Twitter BANS another major conservative over FACTS

Twitter has blocked the account of another very smart conservative that all of you should know. He’s the guy that everybody calls when there’s a shooting because he’s done the math on guns.

His name is John R Lott and he’s been on many shows, from CNN to the Mark Levin Show multiple times:

NY DAILY NEWS – Twitter has locked my account. I can’t post anything or read messages from other users. The reason? In March, I tweeted that the perpetrator of the New Zealand mosque shooting was “a socialist, environmentalist, who hates capitalists & free trade.” I also wrote that the killer believed his attack would “lead to more gun control” in New Zealand and the United States.

What I tweeted was entirely accurate, and Twitter hasn’t bothered to provide me with an explanation for why they locked my account, but they have made clear that it was this tweet that supposedly violated their terms.

Here’s the tweet that Twitter has said violates their terms of service:



Lott continues…

In my case, Twitter identifies the offending tweet for me, and then writes, “We determined this Tweet violated the Twitter Rules, specifically for:” but the message ends there. When I log into my account, the only thing I am only allowed to see the offending Tweet.

My description of the New Zealand killer’s left-wing views didn’t conform to the mainstream media’s narrative, according to which the killer was a “right-winger” and a Trump supporter.

The Washington Post called the New Zealand mosque shooting, “One of the worst cases of right-wing terrorism in years.” “The person giving a sign of allegiance to President Trump is the killer here,” said CNN’s John Berman.

This is apparently the only narrative that is acceptable to Twitter, which is replete with news media posts calling the killer a “right-winger.” But no account seems to have ever been suspended for calling someone a “right-winger.”

Even if Lott was wrong, why would Twitter ban him for this? He’s stating something right out of the manifesto of the shooter.

And honestly, there is nothing even remotely offensive about that tweet.

It’s pathetic and actually, rather, quit fitting that I find this on the day when Trump has his social media summit at the White House.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

139 thoughts on “Twitter BANS another major conservative over FACTS

  1. It really is about time that there was a class action against Twitter/Facebook etc to prove that they are not simply a tech platform, but they all are, in reality publishers. A simple tech platform would not censor content (unless it broke the law of the land), a publisher of course would, and all publishers do. Losing their legal immunity would upset the little SJW darlings, and so would losing a load in damages.

  2. Twitter, like the Democrats, don’t like it when we point out facts that don’t fit the main stream news media narrative. As John Adams famously said “Facts are stubborn things…”

    1. True, but when Twitter acts like a publisher, they need to be treated as one. All protections of a platform need removed immediately.

          1. That’s not true even a little bit. (I don’t even want the bad cops dead.)

            I am, however, thoroughly disturbed by the fact that you don’t support certain changes in the way this country polices its citizens that would undoubtedly and in no uncertain terms save the lives of officers.

          2. Tell me I’m wrong. Do you honestly care about some obscure section of code dealing with platforms and publishers (which I guarantee you never heard of before this first started happening) – or do you really just want to stick it to those assholes at Twitter?

            I mean, come on des – be real. You’re not fooling anyone, least of all me.

            Like I said: pound of digital flesh.

            It’s fine if you want that. Just own it. Be honest about that. Don’t rationalize it because your professionally read layman’s opinion of section 238 of the uniform code of publishers and platforms obscurely justifies your thinly disguised desire for some electronic retribution. Because that’s not fooling anyone.

          3. That’s not true even a little bit. (I don’t even want the bad cops dead.)

            I am, however, thoroughly disturbed by the fact that you don’t support certain changes in the way this country polices its citizens that would undoubtedly and in no uncertain terms save the lives of officers.

  3. But it never bans E Film Productions, a twitter user, from posting every day a slew of smears of the President

  4. Ridiculous. I bought Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime and and it’s a rather boring book of statistics that requires more concentration than I can muster for long. The man deals in facts and data. Since the left bases everything on feelings, it’s understandable why they don’t want him around.

      1. David Byrne inadvertently exposed the leftist’s view of facts:
        Facts are simple and facts are straight
        Facts are lazy and facts are late
        Facts don’t come with points of view
        Facts don’t do what I want them to
        Facts just twist the truth around
        Facts are living turned inside out

    1. Yup. He’s not the most exciting guy to listen to. But there isn’t a lefty dumb*ss out there who would have the stones to debate him on gun control. I’m actually surprised he lasted this long.

  5. We need to stop calling this kind of thing pathetic and recognize that the Stalinists are coming if we don’t find a way to change minds back to reality. Pathetic minds can still club you into submission.

  6. Normally I’d say this was an algorithm problem or leftists flagging his tweet, but that wouldn’t result in a locked account. Definitely another example of censorship and Twitter acting like a publishers. We’re long past time to pull their protections.

    1. My account was locked because I had pasted an article several times and I pretty much know someone reported me as a Bot. I emailed Twitter over and over because they had sent me a code to unlock but then there was a second code they left on my VM that I couldn’t make out. Finally after a week I got an email saying they apologized (sure) and my account was unlocked. I think most of these are because a liberal reports that person.

      1. Yeah, I was suspended for using “tranny.” When I tried to delete it, I went to an old account that had hacked at an earlier date. I think that this was done deliberately, as it was very time consuming to clear it up previously.

  7. Next thing you know, the Left will be burning books.

    The Left wing narrative is the only narrative.

    1. Nah, I wouldn’t defend. I think they’re dicks for doing this kind of thing.

      But they haven’t committed any harm or wrong; not deprived anyone of any rights by doing so. And I’ll defend my argument to that effect.

      1. How do you always know when you have been mentioned? It’s like just typing “A” and “T” is some type of creepy invocation…

        1. Don’t do it three times in front of a mirror.

          (But to answer your question, I get RSS notices of the new articles and I read fast.)

        2. She cruises the threads looking to see who’s talking about her. I managed to irk her so much that she started stalking me. It’s no longer a problem now that we’re back on Disqus.

            1. I know. I’ll soon forget her like I did the Dark Site. The best way to hurt an attention troll (see what I did there?) is to deny them your attention.

            2. That thing is more like IT. It’s an evil entity disguised as a creepy clown that dwells in sewers.

  8. Create a conservative competitor and stop complaining. There are at least 40% of Americans waiting to use it.

    1. Sure, but that doesn’t explain why Twitter thinks it is a platform while it is really acting like a publisher. Why don’t you want Twitter to be classified as what they really are. Why do you think Twitter should be given certain protections it does not deserve?

        1. You didn’t answer my question.

          Again – Why do you think Twitter should be given certain protections it does not deserve?

          1. I don’t think any company in America should be given any government support. This goes especially for any Republican or Democrat backed commercial enterprises where ideology can play a part.

            1. You still haven’t answered my question. I didn’t say anything about “government support”.

              Again – Why do you think Twitter should be given certain protections it does not deserve?

    2. And if Donald Trump started using it, Twitter would die overnight.

      Literally everyone would follow him. Cult, leftists, media, everyone.

      1. You’re delusional. That’s like saying if Trump just ignored CNN, they would die overnight. Twitter has more subscribers than the US population! So if every American stopped using it, it would still do fine.

        1. I knew you never blocked me. Hey buddy. How ya doin. 🙂

          And Twitter is not the same thing as CNN. CNN is a self-perpetuating machine. Twitter relies exclusively on their users to drive it. If they couldn’t play in the same sandbox as Donald, they wouldn’t know what to do with it. So they’d follow Donald.

          Donald could do the same thing to youtube (though I don’t think it’d be quite the stake in its heart as it would be to twitter).

          1. For being a harsh Trump critic, you seem to give him way too much credit and maybe he deserved it in very early Twitter days, but now, they are self-perpetuating. Trump doesn’t need to be physically on Twitter for people to quote him and respond to that ad-nauseum. You don’t think things through very well or maybe in private, you have a cultish infatuation with Trump?

                1. Good. Saves us yet another drawn out thing where you eventually end up sobbing. I hate when you sob. So unmanly.

                2. You should probably start using reason, if that’s the case. Because you’re not going to do it with hysterics and progressivism.

                3. You should probably start using reason, if that’s the case. Because you’re not going to do it with hysterics and progressivism.

    3. When people started flocking to Gab, the high tech cabal got Paypal to shut off payments.

      In the old days, companies colluded and engaged in unfair competition to shut down competitors. Now, they collude to shut down free speech.

      1. Then there needs to be an investigation. There are legal ways to prevent monopolistic behavior.

        1. Yes. I don’t want the government to control or regulate. But I do think there’s some sort of antitrust thing can be worked out.

        2. And who would do that investigation? The government?

          This is you

          Ronbo DesireeOdey • 12 hours ago
          Compete with ideas – not government.

          What needs to happen is they need to be de-platformed. They are a publisher.

          1. You didn’t catch anything here so don’t think you are so high and mighty:)
            You want the government to take away funding, get involved in punishing, bribing before Congress for the umpteenth time, create rules against their freedom of speech, etc… This is the government intervention you want.
            If there is illegal intervention to prevent fair competition by a new platform, then the FCC or other departments need to investigate and sue on legal grounds against their obstruction. Competition is one thing. Criminal activity is another.

            1. Wow, you are sensitive. Better check that, dude or should I say, dudette?

              You also don’t understand what a platform is and the the protections given versus a publisher that does not have those protections. What twitter is doing is the work of a publisher. You are the one thinking it’s okay for Twitter to receive government protection for what they are not. That you think it’s okay for Twitter to do this is moronic.

              1. Another faux-Conservative snowflake. Thinks twitter, like their leader, is the end all place to live and die by their ability to have discourse. I’m sorry you’re so stifled because twitter won’t let you talk. Milk and cookies Re to the left – where you belong.

    4. So, your rational is to divide people further. There are some facts that need to be explained here. Twitter purports to be a public forum and receives protections from legal actions, but the problem is they are obviously silencing public discussions they disagree with.

      Conservatives, like myself, don’t want a separate forum since I welcome and debate the sides of the issues. This helps me (and hopefully others) learn different sides of issues and make a better decision.

      Besides, if Conservatives created their own space, Democrats would complain, boycott, throw rocks, etc. and call us a hate group.

      Sounds to me like twitter is going to just become another Liberal safe space.

      1. Nope. Let twitter become a safe space for liberals but let liberals debate on our platform.
        Twitter will die.

  9. Don’t worry! Trump will form a blue ribbon panel to report to a commission to then write a white paper to submit to a thinktank for review to consider a potential form of action.

  10. All of this is evidence.

    One day they will pay, and they will not be able to deny what they have done.

  11. So with all of the evidence at this point that these social media platforms, search engines, and video sharing sites are bias, what are we going to do about it? We know the mainstream media is bias. All we do is complain and continue to use their service. Quit it. Cancel your account. Stop watching it. As much as it is their right as a private entity to enforce whatever rules they want, we don’t have to abide them. If we just stopped being lazy and quit them in mass, we would send them under. How did we make it before Twitter, Facebook, Google and You Tube? I seem to remember I did fine. I have never signed up for Twitter or Facebook ever. I have no interest in sharing the details of my life with everyone. Sure, some of them are convenient, but at what cost? We act like technology is monopolized by the left. I know plenty of tech people that don’t share the socialist ideology. Clearly, anyone that shares the philosophy of the left can’t be that smart to begin with. All I am saying that I am getting tired of seeing these articles. There is no point in continuing to bang your head against the wall and cry foul. It gets us nowhere. Find other ways to get your message out that don’t rely on these platforms. If you don’t, you will continue to lose.

    1. All we do is complain and continue to use their service. Quit it. Cancel your account. Stop watching it.

      But I want to have my cake and eat it too. I’m entitled, Steve.

          1. Well then that is no better philosophy than the gay couple expecting the Christian baker to make them a cake. We can’t have it both ways. There needs to be consistency in our argument. As much as we don’t like what they are doing, they have the right to do it.

                1. What would IT belong to a tribe that hates gay cakes???? That is just cuckoo for coco puffs.

            1. The one difference is that there are multiple bakers, and it’s not difficult to find someone to bake a cake, or even to pay a non-professional to make a cake. However, there’s only one Twitter – and when Gab started to get popular, other Tech companies colluded and got PayPal to shut off funds. If we related this to the Jack Philips’ case, then he would have had to partner with all the other bakeries in the town to shut down the one bakery that was willing to make a gay wedding cake.

              But he didn’t do that. Twitter and Facebook and Youtube, however, see it as their right and their mission to shut down speech they do not like. They are near monopolies and they use those monopoly powers to squash free speech.

              1. I do agree they should not be allowed to violate ant-trust laws to shut down competitors. It seems that this could be successfully dealt with through legal means. I still don’t agree that we should be able to tell a private entity what rules they impose on their customers as long as they don’t violate other laws.

                1. I agree that antitrust laws (or something like that) are the way to go. I do not trust the government to regulate them.
                  Maybe we could demand truth in advertising. They say they’re an open platform, but really they’re a censoring publisher.

                  As for Youtube, Crowder was talking about how in the beginning, Youtube wanted content providers and offered them monetizing deals, but later they changed the rules and have demonetized a bunch of people.

        1. I have a fundamental right to tweet and post youtube videos. Check the federalist papers. Hamilton expressly stated that social media is the only way we have access to the marketplace of ideas.

          1. So we want the government to force them to comply with our wishes? So which is it? Are we wanting the government to intervene in our lives or not? You really need to think about what it is you expect. It’s kind of hard to demand the left leave us alone if we are not willing to do the same.

            1. Look, in order to beat the left, we have to become the left. You ever hear Donald (praise his name forever) talk about “winning™?” Well he’s talking about the race to the bottom. And we have to win. We have to beat the left there. I don’t know what we win when we get there, but I’m told it’s very important. So we basically have to become leftists. That’s why I voted for Donald. Because I believe the best course for America is a benevolent dictatorship.

              But only on MY definition of “benevolent.”

              This is also why it’s important to vote for Republicans even though they betray and fail us at every step. Because they’re not Democrats. Even though they basically are. But they’re our Democrats. I mean Republicans. I mean Democrats. Whatever, they’re wearing red and that’s all I care about and I don’t think much beyond that.

            2. Look, in order to beat the left, we have to become the left. You ever hear Donald (praise his name forever) talk about “winning™?” Well he’s talking about the race to the bottom. And we have to win. We have to beat the left there. I don’t know what we win when we get there, but I’m told it’s very important. So we basically have to become leftists. That’s why I voted for Donald. Because I believe the best course for America is a benevolent dictatorship.

              But only on MY definition of “benevolent.”

              This is also why it’s important to vote for Republicans even though they betray and fail us at every step. Because they’re not Democrats. Even though they basically are. But they’re our Democrats. I mean Republicans. I mean Democrats. Whatever, they’re wearing red and that’s all I care about and I don’t think much beyond that.

              1. I get it. As crazy as the left has become, I wouldn’t vote for one to spite a moderate Republican. I am not prepared to cut off my nose to spite my face. I just think that the quickest way to end these organizations is to quit them entirely. At some point, if enough of us walk away, they will collapse from lack of subscribers and therefore the advertisers that fund them. It appears we have the same goal with different methods of achieving it..

                1. I just think that the quickest way to end these organizations is to quit them entirely.

                  That’s also how you could solve the drug problem in America.

                  Problem is, the extreme majority of people love that sweet sweet needle in their arm. Heroin, Facebook, Fentanyl, Twitter – it don’t matter. People aren’t going to give them up because they’re straight up addicts.

                  Watch. You’ll see them here, whining about fairness and level-playing fields (like a prog), but never volunteering to take the needle out (like a prog). No way. Not when they enjoy that high so much.

                2. I just think that the quickest way to end these organizations is to quit them entirely.

                  That’s also how you could solve the drug problem in America.

                  Problem is, the extreme majority of people love that sweet sweet needle in their arm. Heroin, Facebook, Fentanyl, Twitter – it don’t matter. People aren’t going to give them up because they’re straight up addicts.

                  Watch. You’ll see them here, whining about fairness and level-playing fields (like a prog), but never volunteering to take the needle out (like a prog). No way. Not when they enjoy that high so much.

            3. Let’s face it, the left will never leave us alone. This pretty much demonstrates it. He wasn’t harassing anyone, he was simply stating facts. You know the commonality with this story and the Christian baker you mentioned below. The aggressor in both instances is the Left. We’re not the ones forcing anything, it’s them.

              So no, I’m not saying the government should force them to comply in this instance, but it doesn’t mean we have to like or even accept it. If we want a right to something we have to fight for it instead of saying well it’s their company they can do what they want. Just because they can, doesn’t mean they should.

              I also have issues with them using their platforms to stifle dissent or basically anything they don’t agree with. And the thing is they all have the same agenda and formed an alliance to push that agenda. Where does this lead to exactly? Google is already trying to sway future elections. This shouldn’t be taken lightly because they wield enormous power and influence, more than most are probably aware of. Rather anyone wants to admit it or not it is a problem. You have to think about the big picture.

  12. I use Gab, and they just updated to be completely decentralized as anyone can run their own gab server.

    Every app they made was banned from play store and iPhone app store. Now any app for the fediverse can be used…until those apps are forced to block gab server.

    Andrew Torba is the only person who seems to be actually working on a solution to the tech monopolies..

    1. As far as Android goes, it’s pretty simple to side load the app, if you wish.

        1. Sigh. I might still do so, just so they have the backing to get better software if enough join.

  13. Wow. Lott isn’t some fire breathing conservative. He’s a nerdy professor from the University of Chicago (you know, the University Obama guest lectured at a few times and then called himself a professor). He has done literally exhaustive research on guns and gun control. No one , and I mean no one, has argued with his facts. They just call him a “gun nut” and try to un-person him. And twitter banned him for 100% factual reporting. This is WAY out of hand.

      1. I know you think you’re being witty, but the term “un-person” somebody was in regards to the way leftists dismiss all conservatives and conservative arguments by placing them in a category with truly vile people (Nazis, slave owners…etc.)

        My comment clearly addressed how leftists had dismissed and maligned him for decades now. This last act by twitter is merely another tactic.

        Spend more time actually reading what people post and less time popping off with half-wit comments and you may find your arguments respected more. Or keep trolling. But then….well…you’re a troll.

        1. Yea, but we do it right back at them. So…

          And, hell, sometimes we do it to each other. There was a nameless poster who loves strange doctors practically begging the mods to boot an attractive and hilarious poster the other day. How is that any different?

          Maybe humanity should try being a little… better, hmm?

      2. No. But these sites like Facebook platform government services funded by taxpayers. Thus, it is a public platform. Take USGS for example. If a person in a geologically challenged area signs up for notifications/alerts on said platform, they can be alerted to seismic irregularities ahead of time, possibly allowing them to take action. If they were banned they wouldn’t have received any alerts. Or how about weather alerts? You as a taxpayer have the right to these notifications. If Twitter, or whoever, wants to block you from the Kardashians or whatever, that’s fine. But they need to code in exceptions for receiving access to government services/notifications. And until they do, it’s unconstitutional.

        Add to that, the fact that Trump isn’t allowed to block users because he is considered a public platform. So Twitter is violating a federal judges ruling by doing the same thing. If a banned user wants access to tell off Trump, he can’t. Once again, until they modify their coding to allow access to Trump and other politicians. What they’re doing is unconstitutional.

      1. Try reading “A Short History of the Universe” by Stephen Hawking. I did. I had to stop every few sentences and try and wrap my mind around what I was reading.

        1. Thanks but no thanks. I prefer intellectuals like Krauthammer and Sowell who write in language dummies like me are able to digest.

  14. Too bad we didn’t have a conservative president who would actually stand up to these tech monsters.

    1. And Google employees stage walkouts over Google’s little help they gave the military but don’t protest at all shat Google is doing to help China. Crazy

  15. We all know it’s just a conspiracy from the right to make the Left look bad! Right?!

    1. Always makes me think of Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety, just without the actual bloody heads lopped off.

  16. Oh so Twitter is up and running again? The site crashed today during the WH summit on the big tech overlords.

            1. The Doors have stood the test of time. When I see a kid wearing a Doors t-shirt I can’t help but wonder if he’s a fan or just stole it from dad’s drawer. Edit: Maybe granddad’s.

  17. I swear all Twitter has is its brand. Of all the platforms they would be the absolute easiest to replicate.

  18. I don’t use twitter, and don’t know a lot about it, but, what if 10,000 people copied and pasted this guys tweet as their own. Would twitter start banning people 10,000 at a time?

    1. Most likely.  The extreme left is in control and the twits don’t like it when someone posts anything that doesn’t fit the leftists’ narrative.

Comments are closed.