Earlier, we told you about David French’s most recent horrendously awful take on the Twitter Files.
Deleted this tweet because I meant to say Biden *campaign* not Biden administration, yet my edit button disappeared! Of course if the Biden *administration* asks Twitter to take action, then we need to think through the 1A implications. pic.twitter.com/Er3PPN4XWJ
— David French (@DavidAFrench) December 21, 2022
Spoiler alert: David really doesn’t care if the FBI colluded with Twitter to violate the First Amendment on the Biden campaign’s behalf, and also, according to him, they didn’t.
Here's the link to the piece: https://t.co/Co1QFlajsM
— David French (@DavidAFrench) December 21, 2022
Spoiler alert: It’s a lousy piece.
But you don’t even have to read it to know that. Just look at the sort of person who has decided to promote it:
Reasoned take by @DavidAFrench on the 1A implications of FBI engagement w/ Twitter as framed in the #TwitterFiles (to date). Useful case law analysis. Punchline: no coercion, thus no 1A violation. It’s almost like the FBI understood the guardrails. https://t.co/T9QwQj2HTI
— Chris Krebs (@C_C_Krebs) December 21, 2022
It’s almost like Chris Krebs and David French don’t understand how the First Amendment works. Or, rather, choose not to understand it.
https://twitter.com/IzaBooboo/status/1605627288736915457
This is about a government entity abusing its power, not violating 1A
— Java nut 🇺🇸🇵🇦 (@java_karla) December 21, 2022
Not being "coerced" isn't the standard. This is another swing and a miss by French.
In the joint action test, a private actor can be a state actor if they are "willful participants in joint action with the state."
French is so bad.
— Kyle Lamb (@kylamb8) December 21, 2022
So is Krebs, for what it’s worth. He’s a lawyer as well as the former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
What a comfort it is to know that he apparently has no concerns whatsoever about the FBI and Biden campaign engaging in concerted and very detailed efforts to censor non-liberal media outlets and private citizens.
If a 1A attorney cannot see coercion in FBI requiring written responses fr Twitter execs explaining why they are not carrying out actions FBI desired, that is shocking. Watch this clip of GWU law prof @JonathanTurley explaining FBI censorship by proxy.pic.twitter.com/8NyLTDagFY https://t.co/HE3RofSUQh
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) December 21, 2022
Also note Krebs is affiliated w/ Aspen Institute. As Twitter files showed, org ran exercises in Oct 2020 w/ Twitter execs on how/why to suppress foreign "propaganda" about Hunter's foreign business deals. He has reason to downplay seriousness of story.https://t.co/Anzhz5Zk6l
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) December 21, 2022
Krebs is the Senior Newmark Fellow in Cybersecurity at the Aspen Institute.
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) December 21, 2022
Recall that the Aspen Institute came up earlier this week in Michael Shellenberger’s Twitter Files, Part 7. And it wasn’t in a way that was flattering to them.
Also note, again, that Twitter head of Trust and Safety, Yoel Roth, seemed to feel pretty coerced. Read preceding and following tweets in this thread from @mtaibbi where he shows FBI displeased w/ Twitter's analysis that foreign actors were not a problem.https://t.co/sYHnOzf6cP
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) December 21, 2022
"I'm not comfortable with the Bureau demanding written answers."
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) December 21, 2022
Well, clearly David French and Chris Krebs are just fine with it.
***
Related:
Just when we think the FBI can’t look ANY worse, Matt Taibbi drops #TwitterFiles Supplemental
***
Help us keep owning the libs! Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code AMERICAFIRST to receive a 25% discount off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member