It's not Twitter's job to hold Marjorie Taylor Greene accountable. The DOJ must step in.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

NBC News THINK
@NBCNewsTHINK
Twitter and Facebook shouldn’t be the new sheriffs in town when we already have the DOJ, writes @shanlonwu.

Suspensions help lessen the spread of misinformation, but we shouldn't depend on social media to hold public officials accountable:

Opinion | It's not Twitter's job to hold Marjorie Taylor Greene accountable. The DOJ must step in.
The bans help lessen the spread of dangerous misinformation, but we shouldn't depend on social media for the DOJ's work to hold public officials accountable.
nbcnews.com
7:44 AM · Jan 5, 2022

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/marjorie-taylor-greene-s-twitter-suspension-highlights-major-problem-doj-ncna1286963

Why does it increasingly seem like Twitter and Facebook do more enforcement work than the Justice Department? A day after Twitter permanently banned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. (her personal account – not her official account), Facebook suspended her account. According to the tech companies, both enforcement actions were for Greene’s misinformation about Covid-19 vaccine safety.

Such bans probably do lessen the harmful impact of lies spread at light speed through social media, but do we have to depend on Twitter and Facebook for the work that the Justice Department and other prosecutors could be doing to hold public officials accountable?

Let’s start by debunking the myth that conduct like engaging in racist speech and lying to the public about a health crisis or the legitimacy of our elections can never be criminal. We don’t need new laws to address these actions. We need prosecutors to use the laws that are already in place. More specifically, they need to stop taking such a timid approach to their interpretation of existing laws like making false statements, honest services fraud, obstruction of Congress and campaign finance fraud and look to expand the definitions as needed.

Lying is central to all of these actions, and it can be a crime under 18 U.S Code § 1001 (“False Statements”) when falsehoods are made “knowingly and willfully” about “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.”

*snip*

[Pantagruel]

1. Disagree.

Public officials have other things to do, like legislate. Policing what's true or not would be a full time job. You want public discourse policed, you need a new type of cop.

[dchill]

2. A clear and present danger.

[onenote]

3. Disagree

To begin with, the fact that there is a statute that might be cited in a prosecution doesn't mean that as applied to the situations described statute would be constitutional. There is enormous leeway given to political speech under the First Amendment. To say nothing of the fact that aggressively using these statutes to go after members of Congress for their public statements would be a slippery slope that would not end well.

Moreover, the author's own omissions show the weakness of their arguments. For example, the author cites 18 USC 1001(a) (False Statements) as a source of authority for DOJ to go after Greene, describing that provision as criminalizing falsehoods made “knowingly and willfully” about “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.”

But 18 USC 1001(a) is expressly limited by 18 USC 1001(c),which states that:

"With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --

administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."


In short, 18 USC 1001(a) wouldn't apply to Greene's statements and the idea that the DOJ could or would use it to prosecute a sitting member of Congress is laughable.

[leftstreet]

4. Banning them on social media actually helps them

They're taken seriously, start their grievance campaigns, and most importantly the enormous (and hilarious) pushback, shaming and humiliation they experience from others ends.

Social media banning almost saves them from themselves

[fishwax]

5. but it doesn't apply in the legislative branch jurisdiction except in specific instances

"With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --

administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

I don't see how the lies that greene has been telling fall under this umbrella. I'm also not sure that using the DOJ in this manner is the answer. It's much better to use the DOJ to investigate and prosecute the insurrection itself, thus establishing a clear and official narrative and cultural memory about that event that can more easily counter such lies and marginalize their power.