Clicky

Join the pushback against online censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance.

FBI responds after revelations it flagged tweets for censorship

The statement put out by the FBI doesn't answer to the depth of the allegations against the agency.

If youโ€™re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Following the evidence that the FBI routinely flagged jokes and satirical content to be removed from Twitter, the FBI has responded.

โ€œThe FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actorsโ€™ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities,โ€ the FBI said in a statement. โ€œPrivate sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them,โ€ the agency added, without commenting on the fact that many of those targeted for censorship were US citizens.

The list of targeted accounts included Billy Baldwin, the brother of actors Alec and Stephen Baldwin, as well as several satire accounts and the conservative news outlet that covers many live broadcasts, the Right Side Broadcasting Network.

The latest batch of Twitter files, released by journalist Matt Taibbi, showed that between January 2020 and November 2022, former Twitter Senior Director of Trust & Safety, Yoel Roth, exchanged over 150 emails with the FBI.

Taibbiโ€™s revelations showed that the FBIโ€™s social media task force, known as FTIF, has 80 agents working to stop what they say is โ€œforeign influence and election tampering of all kinds.โ€

Heritage Foundationsโ€™ senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky recently told Fox News that while Twitter is a private company that is free to censor content as it wishes, the company could be seen as an agent for the government if it is found to be taking direction from the FBI.

โ€œThe First Amendment applies to the government and prohibits censorship by government agencies and entities, not private actors,โ€ Von Spakovsky said.

โ€œHowever, when a private company is censoring information based on direction, coordination and cooperation with the government, then legally it may be considered to be acting as an agent for the government, and it may be found to be violating the First Amendment.โ€

George Mason University professor David Bernstein also weighed in on Fox News that โ€œabsent a true national security emergency, itโ€™s inappropriate for anyone with a political role in the government to be exerting pressure or even lobbying Twitter regarding content.โ€

โ€œThe FBI is a trickier case,โ€ he added. โ€œIf there is no political interference, the FBI sharing information with Twitter is not inherently inappropriate. For example, the FBI could share information that a Twitter account is linked to a known terrorist group. However, there is obviously a line between properly sharing information and a government agency unduly pressuring an agency, especially if there is a threat of retaliation attached. Without knowing more about exactly what the FBI was doing, I canโ€™t say which side of the line it was on.โ€

If youโ€™re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Logo with a red shield enclosing a stylized globe and three red arrows pointing upward to the right, next to the text 'RECLAIM THE NET' with 'RECLAIM' in gray and 'THE NET' in red

Join the pushback against online censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance.

Reclaim The Net Logo

Defend free speech and individual liberty online.