as a result of their criticism. The government also concedes that because they were blocked they are unable to view the President’s tweets, to directly reply to these tweets, or to use the @realDonaldTrump webpage to view the comment threads associated with the President’s tweets.
The Individual Plaintiffs further contend that their inability to view, retweet, and reply to the President’s tweets limits their ability to participate with other members of the public in the comment threads that appear below the President’s tweets. The parties agree that, without the context of the President’s original tweets (which the Individual Plaintiffs are unable to view when logged in to their accounts), it is more difficult to follow the conversations occurring in the comment threads. In addition, the parties have stipulated that as a consequence of their having been blocked, the Individual Plaintiffs are burdened in their ability to view or directly reply to the President’s tweets, and to participate in the comment threads associated with the President’s tweets.
This burden, the Second Circuit found, violated the First Amendment.
Now, we think that decision is ridiculous. The President is not obligated to communicate with everyone every time he or she communicates, or to create a forum in which they can communicate with each other. For instance, if the President sends out a letter, he is not obligated to mail every American, or list the addresses of every American in the letter to facilitate discussion of the contents of that letter. And if the President sends an email, the same is true: He (or she) is not obligated to email every citizen, and to do so in a way that lets every American communicate with every other American by hitting ‘reply all.’
On the other hand, there is the concept of ‘their rules,’ the idea that even if we object to a certain rule, it should be applied to the left, good and hard. We are waiting for politicians to be told that they use can’t social media that engages in viewpoint discrimination (which violates the First Amendment).
But let’s keep the focus on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. She’s already gotten a dose of ‘their rules’ when she blocked New York state assemblyman Dov Hikind on Twitter (whose name sounds suspiciously like ‘Dovahkiin’ to this fan of Skyrim). Mr. Hikind sued her, which resulted in this:
“a federal appeals panel ruled that President Donald Trump could not block Twitter users who criticized him…”.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez apologizes to man who sued her for blocking him on Twitter https://t.co/5h3gE56wvh via @USATODAY
— 🤓🤪 Serge 🤨🦁☀️🚗🏎🐎 (@smilinglion71) November 5, 2019
That’s right she admitted to violating the Dragonborn’s Mr. Hikind’s First Amendment rights. From the article:
‘Mr. Hikind has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them,’ she said in a statement. ‘In retrospect, it was wrong and improper and does not reflect the values I cherish. I sincerely apologize for blocking Mr. Hikind.’
So, if Ms. Ocasio-Cortez really blocked the parody account—and that’s a big ‘if’ given our source of information is a parody account—then it would seem she has stopped cherishing those values.
The only defense is to say that this is a personal account and she doesn’t do official business on it … which seems kind of dubious when she tweets out stuff like this:
Presenting: Team AOC's 2022 Unwrapped! 🎁
Ever wonder what your Representative has been up to? We're proud to share our annual report to constituents and supporters across the country!
Here's our 22 Wins for 2022🏆
Want to help for 2023? Share + sign up: https://t.co/0o7guZ7Hbm pic.twitter.com/ucb6Hcd6Ai— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 21, 2022
This is corruption. Plain and simple. And each day that passes, the Supreme Court is looking less like a bench and more like an auction house.
Thomas should resign immediately and Roberts should see to it that he does. https://t.co/FE9FcRNFUV
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 5, 2023
I represent Rikers. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard from both COs and the incarcerated that there are people who commit petty crimes because their easiest way to get a bed and doctor.
For many vulnerable communities – especially the mentally ill – we make living in…
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 4, 2023
In any case, there was much mockery:
I thought they couldn’t do this… lock her up! Lol
— SugarMagnolia (@SugarMAGA) May 31, 2023
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 You’ve inspired me to make a Kamala Harris parody account
— It's 🇺🇸 Tiff 🇺🇸 (@TiffMoodNukes) May 31, 2023
That prompted this response:
Willy Brown approves this tweet
😅🤣😂— OneNationUnderFraud (@TheRaytedex) May 31, 2023
*laughing*
You identify yourself as an elected representative and discuss public policy on both of your accounts, which makes them public and makes YOU unable to block users under the first amendment. @NYCLU, didn’t y’all provide guidelines about this? https://t.co/7RP8Zvwso0
— Silence DoGood (@ModernSilenceDG) May 31, 2023
Parody is the highest form of compliment.
Unless you’re a half-wit democrat. https://t.co/4aS8M5NtuK
— Alfred Q Holic (@JohnnyWhales3) May 31, 2023
Eh, we don’t think a person making fun of you is that much of a compliment, but you do you.
😂🤣😭😭😭 pic.twitter.com/EVoPrUWQ6O
— 🌈 Tess T. Eccles-Brown, PhD – she/they 🇺🇦 (@TTEcclesBrown) May 31, 2023
I'm not certain on this, but I don't think she's allowed to block folks from that account. She's a public servant, and that's an official account.
— William Mycroft Buckmaster (@MycroftWm) May 31, 2023
She just blocked you because she wants to date you.
— Sarah Fields (@SarahisCensored) May 31, 2023
Here comes a fun first amendment law suit. Let’s go! 🚀🚀🚀🚀 https://t.co/rp915bQs6i
— Brownie Terror (@brownie_terror) May 31, 2023
Fun and, we suspect, short.
If true, that’s a remarkable infringement on the 1st Amendment. https://t.co/Xdznm0QJqg
— Dan (@patriotlawyer) May 31, 2023
@AOC Congratulations. Your tweet yesterday caused this account to set a record in terms of gains in followers. Well done. https://t.co/CCympz7BQ1
— Josef ByeDen (@JosephB60088357) May 31, 2023
Will they rename the Streisand Effect the ‘Ocasio-Cortez Effect?’
Not a good look @AOC, but an excellent look for @AOCpress !!!!! https://t.co/2Fr9vyh2Ni
— randy redler (@RandyRedler) May 31, 2023
Of course, the congresscritter had some support:
I’m glad the only people socially acceptable to bully now days is politicians. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
— Dave Black (@Dave_Blackest) May 31, 2023
The term ‘bully’ is one of the most misused terms in modern English.
I think parody accounts should have parody in front of the name not in the end. @elonmusk https://t.co/R54d4smLi6
— Rainman ◎ (33.3%) (@FelixRainman) May 31, 2023
Twitter should not verify parody accounts of public figures https://t.co/YxXm9AJGW2
— schizo poster with extra schizo (@Vaygann) May 31, 2023
Look, everyone, she is not going to date you.
Finally, one person made an observation:
This has been the most interesting saga on twitter the last few days https://t.co/vtZZ1BgsXz
— Jinx’s Social Worker🈳 (@JinxSocialWork) May 31, 2023
We think he had a typo. He wrote ‘interesting’ when the correct word is ‘hilarious.’
***
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member