Taylor vs Twitter


Some twits and a press release this week claimed Jared Taylor’s lawyers had “won the first round” against Twitter. Reading the court transcript there are a few more realistic things to say about it.

First, hearings like this are by design biased in the plaintiff’s favor. Twitter doesn’t want to go to trial, so they’re trying to convince the judge that Taylor’s claims are baseless. The judge argued in this instance almost as if he were an advocate for Taylor. He favors a trial, but intimated several times that his attitude during a trial would be different.

Second, no surprise, Taylor’s complaint does not focus on race. He is not challenging Twitter’s anti-White censorship, much less highlighting the central role organized jewry has played in driving that agenda. Instead the focus of the complaint is on “viewpoint discrimination” and whether Twitter falsely led users to believe they really allow “all types of speech”. The judge sees it as a public interest lawsuit. Twitter’s lawyer argued that Taylor brought the suit to serve the narrower interests of himself and his non-profit organization. As he put it:

this is a suit about these two plaintiffs with an enormous public stake in this case; they say that their whole enterprise of spewing… white — you know, white racism to the world depends on Twitter; that they built their enterprise around this.

Finally, in comments like this one and the ones below Twitter’s lawyer made it clear that Twitter does indeed engage in anti-White censorship and asserted that they have the legal right to do so. While trying to excuse Twitter’s not-so-free speech fraud the lawyer said:

And that was not a promise that, for a — six, seven, eight years, everybody who’s come onto the platform, no matter what they do, no matter whether they’re white supremacist or not, contrary to the Twitter’s, you know, evolved standards, that was not a promise that we never can take your account down.

. . .

Your Honor, you’re suggesting that a general statement six years ago somehow binds Twitter — when does that stop? When does that — when does that stop? Twitter can’t evolve, as the world changes vastly, and sees that white supremacy is having a major problem on its platform, it can’t act to control that?

The lawyer admits that Twitter banned Taylor because of race. He takes it for granted they are justified to ban Whites merely for being White, at least as long as they tack on the semitic buzzterms “racist” or “supremacist”. This is the heart of the issue, despite Taylor’s attempt to avoid it.

17 thoughts on “Taylor vs Twitter”

  1. Taylor doesn’t avoid the race issue or the JQ, in this case, because of cowardice… but because of strategy, I think. Now I know that he has, many times in the past, in his speeches and on his AmRen site, avoided the JQ to many people’s frustration. I’m one of those people. But, having said that, I do believe that this particular case against twatter wouldn’t even stand a chance of being win-able if Taylor himself pushed the anti-White and jewish aspects. Better to let those obvious elements come out on their own. As they are coming out, per your assessment here.
    Just my two cents.

  2. First, he’s gonna lose because their is a powerful belief and legal privilege that as a private company they have the right to censor anything they choose on their site. Secondly, even if the angels were on his side there’s no way they’re going to let you win. They’re not going to let their white slaves go no matter what the law or ideas of fairness says. You know how extreme things had to get to persuade the slave owners to let go of their property the first time. Third, the only possible political way to rein in these out of control media companies is through the corrupt vessel of the Republican Party, and there’s no way these thieves are going to say no to big business, certainly not just for the benefit of white people. They’re not going to stop consolidation on the net anymore than they stopped the same thing happening in the traditional media, no matter how bad it makes things for the nation, conservatism, or even their own political party. Nor will they go against the Jews on anything. They’ll send your family to the grave first. In fact, they’re already doing it.

  3. The Jews’ choice to allow this lawsuit at all means it will formalize bad things they’re already doing and will continue to do. Like the buildup to the Trump presidency, they made it news for a reason, and that reason is not good for us. We know the media is occupied–we have to stop thinking it’s a real “news media” where things are reported based on some kind of objective journalistic standard rather than to disseminate news to their goy tax-slaves. Something getting play in their media needs to make us analyze why they’re using their tools to increase knowledge of it, rather than us debating its “merits.” They created the entire story, and we have to stop being tricked into responding to these dictates like they’re journalism.

    So too with the entertainment industry. When they release a new celebrity or movie, we shouldn’t be led to acting like this is imaginary free market forces acting on companies that are just for profit or for social well being. They create celebrity and news events for a reason.

    (From some perspectives, it’s humorous, of course, how they pretend that Taylor’s Jewish supremacism based on the fetishizing of Jew self reported IQ scores is somehow “white supremacism.”)

  4. Jewish NYT reporter, Bari Weiss, given last word on BBC discussion of ‘Dark Web’ says the best approach to racially divisive topics is, “Focus on ideas not identity.”


    Where a clear case exists of ideas being used as a cloak for anti-White hatred this would be suicidal. This would be pathological altruism. I’m astonished Taylor can’t recognize that fact here.

  5. Another point about the hearing. The judge repeatedly invoked the (((liberal enlightenment ideal))):

    That’s hard to read the first amended complaint in any other way. It’s very eloquent; it is — it goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution.

    . . .

    And that’s public interest; it’s — to me, it’s every bit as much public interest as — and they invoke this: The people who sought relief against… that you couldn’t hold office because you were a communist. Or you couldn’t do certain things because you were a Jehovah’s witness, and so on. You know what I’m talking about; I’m sure you understand this constitutional heritage as well as I do.

    In response Twitter’s lawyer counters that it is ok to ban uppity Whites because we are a minority:

    The relief they are seeking, Your Honor, is — is special to them and a small number of other people.

    . . .

    And they are; they are seeking injunctive relief that is highly specific to them, and to a — few other — a tiny fraction of other users, who they’ve not even identified. They haven’t come forward and shown — that there’s really more than just a tiny handful of people who are subject to this.

    Further on the judge asks, rhetorically:

    Does Twitter have the right to take somebody off its platform if — it does so because it doesn’t like the fact that the person is a woman? Or gay? Or would be in violation of Title 7? Or would be in violation of the age discrimination laws, or the disability discrimination laws? Of course not.

    Twitter’s lawyer again disagrees:

    as to Your Honor’s question about could a First Amendment speaker choose by gender, or age, something like that, in fact — I mean Twitter would never, ever, ever do that; it’s totally contrary to everything it does. But, in fact, the First Amendment would give Twitter the right, just like it would give a newspaper the right, to choose not to run an op-ed page from someone because she happens to be a woman. Would Twitter ever do that? Absolutely not, not in a million years.

    Both men know that “the constitutional heritage” since the so-called civil rights era is all about defining and privileging “protected classes”. Within that scheme race trumps all other concerns. Non-Whites are regarded as historic victims of Whites, who are regarded as their historic oppressors. Thus non-Whites are presumed to deserve protection from Whites, who are presumed to deserve restrictions.

    The judge, like Taylor, is trying to dance around this, trying to pretend that race doesn’t matter, that the current system is or should be about treating everyone equally. Meanwhile the crux of the Twitter lawyer’s argument is that it is good and right to racially discriminate against Whites.

    There is nothing good for Whites in this suit. If Taylor wins, he gets his Twitter account back. If he loses, systematic anti-White censorship will be cemented into case law. If Taylor had instead made race his cause of action, then at least the anti-White nature of Twitter and the jewdicial system would have been more clearly exposed. That, in my opinion, is exactly why he didn’t.

  6. I will be rather candid, f Jared Taylor. He is waste of time and energy. He has set back White progress (id argue on purpose) since he came on the scene.
    He is no better than a basic bitch conservative. Sure he can talk race and IQ (especially for da based asians n muh jews) but when Whites need his information the most on those topics, he cucks and runs cover jews. Cause day be White like us n sheeeeeit. He still has no answer as to why, if jews are White why they have the higher IQ (which is BS by the way) so a religion makes you smarter?
    F him.
    Sorry for the language but JT is a jew stooge who is paid well to be one.

  7. Urgh… was lookin’ for something to listen to, but could not make it to the halfway mark. Plsplspls if brony nationalism is really magic, we’ll oven that insufferable confabulatrix first. Eww. (sigh)

  8. Maybe this is ultimately a point about Whites having an aristocracy for its own protection. People who know the score know that Taylor is just another Ashkenanzi playing White (or a “stooge” if you prefer) but the vast majority of Whites hear “he’s racist” and assume he’s on Whites’ side. The reason the Jews took out aristocracy first is obvious; look at those awful repulsive things reprising old stolen roles now. I wonder if being able to trust real nobles would be the key to Whites stopping their blind faith in enemy media.

    It’s certainly a problem that Africans don’t seem to have; not just because they don’t read or listen well to impersonal communication, but they seem to have an innate bar against trusting something that’s not a person talking to them. One of their problems with trying to assimilate into a White culture is often learning a willingness to give a shit about the news and thereby appear “informed,” and god that is such a wonderful trait when you consider how eagerly Whites try to plan their days around what the teevee says.

  9. I wondered why they choose to censor Taylor instead of Macdonald or Joyce. Even VDARE snipes at the Jews sometimes. I think they want the censorship battle to be about racism and not criticism of Jews. They want to censor people talking about the Jews and say they are protecting brown people.
    I’ve also been reading the new definitions of what is anti Semitic and a lot of it seems to be centered around the idea that the Jews aren’t monolithic. It will be an interesting fight.

  10. It will show whoever had any backbone and who was going to fold up. If people can’t get tough enough to fight on this issue they are going to keep getting more painful shit tests until they do fight back. I don’t like when Macdonald or Taylor concede that they will just shut up when their ideas are illegal. I also think posting pictures of the happy merchant that say send the Jews back to Israel aren’t great either. I think people need to be much more serious when they talk. Nobody will be laughing when the American government starts talking “land reform” or kill the gringo as a matter of policy.

  11. Peter Wehner: “Trump’s casual cruelty is a product of his near total lack of empathy and sympathy. This attitude, like others (e.g. pathological lying), eventually radiates throughout/begins to define an administration. And a party. That’s how corruption spreads. And it’s why character matters.”

    jew criticizes Trump for behaving like a jew

  12. We can’t lose on this. If it’s decided that Twitter can censor whatever they want then it will, over time, push the idea that Whites can deal with who ever we want. If it’s decided that Twitter can’t censor we can point out all the lies we are told daily.

Comments are closed.