From what we are seeing, that’s what it looks like. Eliana Johnson is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon and she claims that that company’s website was punished by Twitter/X for publishing an article about the Susanna Gibson scandal. As you will recall, Susanna Gibson is a Democratic candidate running for a seat in Virginia’s House of delegates this year. She has been embroiled in a scandal for the last few days stemming from the fact she was apparently running a webcam show with her husband where they would have sex in front of strangers for money. We first covered the story here, and we did a deep dive into the legal issues presented by the story, here. In that second story, we concluded that the Gibsons may have committed the crimes of prostitution and obscene performance, under Virginia Law.
Crucially the Gibsons have claimed that the actual recording and distribution of the webstream might be a crime, trying to pretend that somehow they are the victims in all of this. The argument goes that the original format was supposed to simply be a live show and not preserved as a video recording. By the reporting of the Washington Post, various websites regularly captured such feeds, turned them into recorded video and offered access to the public, apparently as part of a commercial porn site. That might have been where the video was discovered. If that is true, the people running those websites might be in trouble for creating obscenity, but under the First Amendment any person seeking to expose her for political or journalistic purposes has a right to have accessed, viewed, downloaded and even distributed images from her streams, because of the obvious public interest presented by this situation.
We say all of that because it appears that an article from the Washington Free Beacon is being suppressed because Twitter doesn’t seem to understand that last point: The law cannot prevent the public from learning about her videos under the First Amendment. According to Eliana Johnson, Twitter suppressed the official @FreeBeacon account when it tried to promote their story on the subject:
👎 Set us free! pic.twitter.com/5ksuzLEKxf
— Eliana Johnson (@elianayjohnson) September 13, 2023
Here are the pictures, enlarged:
Those two tweets show that the Washington Free Beacon was being told that the Tweet was being suppressed because it ‘violat[ed] our rules against posting or sharing privately produced/distributed intimate media of someone made without their express consent.’
Recommended
Now, we suppose that is true, to a degree, but there should be an exception when the person can no longer claim the right to control that media anymore and where it is newsworthy, as is the case with the Gibsons.
Then the Washington Free Beacon apparently voluntarily deleted the Tweet because it was the only way to get access to their account again. Furthermore, they were still suspended for almost 12 hours.
Now the difference between this and pretty much every other news story on the subject is that the Washington Free Beacon does get a little graphic. Contrary to the tamer tweet, the article is called, cheekily enough, ‘Cocksure Virginia Democrat Slams Media for Reporting Her Public Pornographic Performances.’ The article shows multiple photos of the Gibsons naked, with only stars inserted into the photos to cover certain parts, and really only just covering those parts. Frankly, we couldn’t publish those pictures by the editorial standards of Twitchy and the Washington Free Beacon article is extremely frank about what their behavior was, including uncensored curse words when quoting the Gibsons. With all that in mind, the article is linked here:
Want to test something... https://t.co/rgVotWQyMF
— Aaron's Law (@AaronWalkerLaw) September 14, 2023
That is this author’s personal backup account. We wanted to see if Twitter was also stopping people from linking to the relevant article, and, as of this writing, this backup account hasn’t been suspended or otherwise disciplined. Still, it is ridiculous that the Washington Free Beacon had been suspended, albeit temporarily, for posting information that is genuinely newsworthy and includes material that the Gibsons have no right to control anymore.
Feels like the exact type of thing @elonmusk bought Twitter to stop!
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) September 13, 2023
Seems like a trend https://t.co/mYvtynp0Vd
— Gabe Kaminsky (@gekaminsky) September 13, 2023
Yeah, what gives, @elonmusk?
— David Hamilton, School Board Trustee (@Hamilton4TX) September 13, 2023
Is this the work of rogue employees, or did you lie about your intentions?
I’ve seen a lot of posts about her. More than I’d prefer.
— JD (@JDzzel) September 14, 2023
That is a valid point. We have seen numerous photos and videos of the couple on Twitter/X, including ones that show them doing sex acts with absolutely nothing left to the imagination. So, Twitter/X is not getting them all.
YoYo never really left. He has plenty of friends still working behind the scenes.
— Cecelia (@Ceceliaism) September 13, 2023
The Democratic deflection from one of their candidates being reported by the Washington Post to be a pornographic performer is to lie and pretend she didn't post the stuff herself.
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) September 14, 2023
**X** of all places is aiding and abetting that lie via censorship???
Fire someone, @elonmusk. https://t.co/WKT5nye7u1
Even one of our new writers got involved:
Whoa. Fix this, @elonmusk. Immediately. https://t.co/0oosgT4OlJ
— Ultra Grateful Calvin 🇺🇸🐶🏒 🎶 (@shoveitjack) September 13, 2023
hey @elonmusk, I see porn on this site all the time. Suddenly your moderators care if it's made by a Democrat running for office? https://t.co/vwrBmG6mPm
— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) September 13, 2023
Wasn’t this nonsense supposed to stop? Why does X/Twitter have its own version of a Deep State? https://t.co/5SoRX3v6pb
— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) September 14, 2023
Is the FBI meddling in Twitter again, @elonmusk, @lindayaX?
— Sandy 〽️ (@RightGlockMom) September 13, 2023
Don't voters deserve to know what candidates do on public sites? https://t.co/Hooit4qsBp pic.twitter.com/Tw7UHUU4sC
Valid question.
Hey @elonmusk @X - this wasn’t privately uploaded material. It was publicly uploaded material and is stated so in the terms and conditions as well as the privacy statements of the site that Stormy-wannabe used. #justsayin https://t.co/aG2czZodCU
— Virginia M. Ph.D. 🍊 (@va_maga2) September 14, 2023
Free the beacon! https://t.co/ArelXZAt7z
— Kelly (@lindabCA23) September 13, 2023
Our problem is every now and then we have a dyslexic moment and see ‘Free Bacon,’ and then we are hungry and disappointed. (That’s a joke.)
Perhaps if some tokens exchanged hands it would be acceptable? https://t.co/dL5WhS8sgZ
— NiedermeyersDeadHorse aka NDH (@NiedsG) September 13, 2023
Okay, that is pretty funny.
Election interference.
— NotKernelPanic (@XbinX74464) September 13, 2023
Indeed, that seems to the effect of suppressing this article: Election interference.
And you might argue ‘why can’t the news outlets just describe what it shows without showing the pictures.’ But some might argue that nothing has the same impact as actually showing it. One can say they were having sex in front of strangers on camera, but seeing the pictures—even censored—might have more impact. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Indeed, while the Washington Free Bacon Beacon story doesn’t have video, we can see the argument for at least showing a censored one. One can describe her agreeing to do a sex act for money, her apparently urging people to donate more and more to raise that amount and then agreeing to do it when the goal is reached. But maybe there’s nothing quite like seeing and hearing her do that negotiation.
We also suspect something else. An undercurrent of the article seems to be their opinion that the Gibsons’ claims of privacy was ridiculous and we tend to agree. So, is it possible that the Washington Free Beacon is openly challenging her to actually sue them? We think that might be part of their agenda.
We will say that her response to the story so far also is a valid consideration for anyone deciding whether Susanna Gibson should get their vote. One can understand the desire to suppress a valid news story that harms you, but person of good character would recognize that this information cannot be stopped. One can conclude from her behavior that when push comes to shove, Susanna Gibson fundamentally doesn’t respect the First Amendment and your right as a voter to be fully informed. A reasonable person can wonder if that is an independent reason to keep her from holding public office.
***
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