Twitter has suspended the account of former White House trade advisor Peter Navarro even though he hasn’t tweeted anything for about two weeks.
“The point here is it’s because of who I am and what I might say, not because of anything I did,” Navarro told Tucker Carlson about the latest example of Big tech censorship, in this case a preemptive one, on Wednesday night.
In a brief appearance at the end of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the Fox News Channel, Navarro asserted that the social media network which traditionally has claimed to be a neutral platform “made bad history” by locking him out, and by extension, millions of Trump voters.
“There wasn’t anything I said; it’s because of who I am, and what I might say. And the ‘great firewall’ of Silicon Valley grew another few feet today, and this is totally unacceptable. If Jack Dorsey came up to me in the public square and ripped down a sign from my hand in a peaceful protest, stomped on it, and then muzzled me, he’d get arrested. But he can do that now in the digital public square,” Navarro explained.
(Source: Fox News)
“[Twitter CEO Dorsey] does violence to the First Amendment, he did violence today to me, and he does violence to the 74 million people who voted for Donald J. Trump who he’s trying to muzzle. This is unacceptable. It’s a bridge too far,” Navarro continued.
When Carlson asked him if Twitter provided any explanation for the suspension, Navarro responded as follows:
“It was something about unusual traffic but I hadn’t tweeted since January 14th. The point here is it’s because of who I am and what I might say, not because of anything I did. And this is Pichai at Google, Dorsey at Twitter, Zuckerberg at Facebook, and Bezos at Amazon.
“They somehow believe that it’s their responsibility to shut up half of America. They’re doing violence to the First Amendment. They’re doing violence to this country. And, this will not stand, Tucker. This cannot stand,” Navarro added.
It is worth noting in this context that Navarro was one of the key Trump officials who oversaw the leveling of the playing field with China on trade. He also authored several analyses of the alleged irregularities and statistical anomalies in Election 2020.
Silicon Valley does a lot of business in China and frowns upon any discussion of voter fraud.
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) December 21, 2020
Big Tech apologists on both the left and the right have continually insisted that private companies have the latitude to make business decisions, including revoking user access, without interference from regulators.
If these digital platforms operate as an arm of the federal government in silencing dissent on behalf of the Biden administration and the Democrats, however, then the free-speech protections of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution might apply after all.
Ironically, those apologists have repeatedly called upon free-speech advocates to establish their own networks. Parler did just that, but it wound up de-platformed anyway.
The Navarro situation might also provide further credence for repealing the Section 230 exemption of the Communications Decency Act that shields social media platforms, which are increasingly making editorial decisions, from legal liability. The alleged monopolistic practices of these platforms are also coming under increasing scrutiny.
- Dem Rep. Speier, a Jonestown survivor, likens Trump to Jim Jones: Social media ‘only difference’ - August 2, 2021
- ‘Woke’ US women’s soccer team bumped from Olympic gold medal round, Rapinoe disses Canadian victors - August 2, 2021
- Poll: Faith in gun control laws slipping as violent crime surges in California - August 2, 2021