Facebook, Twitter, Censor Rittenhouse Atty, Defenders. No Praise for Rittenhouse Allowed.
Login to Listen
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society

Facebook and Twitter have declared that Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who defended himself against three rioting goons in Kenosha, Wisconsin, is guilty of “mass murder.”

Though video and court records clearly show that Rittenhouse shot and killed two criminals and wounded a third, the two social-media behemoths have said users cannot defend Rittenhouse or even show video that depicts him in a favorable light and does not show the shootings.

The users in this case are Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce, and conservative commentator Mark Dice.

Facebook and Twitter claim their posts defending Rittenhouse violate policies that forbid praising or glorifying “mass murder.”

Two problems for the social-media giants:

First, Lin Wood, the attorney who helped assemble Rittenhouse’s legal team. He flatly declared the Twitter notice “defamation,” and has already threatened to sue over its brief suspension of his account.

Second, both platforms permit users to glorify mass-murderers such as Charles Manson and Mao Tse-tung.

No Defending Rittenhouse
The more problematic of the two is the attack on Pierce.

He tweeted this remark, which was similar to what he said about Rittenhouse last week:

Kyle Rittenhouse will go down in American history alongside that brave unknown patriot at Lexington Green who fired “The Shot Heard Round The World” on April 19th, 1775.

The Twitter censors quickly lowered the boom with this notice:

What happened? We have determined that this account violated the Twitter rules. Specifically, for:

1. Violating our rules against glorifying violence. We prohibit content that condones or celebrates acts of violence that could promote imitation of the act. We also prohibit the glorification of mass murderers or genocides when protected categories have been the primary target or victims. Glorifying the perpetrators of such violence is also prohibited.

 

 

In other words, Twitter has adjudged Rittenhouse guilty of mass murder, and apparently, his victims were in “protected” categories.

Twitter users likely didn’t know that convicted sex-offenders and domestic abusers who strangled someone are “protected categories,” but anyway, Dice ran afoul of Facebook’s guidelines.

Dice posted a video — still available at Twitter, oddly enough — that showed Rittenhouse helping an injured woman.

 

 

“Newly uncovered video of Kyle Rittenhouse shows him helping an injured protester after she was struck in the foot with a projectile,” Dice wrote on Facebook. He continued:

In another video he told the cameraman that he brought a medical kit, which is the bag he was carrying. Further proving he had no malicious intent by showing up. In fact, he was there to help anyone who needed it.

4mJoT61S

Like Twitter, Facebook declared the post against its “standards”:

“Our standards on dangerous individuals and organizations,” its note began:

We don’t allow symbols, praise or support of dangerous individuals or organizations on Facebook.

We define dangerous as things like:

Terrorist activity
Organized hate or violence
Mass or serial murder
Human trafficking
Criminal or harmful activity

As well, Facebook warned, “your page is at risk of being unpublished because of continued community standards violations.”

 

 

Defamation, Censorship
“Censorship,” Wood wrote of Twitter’s removing Pierce’s tweet. “Plain and simple”

But then Wood offered his opinion on Facebook’s censuring Dice with a link to Breitbart’s piece describing it: “Censorship and defamation. Plain and simple.”

 

 

Given Wood’s reputation for legal action against media companies that smear the innocent, as well as his threat to sue Twitter for temporarily suspending his account, Facebook might wish to reconsider.

Though Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social-media companies from defamation lawsuits that arise from what users say about other users, it won’t protect the companies from a lawsuit arising from defamatory claims by its own employees.

Facebook strongly implied, though it didn’t state outright, that Rittenhouse perpetrated a “terrorist” act, “organized hate or violence,” and “mass or serial murder.”

Twitter did likewise by noting that Pierce’s post “glorifi[ed]” the “perpetrator” of “mass murder.”

Violating Their Own Rules
Facebook and Twitter do not oppose the glorification of mass murder.

Searching those sites with the names of famous mass murderers will return users who glorify them, and even whole pages or accounts that do likewise.

Among the admired men on Facebook and Twitter are Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Tse-tung, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Charles Manson and his Family.

Presumably, Facebook and Twitter do not define those men as mass murderers, but instead reserve that label for 17-year-olds who defend themselves against rioting sex-offenders and domestic abusers.

Image: screenshot from Twitter post

R. Cort Kirkwood is a long-time contributor to The New American and a former newspaper editor.