Twitter's Hurt Feelz Tribunal (Welcome To George Orwell's Adult Nursery School)
I just love Marc Randazza -- and not just for fierceness in defending free speech and his brilliant wiping of the floor with the TSA worker, Thedala Magee, and her lawyer, after they tried to squeeze $500K from me. (Streisand effect, anyone?)

I also love Randazza because what anyone else would be quick to say is off the record, he's all, "Sure! Print it!" (Which he was about his words in an email -- including his politics -- that I put at the bottom of this post.)

He sent me a link to this Robby Soave Reason piece on the rotten shit that's been going down at Twitter -- which is basically that they've assembled a hurt feelz tribunal.

Of course, as Soave explains, they're billing it as a way to strike a balance between free speech and harassment.

Gilded bullshit by Twitter.

Soave translates -- calling this new "Trust and Safety Council" Twitter's version of 1984's "Ministry of Truth." He writes:

A quick glance at its membership roster suggests the council is almost as Orwellian as it sounds--and overwhelmingly biased in favor of speech suppression.

If you thought Milo Yiannopoulos losing his blue checkmark was the opening salvo in the next great culture war (I tended to agree with Popehat's Ken White that the controversy was overblown), then this might be your virtual invasion of Poland.

The council includes more than 40 organizations that will be tasked with helping Twitter, "strike the right balance between fighting abuse and speaking truth to power." But if the goal was really to find some middle ground between total free speech and safeguards against harassment, one might have expect Twitter to solicit some diversity of opinion. In fact, despite the press release's claim that the council includes a "diversity of voices," virtually none of the council members are properly classified as free speech organizations. (Full list here).

And here's Randazza's take, and I think he's absolutely right:

I think they might have missed one little point too though... having pro speech people on the roster would be nice. But, my bigger concern is not that Twitter will suppress too much speech. I see lots of platforms that have a policy of banning "abusive" speech, and as he correctly notes, that's their right.

My concern is that Twitter seems interested in banning only speech on one side of the divide. I speak as someone who identifies as a very far left Liberal -- but they only seem interested in banning speech that Liberals do not like. You put the same exact threats / abuse in the hands of an account that uses a female avatar, or that attacks someone for being white, male, or (funny enough) Jewish, and Twitter's response is crickets. But, if you so much as disagree impolitely with a feminist with more than 1,000 followers, and you're banned.

That's my problem with this. Twitter has decided that it is the SJW service, and thus diminishes all wide open and robust debate -- thus (I think) even diminishing my (somewhat SJW friendly) point of view, by making the marketplace of ideas a "planned economy."

The way Virginia is "for lovers," the First Amendment is for assholes, and yes, a private business can do what it wants. But Twitter wouldn't exist but for the First Amendment, and it's depressing and worrisome that they think they "protect" people by shutting down speech, and especially certain people's speech. In the long run, we are most protected by letting assholes come out in full rectal flower. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Thoughts you suppress don't cease do exist; they just don't exist on a plane where you can poke the holes in them that should be poked.