AndrewRei15

Andrew Rei · @AndrewRei15

15th Dec 2020 from TwitLonger

Huh, fascinating....


The following was sent to me via email from Twitter:

"Hello,

Twitter is required by German law to provide notice to users who are reported by people from Germany via the Network Enforcement Act reporting flow.

We have received a complaint regarding your account, @AndrewRei15, for the following content:

Tweet ID: 1338558678740291585
Tweet Text: @girlsreallyrule @ACLU 7/ you'd be advocating against the Authoritarian/Fascist GOP and the Authoritarian-suborning/enabling GOP voters and the minor parties. Again: Eddie Snowjob is a SPY, not a traitor. You can be executed for being a spy, btw.

We have investigated the reported content and have found that it is not subject to removal under the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) or German law. Accordingly, we have not taken any action as a result of this specific report.

Sincerely,

Twitter"

Has anyone else received an email like this one from Twitter? Was it really Twitter that sent this? I have other questions....

Did someone from Germany really report that? What exactly is their objection to what I wrote?

While Twitter's "investigation" found no wrongdoing and, therefore, my tweet wasn't removed, what this tells me is that Twitter will investigate any complaint, even if it's bogus. I have written, several times before, about how SCOTUS has decided that there is nothing called "free speech" and, instead, there's "protected" speech and "unprotected" speech. My tweet doesn't fall into any of the five general categories of unprotected speech, therefore, it's protected. It could be that the "German" person is an APRW, Authoritarian/PoliCon/Right-Winger, and that he/she wrongly believes that the tweet, instead of telling the truth/quoting facts, as it does, falls under the category of "hate speech". A dissertation of the truth/facts is not hate speech. In fact, dissertation of the truth/facts is the only affirmative defense against unprotected speech, according to SCOTUS precedents.

Fascinating. Perhaps the reason for the report was that I struck a nerve.

Reply · Report Post