DOCSLIB.ORG

TTLF Article MA Weiss Jan 30 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TTLF Article MA Weiss Jan 30 2021 Stanford – Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum A joint initiative of Stanford Law School and the University of Vienna School of Law TTLF Working Papers No. 73 Regulating Freedom of Speech on Social Media: Comparing the EU and US Approach Marie-Andrée Weiss 2021 TTLF Working Papers Editors: Siegfried Fina, Mark Lemley, and Roland Vogl About the TTLF Working Papers TTLF’s Working Paper Series presents original research on technology, and business- related law and policy issues of the European Union and the US. The objective of TTLF’s Working Paper Series is to share “work in progress”. The authors of the papers are solely responsible for the content of their contributions and may use the citation standards of their home country. The TTLF Working Papers can be found at http://ttlf.stanford.edu. Please also visit this website to learn more about TTLF’s mission and activities. If you should have any questions regarding the TTLF’s Working Paper Series, please contact Vienna Law Professor Siegfried Fina, Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley or Stanford LST Executive Director Roland Vogl at the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum http://ttlf.stanford.edu Stanford Law School University of Vienna School of Law Crown Quadrangle Department of Business Law 559 Nathan Abbott Way Schottenbastei 10-16 Stanford, CA 94305-8610 1010 Vienna, Austria About the Author Marie-Andrée Weiss is a French-American attorney admitted in New York and in Strasbourg, France. Her solo practice focuses on intellectual property, privacy, data protection and social media law. Before becoming an attorney, she worked several years in the fashion and cosmetics industry in New York as a buyer and a director of sales and marketing. She enjoys blogging and is a guest blogger on several sites and maintains two of her own blogs. General Note about the Content The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Transatlantic Technology Law Forum or any of its partner institutions, or the sponsors of this research project. Suggested Citation This TTLF Working Paper should be cited as: Marie-Andrée Weiss, Regulating Freedom of Speech on Social Media: Comparing the EU and the US Approach, Stanford-Vienna TTLF Working Paper No. 73, http://ttlf.stanford.edu. Copyright © 2021 Marie-Andrée Weiss Abstract Social media platforms provide forums to share ideas, jokes, images, insults, and threats. These private companies form a contract with their users who agree in turn to respect the platform’s private rules, which evolve regularly and organically, reacting sometimes to a particular event, just as legislatures may do. As these platforms have a global reach, yet are, for the most part, located in the United States, the articulation between the platforms’ terms of use and the laws of the states where the users are located varies greatly from country to country. This article proposes to explore the often-tense relationships between the states, the platforms, and the users, whether their speech creates harm or they are a victim of such harm. The first part of the article is a general presentation of freedom of expression law. This part does not attempt to be a comprehensive catalog of such laws around the world and is only a general presentation of the U.S. and the European Union laws protecting freedom of expression, using France as an example of a particular country in the European Union. While the principle is freedom of speech, the legal standard is set by international conventions, such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights. The second part of the article presents what the author believes to be the four main justifications for regulating free speech: protecting the public order, protecting the reputation of others, protecting morality, and advancing knowledge and truth. The protection of public order entails the protection of the flag or the king, and lèse- majesté sometimes survives even in a Republic. The safety of the economic market, which may dangerously sway if false information floats online, is another state concern, as is the personal safety of the public. Speech sometimes does harm, even kill, or place an individual in fear for her or his life. The reputation and honor of others is easily smeared on social media, whether by defamation, insults or hate speech, a category of speech not clearly defined by law, which yet is at the center of the debate on online content moderation, including whether there is a right to speak anonymously online. What is “morality” is another puzzling question, as blasphemy, indecency, even pornography, have different legal definitions around the world and private definitions by the platforms. Even truth is an elusive concept, and both states and platforms struggle to define what is “fake news,” and whether what is clearly false information, such as denying the existence of the Shoah, should be allowed to be published online. Indeed, while four justifications for regulating speech are delineated in this article, the speech and conduct which should be considered an attack on values worthy to be protected is not equally considered by the different states and the different platforms, and how the barriers to speech are being placed provides a telling picture of the state of democracy. The third part examines who should have the power to delete speech on social media. States may exert censorship on the platforms or even on the pipes to block access to speech and punish, sometimes harshly, speakers daring to trespass the barriers to free speech erected by the states. For the sake of democracy, the integrity of the electoral process must not be threatened by false information, whether it spreads false information about the candidates or false information about alleged fraud, or even false information about the result of the vote. Social media platforms must respect the law. In the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity to platforms for third-party content, but also for screening offensive content. Section 230 has been modified several times and many bills, from both sides of the political spectrum, aim at further reform. In the European Union, the E-commerce Directive similarly provides a safe harbor to social media platforms, but the law is likely to change soon, as the Digital Services Act proposal was published in December 2020. The platforms have their own rules, and may even soon have their own private courts, for example the recently created Facebook Oversight Board. However, other private actors may have a say on what can be published on social media, for instance employers or the governing bodies of regulated professions, such as judges or politicians. Even private users may censor the right of others to speak freely, using copyright laws, or may use public shaming to fear speakers into silence. Such fear may lead users to self-censor their speech, to the detriment of the marketplace of ideas, or they may choose to delete controversial messages. Public figures, however, may not have the right to delete social media posts or to block users. The article was finished the last days of 2020, a year which saw attempts to use social media platforms to sway the U.S. elections by spreading false information, the semi- failed attempt of France to pass a law protecting social media users against hate speech, and false news about the deadly Covid-19 virus spreading online like wildfire, through malicious or naïve posts. A few days after the article was completed, the U.S. Capitol was attacked, on January 6, 2021, by a seditious mob seeking to overturn the results of the Presidential election, believing that the election had been rigged, a false information amplified by thousands of users on social media, including the then President of the United States. Several social media platforms responded by blocking the President’s social media accounts, either temporarily or permanently, as did Twitter. Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 1st Part: General Presentation of Freedom of Expression Laws ................. 10 I. The Principle: Freedom of Speech ................................................................................................. 10 A. International Laws ..................................................................................................................... 10 B. European Union law .................................................................................................................. 13 C. National Laws ............................................................................................................................. 20 a. U.S. Laws ................................................................................................................................ 20 b. French Laws ........................................................................................................................... 25 2nd Part: The Four Main Justifications for Regulating Free Speech ........... 30 I. Protecting Public Order ................................................................................................................. 34 A. Protecting the FlaG ..................................................................................................................... 34 B. MocKinG the KinG ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cancel Culture: Posthuman Hauntologies in Digital Rhetoric and the Latent Values of Virtual Community Networks
    CANCEL CULTURE: POSTHUMAN HAUNTOLOGIES IN DIGITAL RHETORIC AND THE LATENT VALUES OF VIRTUAL COMMUNITY NETWORKS By Austin Michael Hooks Heather Palmer Rik Hunter Associate Professor of English Associate Professor of English (Chair) (Committee Member) Matthew Guy Associate Professor of English (Committee Member) CANCEL CULTURE: POSTHUMAN HAUNTOLOGIES IN DIGITAL RHETORIC AND THE LATENT VALUES OF VIRTUAL COMMUNITY NETWORKS By Austin Michael Hooks A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of English The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee August 2020 ii Copyright © 2020 By Austin Michael Hooks All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT This study explores how modern epideictic practices enact latent community values by analyzing modern call-out culture, a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals responsible for perceived politically incorrect behavior via social media, and cancel culture, a boycott of such behavior and a variant of call-out culture. As a result, this thesis is mainly concerned with the capacity of words, iterated within the archive of social media, to haunt us— both culturally and informatically. Through hauntology, this study hopes to understand a modern discourse community that is bound by an epideictic framework that specializes in the deconstruction of the individual’s ethos via the constant demonization and incitement of past, current, and possible social media expressions. The primary goal of this study is to understand how these practices function within a capitalistic framework and mirror the performativity of capital by reducing affective human interactions to that of a transaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Spencer Sunshine*
    Journal of Social Justice, Vol. 9, 2019 (© 2019) ISSN: 2164-7100 Looking Left at Antisemitism Spencer Sunshine* The question of antisemitism inside of the Left—referred to as “left antisemitism”—is a stubborn and persistent problem. And while the Right exaggerates both its depth and scope, the Left has repeatedly refused to face the issue. It is entangled in scandals about antisemitism at an increasing rate. On the Western Left, some antisemitism manifests in the form of conspiracy theories, but there is also a hegemonic refusal to acknowledge antisemitism’s existence and presence. This, in turn, is part of a larger refusal to deal with Jewish issues in general, or to engage with the Jewish community as a real entity. Debates around left antisemitism have risen in tandem with the spread of anti-Zionism inside of the Left, especially since the Second Intifada. Anti-Zionism is not, by itself, antisemitism. One can call for the Right of Return, as well as dissolving Israel as a Jewish state, without being antisemitic. But there is a Venn diagram between anti- Zionism and antisemitism, and the overlap is both significant and has many shades of grey to it. One of the main reasons the Left can’t acknowledge problems with antisemitism is that Jews persistently trouble categories, and the Left would have to rethink many things—including how it approaches anti- imperialism, nationalism of the oppressed, anti-Zionism, identity politics, populism, conspiracy theories, and critiques of finance capital—if it was to truly struggle with the question. The Left understands that white supremacy isn’t just the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis, but that it is part of the fabric of society, and there is no shortcut to unstitching it.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Cancel Culture' Doesn't Stifle Debate, but It Does Challenge the Old Order Billy Bragg
    'Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order Billy Bragg Speech is only free when everyone has a voice – that’s why young people are angry Outside Broadcasting House in London, the BBC has erected a statue to one of its former employees, George Orwell. The author leans forward, hand on hip, as if to make a telling point. Carved into the wall beside him is a quote from the preface of Animal Farm: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” It’s a snappy slogan that fits neatly into a tweet, but whenever I walk past this effigy of the English writer that I most admire, it makes me cringe. Surely the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four would understand that people don’t want to hear that 2+2=5? For Orwell’s quote is not a defence of liberty; it’s a demand for licence, and has become a foundational slogan for those who wilfully misconstrue one for the other. Over the past decade, the right to make inflammatory statements has become a hot button issue for the reactionary right, who have constructed tropes such as political correctness and virtue signalling to enable them to police the limits of social change while portraying themselves as victims of an organised assault on liberty itself. The latest creation in their war against accountability is “cancel culture”, an ill-defined notion that takes in corporate moves to recognise structural racism, the toppling of statues, social media bullying, public shaming and other diverse attempts to challenge the status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • Eric Johnson Producer of Recode Decode with Kara Swisher Vox Media
    FIRESIDE Q&A How podcasting can take social media storytelling ‘to infinity and beyond’ Eric Johnson Producer of Recode Decode with Kara Swisher Vox Media Rebecca Reed Host Off the Assembly Line Podcast 1. Let’s start out by introducing yourself—and telling us about your favorite podcast episode or interview. What made it great? Eric Johnson: My name is Eric Johnson and I'm the producer of Recode Decode with Kara Swisher, which is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. My favorite episode of the show is the interview Kara conducted with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg — an in-depth, probing discussion about how the company was doing after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the extent of its power. In particular, I really liked the way Kara pressed Zuckerberg to explain how he felt about the possibility that his company's software was enabling genocide in Myanmar; his inability to respond emotionally to the tragedy was revealing, and because this was a podcast and not a TV interview she was able to patiently keep asking the question, rather than moving on to the next topic. Rebecca Reed: My name is Rebecca Reed and I’m an Education Consultant and Host of the Off the Assembly Line podcast. Off the Assembly Line is your weekly dose of possibility-sparking conversation with the educators and entrepreneurs bringing the future to education. My favorite episode was an interview with Julia Freeland Fisher, author of Who You Know. We talked about the power of student social capital, and the little known role it plays in the so-called “achievement gap” (or disparity in test scores from one school/district to the next).
    [Show full text]
  • China Media Bulletin
    Issue No. 130: October 2018 CHINA MEDIA BULLETIN Headlines ANALYSIS Amid U.S.-China Tension, Beijing’s Propaganda Machine Charges On P2 IN THE NEWS • New rules and innovation enhance police surveillance P4 • Xinjiang crackdown: Writers jailed, foreign investment questioned, state responds to outcry P5 • Censorship updates: Online religious content, foreign television, VPN crackdown P7 • Hong Kong: Expulsion of ‘Financial Times’ editor undermines press freedom P8 • Beyond China: Africa influence, US campuses, CCTV heckler, Malaysia Uighurs, motherboard chips P8 FEATURED PUSHBACK #MeToo Movement P10 WHAT TO WATCH FOR P11 TAKE ACTION P12 IMAGE OF THE MONTH Skeletons in the Communist Party’s closet This seemingly innocuous image was shared 12,000 times on Sina Weibo within 11 hours on September 23 before being deleted by censors. The caption accompanying the image said it portrayed a caving expedition in Guilin, Guangxi Province, that discovered the skeletons of 93 people who were killed at the height of the Cultural Revolution: “From October 2 to 3, 1967 … the militia battalion commander of Sanjiang Commune … pushed 93 local rich people into the bottomless sinkhole…. One of the big landlord families had a total of 76 people, young and old; all were all pushed into the pit, including married daughters and their children. The youngest one is less than one year old and the oldest is 65 years old.” Credit: Weiboscope Visit http://freedomhou.se/cmb_signup or email [email protected] to subscribe or submit items. CHINA MEDIA BULLETIN: OCTOBER 2018 ANALYSIS Amid U.S.-China Tension, Beijing’s Propaganda Machine Charges On By Sarah Cook The regime’s recent media interventions may have unintended consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • Brave New World Service a Unique Opportunity for the Bbc to Bring the World to the UK
    BRAVE NEW WORLD SERVIce A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BBC TO BRING THE WORLD TO THE UK JOHN MCCaRTHY WITH CHARLOTTE JENNER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Value 4 Integration: A Brave New World Service? 8 Conclusion 16 Recommendations 16 INTERVIEWEES Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, Ishbel Matheson, Director of Media, Save the Children and University of Westminster former East Africa Correspondent, BBC World Service John Baron MP, Member of Foreign Affairs Select Committee Rod McKenzie, Editor, BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat and Charlie Beckett, Director, POLIS BBC 1Xtra News Tom Burke, Director of Global Youth Work, Y Care International Richard Ottaway MP, Chair, Foreign Affairs Select Committee Alistair Burnett, Editor, BBC World Tonight Rita Payne, Chair, Commonwealth Journalists Mary Dejevsky, Columnist and leader writer, The Independent Association and former Asia Editor, BBC World and former newsroom subeditor, BBC World Service Marcia Poole, Director of Communications, International Jim Egan, Head of Strategy and Distribution, BBC Global News Labour Organisation (ILO) and former Head of the Phil Harding, Journalist and media consultant and former World Service training department Director of English Networks and News, BBC World Service Stewart Purvis, Professor of Journalism and former Lindsey Hilsum, International Editor, Channel 4 News Chief Executive, ITN Isabel Hilton, Editor of China Dialogue, journalist and broadcaster Tony Quinn, Head of Planning, JWT Mary Hockaday, Head of BBC Newsroom Nick Roseveare, Chief Executive, BOND Peter
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC's Knowledge Problem: How to Protect Consumers Online
    The FCC’s Knowledge Problem: How to Protect Consumers Online Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING ABOUT REGULATION: COMPARING THE FCC AND THE FTC .................................................................. 205 A. The Regulator’s Knowledge Problem....................................... 206 B. The FCC’s Prescriptive, Ex Ante Regulatory Approach .......... 208 C. The FTC’s Flexible, Ex Post Enforcement-Based Approach ... 212 II. NET NEUTRALITY AND THE FCC: A CASE STUDY IN REGULATORY DIFFICULTY ..................................................................................... 214 A. What is Net Neutrality? ............................................................ 215 1. Proponents of Net Neutrality Regulation .......................... 215 2. Opponents of Net Neutrality Regulation .......................... 216 B. The FCC’s History of Broadband Regulation: The Road to Reclassification ........................................................................ 218 1. Broadband as a Title I information service ....................... 218 2. The Verizon Decision ........................................................ 220 3. The Aftermath of Verizon ................................................. 221 Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission. I would like to thank Neil Chilson for his contributions to this essay. The views expressed here are solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any other individual Commissioner. Portions of this essay were adapted from a keynote
    [Show full text]
  • FALL 2008 Columbia University in the City of New York Co
    FALL 2008 Columbia University in the City of New York CO 435 West 116th Street, Box A-2 L UM New York, NY 10027 BI A L RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED A W S C HO O L M ag azine www.law.columbia.edu/alumni fall 2008 BREAKING THE CODE NEW FACULTY MEMBER MICHAEL GRAETZ HAS AN INNOVATIVE PLAN FOR REVAMPING AMERICA’s TAX CODE TALKINGTALKING TETELECLECOM: TIM WU CHATS WITH JEFFREY TOOBIN SCOTUS ANALYSIS FROM BLASI, BRIFFAULT, GREENAWALT, HAMBURGER, AND PERSILY Opportunity The Future of Diversity and Opportunity in Higher dean Columbia Law School Magazine David M. Schizer is published three times annually for alumni and friends of associate dean Education: A National Columbia Law School by the for development and Office of Development and alumni relations Alumni Relations. Forum on Innovation and Bruno M. Santonocito Opinions expressed in Columbia Law Collaboration executive director School Magazine do not necessarily of communications reflect the views of Columbia Law and public affairs School or Columbia University. Elizabeth Schmalz This magazine is printed December 3-5, 2008 guest editor on FSC certified paper. Matthew J.X. Malady editorial director James Vescovi assistant editor Mary Johnson Change of address information should be sent to: copy editors Lauren Pavlakovich, Columbia Law School Joy Y. Wang 435 West 116 Street, Box A-2 New York, NY 10027 During the first week in December, design and art direction Attn: Office of Alumni Relations Empire Design Studio Alumni Office university presidents, provosts, and photography 212-854-2680 Peter Freed, Robyn Twomey, Magazine Notices Eric van den Brulle, Jon Roemer 212-854-2650 academic innovators will gather for David Yellen [email protected] an historic conference focused on new printing Copyright 2008, Columbia Maar Printing Service, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing for a More Fractured Web the Central Services Under Siege Built Global-Scale Networks
    Preparing for a More Fractured Web The central services under siege built global-scale networks. If policy trends hold, what comes next? Andrea O’Sullivan hat’s your worry about Silicon ad-based business model supporting much Valley? Most everyone has one. of big tech. Maybe you’re concerned about For some, it allows impolitic privacy. It could be a combination of many Wspeech to flourish online. If you’re like things. Whatever your persuasion, there me, you’re more bothered by the threat of is usually some good reason to resist big targeted content controls. Or you might American technology companies. fear that some companies have just gotten This essay will not debate the merits or a little too big. Maybe you dislike the entire demerits of any particular tech criticism. The JOURNAL of The JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE Readers can find many such commentaries These trends herald a future where data tailored to their own liking elsewhere on localization, which limits how information the world wide web. Instead, I will discuss can be used across borders, is the norm.5 how the many forces converging against Regulating data means regulating American technology companies may result commerce. Although framed as a way in a new web that is less, well, worldwide. to bring tech companies in line, data What might such an internet look like? regulations affect anyone who engages in We already have a good inkling. Most online commerce: that is to say, almost people have heard of one longstanding everyone with a computer and a connection. internet faultline: the so-called Great To a foreign retailer, for instance, data Firewall of China.1 Residents of China controls might as well be a trade control.6 cannot easily access major parts of the Then there are content controls.
    [Show full text]
  • Publishing in the Nineteenth Century
    1 Publishing in the Nineteenth Century Originally published as “Editer au XIXe siècle”, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France, vol. 107, no. 4, 2007, pp. 771–90. Introduction When Roger Chartier and Henri-Jean Martin were preparing the introduction to the first volume of their monumental Histoire de l’Édition francaise (History of French publishing), which they entitled Le livre conquérant. Du Moyen Age au milieu du XVIIe siècle (The Conquering Book. From the Middle Ages to the mid-seventeenth century), they encountered a problem – one might even call it an aporia. They explained their twin debt both to Lucien Febvre, the initiator of research into the history of the book,1 and to Jean-Pierre Vivet, a journalist turned director of Promodis Publishing, who had expressed his desire to “see [the publisher] placed at the center of these four volumes,” which he had entrusted to them.2 This outspoken directive implied that the figure of the publisher long predated the invention of printing, and that he had been performing the role of broker or mediator without interruption from the thirteenth up to the twentieth century, as is the case today. The two editors were very well aware that sustaining such a notion could prove risky, and so they added this further comment, which partly contradicted what had gone before: The story we would like to tell is one in which the role of the publisher was gradually asserted and became more clearly defined; he was bold in the age of the conquering 1 Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin, L’apparition du livre (Paris: Albin Michel, 1958), translated into English as The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing, 1450-1800 (London: Verso, 1976).
    [Show full text]
  • Origines Et Métamorphoses De La Nouvelle Droite Pierre-André Taguieff
    Vingtième Siècle, revue d'histoire Origines et métamorphoses de la nouvelle droite Pierre-André Taguieff Abstract Origins and metamorphoses of the French New Right, Pierre-André Taguieff. The French New Right, which grew in the 1970s and the 1980s, seems to have become an empty shell today. But the itinerary of its best theortician, Alain de Benoist, shows that this movement was able to bring up, early and continuously, the issues of roots and identity that are haunting Europe today. Citer ce document / Cite this document : Taguieff Pierre-André. Origines et métamorphoses de la nouvelle droite. In: Vingtième Siècle, revue d'histoire, n°40, octobre- décembre 1993. pp. 3-22; http://www.persee.fr/doc/xxs_0294-1759_1993_num_40_1_3005 Document généré le 05/05/2016 ENTRETIENS ORIGINES ET METAMORPHOSES DE LA NOUVELLE DROITE Pierre-André Taguieff Cinq ans après la publication de s'avère aussi vague que trompeuse. En l'article(n° d'Anne-Marie Duranton-Crabol France, elle a été utilisée, dans le langage 17, janvier-mars 1988), Vingtième médiatique, à partir de 1978, pour siècle a voulu revenir sur le phénomène désigner le GRECE (Groupement de recherche de la Nouvelle Droite, dont on aurait et d'études pour la civilisation tort de minimiser l'importance dans européenne), puis, par extension, pour l'évolution actuelle du paysage référer, dès 1979, à l'ensemble formé par le intellectuel et politique de la France. Nous GRECE et le Club de l'Horloge. On remercions Pierre-André Taguieff d'avoir bien pouvait alors situer la production voulu répondre à nos questions. intellectuelle de ces deux «clubs (ou sociétés) de pensée» à l'intersection des droites parlementaires UDF/RPR et des Vingtième siècle: Que recouvre exactement le terme de Nouvelle Droite? mouvements situés à l'extrême droite.
    [Show full text]
  • Laura Loomer Exceeds Pre-Ban Twitter Following on Parler with 300K Followers
    This publication is not affiliated with Laura Loomer for Congress. For more information visit LauraLoomerforCongress.com HOME TIP LINE CONTENT BY CATEGORY GET MY EMAILS DONATE SHOP ADVERTISE WITH US CONTACT ME SEE LAURA LOOMER ON DRUDGE REPORT Laura Loomer Exceeds Pre-Ban Twitter Following on Parler With 300k Followers Haley Kennington P O S T E D O N J U N E 2 4 , 2 0 2 0 SUPPORT LAURA’S WORK Share On Facebook Tweet It GET LAURA’S NEWSLET T ER This week marks a special milestone for investigative journalist and now Republican Congressional candidate in Florida District 21, Laura Loomer. After having been permanently banned from Twitter, Loomer moved over to free speech social media platform Parler, and not only brought her followers with her, but has now exceeded the amount of followers she had “pre-ban” on Twitter in 2018. Join Our Newsletter Enter your email Subscribe Privacy - Terms FOLLOW ME ON PARLER! FOLLOW ME ON T ELEGRAM! Loomer announced the landmark achievement Wednesday in a post on Parler: “I just became the first deplatformed person to exceed my Pre-Ban Twitter following here on @parler. When I was banned, people on the Left and Right cheered on the digital extermination of my persona. They said my career was over. FOREVER. Yet, here I am. SUBSCRIBE T O MY YOUT UBE CHANNEL Through my historic and unprecedented Congressional race in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, I am proving everyone wrong while making history. I’m on a mission to CANCEL CANCEL CULTURE and get elected to the United States Congress to ensure that no other American citizen is ever silenced the way I’ve been silenced.
    [Show full text]