James Woods Locked Out of Twitter for Satirical Election Meme

[Swordsmyth]

Actor James Woods reportedly received a Twitter suspension after sharing a satirical meme about voting in the upcoming midterms in November.
According to screenshots, Twitter directed Woods to delete a July 20 post claiming his tweet contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.”

Hey guys, @Twitter has locked @RealJamesWoods’ account.
His statement: “You are a coward, @Twitter.”#JamesWoods pic.twitter.com/zGVOnxP0D6
— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018
​

The meme Woods shared showed three men with “Soy face” smiles accompanied with text telling Democrat men to stay home in November in order to empower women to decide the outcome of the midterms.
“We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home,” text on the meme said, including the hashtags #LetWomenDecide and #NoMenMidterms.
In his tweet, Woods indicated he believed the image was fake, but he entertained the possibility it could be real.

This is the tweet @RealJamesWoods was locked for.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the “Streisand Effect” kicked in and it was retweeted 10,000 times?
Retweet at your peril. #FREEJAMESWOODS pic.twitter.com/eIZpGkOk6A
— Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018
​

“Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible,” Woods wrote.
The website Twitchy theorizes Woods may have been targeted for harassing liberals.
It “Would appear said tweet is from way back in July which means if he was indeed reported he was targeted; we’re also going to guess they ‘got’ him for saying liberal insanity, claiming it was targeting a group,” Twitchy wrote.
Woods is a prolific pro-Trump Twitter user who’s extremely popular on the platform. He’s followed by 1.72 million users with many of his tweets criticizing the liberal establishment.
After learning of the suspension, Woods released a statement on Twitter through journalist Sara Miller:
“You are a coward, [MENTION=84]Jack[/MENTION] [Dorsey]. There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.”
According to Miller, the tweet is no longer visible on Woods’ timeline, and he’s unable to tweet.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/james-woods-locked-out-of-twitter-for-satirical-election-meme/

 

[Danke]

This will make TheCunt happy.

 

[TheCount]

Womp womp

 

[timosman]

Womp womp

 

[AZJoe]

The offending tweet for which the Twits at Twitter suspended Woods :

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The offending tweet for which the Twits at Twitter suspended Woods :

Blatant political targeting by the leftists at Twitter.

Is Twitter a public forum, or a private company?

 

[CaptUSA]

Blatant political targeting by the leftists at Twitter.

Is Twitter a public forum, or a private company?

It’s a publicly traded company. It can choose to act as its board and shareholders see fit. Period.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It’s a publicly traded company. It can choose to act as its board and shareholders see fit. Period.

Maybe this can be a teaching moment.

Why should companies be required to serve anybody they do not want to?

 

[Anti Federalist]

The offending tweet for which the Twits at Twitter suspended Woods :

Wouldn't surprise me in the least...self loathing Omega simps.

 

[timosman]

RPF is in trouble

 

[CaptUSA]

Maybe this can be a teaching moment.

Why should companies be required to serve anybody they do not want to?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It’s a publicly traded company. It can choose to act as its board and shareholders see fit. Period.

Of course. We do agree on property rights for the most part.

But what about those who would force a baker to cater a gay wedding, and also fully support banning political speech that they don’t like? Is that a contradiction?

When Twitter claims that it is a free speech public forum to avoid responsibility for what people post on their platform, can they also claim that they are private property and can censor anyone they don’t like?

When celebrities, politicians, media people, etc. publicize their Twitter account for “feedback”, does that only apply to feedback from people that Twitter deems worthy?

So many questions...so few answers.

 

[Anti Federalist]

But what about those who would force a baker to cater a gay wedding, and also fully support banning political speech that they don’t like? Is that a contradiction?

Of course, a massive contradiction.

When Twitter claims that it is a free speech public forum to avoid responsibility for what people post on their platform, can they also claim that they are private property and can censor anyone they don’t like?

It can't make that claim.

Maybe charge them with fraud, because if that is how they are selling themselves and advertising what their "service" is, then it is a lie and fraudulent.

They are clearly not a non-partisan free speech forum.

 

[donnay]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...jack-dorsey-admits-twitters-left-leaning-bias

 

[Brian4Liberty]

After learning of the suspension, Woods released a statement on Twitter through journalist Sara Miller:
“You are a coward, [MENTION=84]Jack[/MENTION] [Dorsey]. There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.”

It should be noted that James Woods has often Tweeted in a negative manner at [MENTION=84]Jack[/MENTION]. That will tend to put him on the radar of the censors, and also reduce any sympathy he might get from Jack.

 

[specsaregood]

hopefully he goes to a more open platform and encourages his readers to do the same

 

[nikcers]

Of course, a massive contradiction.



It can't make that claim.

Maybe charge them with fraud, because if that is how they are selling themselves and advertising what their "service" is, then it is a lie and fraudulent.

They are clearly not a non-partisan free speech forum.

Twitter was always designed as a broadcast medium, it was sold to us by Washington and Hollywood as a way of talking to people directly even though they paid people to manage their social media platforms. Now they are just taking it to its logical conclusion and broadcasting only the content that they approve of.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology,"

That is patently false and deliberately fraudulent.

Sue them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It should be noted that James Woods has often Tweeted in a negative manner at @Jack. That will tend to put him on the radar of the censors, and also reduce any sympathy he might get from Jack.

Which just goes to show that Jack engages in false advertising when he says Twitter is a free speech platform.