Judging Freedom - Elon - Twitter was acting like an arm of the DNC

Episode Date: December 5, 2022

#Elon #twitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, December 5th, 2022. It's about 2.35 in the afternoon here on the east coast of the United States. Beginning last Friday night and continuing throughout the weekend, Elon Musk and his colleagues, Elon, the new owner of Twitter, his colleagues, the people that work for him there, have begun to release documents and emails between the prior ownership and management of Twitter and prominent Democrats during the 2020 campaign. Musk's argument has been that Twitter effectively became an arm of the Democratic National Committee, and he's got a substantial case to make. In an interview this morning, not on Judging Freedom, but on another podcast, here's what he had to say.

Especially the media that downplayed and censored the whole Hunter Biden story. They lied to the public. They're trying to pretend that this is a nothing burger, obviously. To anyone looking at it, that's clearly what happened. I mean, shame on them. The other important thing here is that you are basically exposing collusion between a political party. Clearly, if Twitter is doing one team's bidding before an election, shutting down dissenting voices on a pivotal election, that is the very definition of election interference. And what the hell else would you, of course, frankly, Twitter was acting like an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

It was absurd. Twitter was acting like an arm of the Democratic National Committee. I think we already all knew that. I don't want to downplay the significance of these emails. And they pretty much reinforce what Musk told us they would say. But it's not really a surprise. and they pretty much reinforce what Musk told us they would say. But it's not really a surprise. I mean, this is what a lot of journalists do today.

They view the world through their own lens. I view the world through my lens. And you explain things that achieve the end result that you ardently wish to happen. Can Twitter do this? Yes. Does Twitter have to acknowledge that they're doing this? Of course not. Now, if you go a step further, as our friends at the New York Post are claiming, where Twitter was doing this not on behalf of the DNC, but on behalf of the FBI, not former FBI agents, but at the time current FBI agents, that's an entirely different story. It's one thing for Twitter to be

Democrats in disguise, claiming that they have the town hall of the country or the bulletin board of the country, and they're really taking off the bulletin board and kicking out of the town hall those who disagree with them. To a certain extent, almost all media does that. But quite another if they're doing the bidding of the government. The government cannot evaluate speech on the basis of its content. Can the government stop you from giving a political speech in a residential neighborhood at three in the morning? Of course it can. But it's stopping you because of the time, place, and manner of your speech, not because of the content.

If the government stops you, restrains you, chills you, gives you second thoughts before you speak because of the content of your speech, then the government has violated the First Amendment, and you have a civil rights claim for money damages against the government. If the government uses private enterprise to do its bidding, then you have a civil rights claim against private enterprise, because when the government, by one hand, and Twitter, the other, are in a symbiotic relationship where they're each helping the other.

The government is performing some favor for Twitter. We don't know what it was. Twitter is performing favors for the government, bashing people the government wants bashed and silencing people the government wants silenced. Then the restrictions that the First Amendment imposes on the government can be imposed on Twitter. That's the danger. Elon Musk may have bought a white elephant if it turns out that the FBI was behind this one-sided view of things. Then that cause of action against Twitter is

against the current owners of Twitter, not against the shareholders who formerly owned it or management that formerly ran it. So there's a lot more to come here. Elon Musk says more is going to come out. I believe him. He's obviously seen this stuff. The fact that Twitter was doing the bidding for the DNC doesn't surprise me, doesn't change things legally, it doesn't change things constitutionally. But if there were FBI or

DHS agents involved, if the government was involved in manipulating, maneuvering, coercing, enticing, whatever you want to call it, using a carrot or a stick to get Twitter to do the government's bidding, then we have a very, very serious First Amendment case on our hands, not against the former owners of Twitter, but against the people who now own it. That would be Elon Musk. I'm still willing to be your content officer because I believe that no law means no law, and free speech means all speech is free. I condemn what Ye has said about Hitler and the Nazis, but will defend to the death his right to say it. I condemn Donald Trump saying, not Trump, but I condemn his words when he said the Constitution should be terminated. I condemn this guy, Nick Fuentes,

his words, not him, where he says the Holocaust didn't happen. But I will defend the right of all of them to say it. I don't think you should bar any of them, Mr. Musk. You certainly shouldn't bar Alex Jones because he gave an opinion that turned out not to be a popular one. More as we get it. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.