Yet again, Twitter has decided that they’re going to play the judge and jury on free speech. This time, they’ve decided to suspend the account of New York Times’ columnist Bret Stephens. You know…the one that has won a Pulitzer Prize.
A journalist for the NYT should be able to know what to post and what not to post. After all, they’re not only liberal like Twitter, but they also have some basic journalistic principles – such as the burden of proof.
The op-ed piece that was simply too much for ultra-liberal Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Stephens dared to write a piece titled “The New Racism Won’t Solve the Old Racism.” He denounced the new call for equity as another form of racism.
Dorsey and the rest of the Twitter truth seekers may not understand what an op-ed is. It means that it’s an opinion piece. Stephens, as an award-winning journalist, has chosen to share his opinion based on what he’s seeing happening in the country.
The concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), according to Stephens, is “insulting to everyone who still believes we should be judged by the content of our character.”
There’s nothing wrong with this opinion – and Dorsey might be surprised to learn that many Americans feel this way. Not everyone wants to learn how to be an antiracist and redistribute wealth along racial lines.
Stephens argued throughout the op-ed that DEI is a violation of morality of Americans in both “sly and blunt” ways.
Just read a piece by Bret Stephens in the int version of @nytimes/@nytopinion, thinking “that’s gonna be controversial”. Turns out his Twitter is already suspended. Wow that’s fast! pic.twitter.com/VWD8KxxHHw
— Sabrina Elise Katonoff (@EliseKatonoff) June 30, 2021
He is pointing out the other side of the argument. However, he is on the other side of the argument to the one that Twitter wants to embrace. If it were up to Dorsey, he would focus on publishing everything so that it makes the ultra-liberals look as though they have all the answers.
Luckily, the country isn’t one mass of snowflakes. There are people, like Stephens, who believe that there’s another way to deal with racism. We cannot solve racism with the new version of racism. As Stephens concludes it will “produce only more racism.”
That is not what Twitter wants to see on its platform. So, rather than allowing it to be seen by millions, Twitter decided that it was going to suspend Bret Stephens’ account. After all, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to social media – or at least that’s what Dorsey believes.
Those who were able to read the piece knew it was controversial. It wasn’t surprising that Twitter suspended his account.
However, this has become the world that we live in. We read something controversial. Instead of dissecting it and discussing it, we anticipate that it will lead to the suspense of their social media account.
Fahrenheit 451, anyone? Dorsey might not be torching books but he most certainly is torching ideas and discussions.
Twitter simply suspended the account because it supposedly violates the Twitter Rules. What rule was violated? Twitter won’t say. That’s what Twitter does best – they suspend and delete accounts and hide behind their supposed “Rules.”
It may be best for everyone if Jack Dorsey were to publish a book about what can and cannot be tweeted about. It could help to clarify a lot of issues. Clearly, freedom of speech is not at play on the platform.
We can talk about racism but only if we’re in favor of being antiracist.
We can talk about Black people but only if we believe that their lives matter above everyone else’s.
And, we can talk about the government but only if we want to embrace the most liberal of ideas.
Is there anything else that we’re missing? Dorsey likely has a list that he feeds into algorithms so that accounts will get lost. Heaven forbid we allow people to share their opinions if they go against the ultra-liberal agenda. If we can’t expect a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist to follow the rules, what hope do we have?