Twitter Bars Center for Immigration Studies from Using Phrase "Illegal Alien," Claiming It's Hate Speech;

Later, Under Pressure, Reverses Its Ban 1/ Twitter is not allowing us to promote any tweets including the phrase "illegal alien(s)", citing it as Hateful Content. However, the phrase "illegal aliens" has been used in both federal law and by the Supreme Court. — Center for Immigration Studies (@CIS_org) September 11, 2018



Here are their tweets about this latest Twitter censorship: Here are their tweets about this latest Twitter censorship:

1/ Twitter is not allowing us to promote any tweets including the phrase "illegal alien(s)", citing it as Hateful Content. However, the phrase "illegal aliens" has been used in both federal law and by the Supreme Court. 2/ From Arizona v. United States (2012): "There is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona."



3/ Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1365: "The Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban national who is convicted of a felony by such State" 4/ US District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, 2015: "There is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase 'illegal alien' offensive. The court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law." 5/ Code of Federal Regulations: "Illegal alien means any person who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment in the United States." PRESS RELEASE: Yesterday Twitter rejected four Center for Immigration Studies tweets for use in the Center's Twitter Ads campaign, alleging hateful content. Twitter has now reversed its ruling here, but only because of pressure. Twitter has now reversed its ruling here, but only because of pressure. Waiting for National Review to shriek that private monopolies can do whatever they want. Waiting for National Review to shriek that private monopolies can do whatever they want. Oh, here, the wait is over before it began: Oh, here, the wait is over before it began: Yes, the social-media giants treat conservatives unfairly, but that doesn't mean the government should get involved. https://t.co/lx3O5NPml4 pic.twitter.com/EfT61lrT9a — National Review (@NRO) September 12, 2018



That's Kevin D. Williamson, of course, who should really Learn To Code if his only suggestion is "start your own tech-giant monopoly if you don't like the current tech-giant monopolies who can easily squelch all start-up competitors." That's Kevin D. Williamson, of course, who should really Learn To Code if his only suggestion is "start your own tech-giant monopoly if you don't like the current tech-giant monopolies who can easily squelch all start-up competitors." I don't suggest reading it. It's more of the same. I don't suggest reading it. It's more of the same. There is an implicit claim being made here -- that the special laws regarding monopolies are illegitimate and should be repealed or silently repealed and just ignored until they are dead-letter. There is an implicit claim being made here -- that the special laws regarding monopolies are illegitimate and should be repealed or silently repealed and just ignored until they are dead-letter. Ultra-Corporatists like Williamson, French, and Goldberg should be made to explain their feelings on this and defend them. The whole idea of the wisdom of markets determining the proper winner of market competition assumes market competition in the first place -- do these Ultra-Corporatists dispute this? Do they think that monopolies contain the seeds of their own destruction? Ultra-Corporatists like Williamson, French, and Goldberg should be made to explain their feelings on this and defend them. The whole idea of the wisdom of markets determining the proper winner of market competition assumes market competition in the first place -- do these Ultra-Corporatists dispute this? Do they think that monopolies contain the seeds of their own destruction? Even if that is the case -- what do we do in a nonfunctional monopolized market for the 10-40 years while we wait for the monopoly to implode due to its own internal contradictions? Even if that is the case -- what do we do in a nonfunctional monopolized market for the 10-40 years while we wait for the monopoly to implode due to its own internal contradictions? Can they actually argue for and defend their unstated pro-monopoly assumptions instead of just asserting them by stealth? Can they actually argue for and defend their unstated pro-monopoly assumptions instead of just asserting them by stealth?

Posted by: Ace of Spades at 06:02 PM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat