SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) listens during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on February 27, 2019. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Blasting Laura Ingraham as 'Neo-Nazi Fan Favorite,' Ocasio-Cortez Says Twitter Users Entitled to Vile Opinions But Not Abuse
"People are free to speak whatever classist, racist, false, misogynistic, bigoted comments they'd like. They do not have the right to force others to endure their harassment and abuse."
Aug 30, 2019
In response to criticism of her decision to block a small number of Twitter users, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday drew a clear distinction between those who engage in persistent "harrassment and abuse" and those who simply hold and express repugnant views--using Fox News host Laura Ingraham as an illustrative example of the latter.
"See? You're a neo-Nazi fan favorite and I don't block you for defending white supremacist viewpoints and mocking gun violence survivors," the New York Democrat tweeted at Ingraham.
Ocasio-Cortez's swipe at Ingraham came after the right-wing host attempted to correct the grammar of one of the congresswoman's earlier tweets, in which she defended her decision to block a select few Twitter users.
"I have 5.2 million followers. Less than 20 accounts are blocked for ongoing harassment. 0 are my constituents," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in response to Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which sent a letter urging the New York Democrat to "not to block Twitter users on the basis of viewpoint."
Ocasio-Cortez maintained she is not blocking Twitter users who disagree with her views, but those who are abusive.
"Harassment is not a viewpoint," said Ocasio-Cortez. "Some accounts, like [right-wing website] the Daily Caller, posted fake nude photos of me and abused my comments to spread it. No one is entitled to abuse."
The back-and-forth between Ocasio-Cortez and Ingraham comes after a federal appeals court ruled last month that public officials--including President Donald Trump--cannot block Twitter users "because they expressed views with which the official disagrees," a move that would violate the First Amendment.
But Ocasio-Cortez argued her decision to block a small number of Twitter accounts does not run afoul of First Amendment rights.
"People are free to speak whatever classist, racist, false, misogynistic, bigoted comments they'd like," the congresswoman wrote. "They do not have the right to force others to endure their harassment and abuse."
In its letter to Ocasio-Cortez, the Knight First Amendment Institute agreed with the congresswoman about the distinction between protected free speech and unprotected forms of harassment.
"We recognize that you may wish to block users for reasons that are both reasonable and constitutionally legitimate--for example, because their speech is threatening," the letter states. "We also recognize that abuse and harassment are significant problems on social media, especially for women and minorities, and that this abuse and harassment can deter speech and political participation that are crucial to our democracy."
In conclusion, Knight said it would be happy to work with the lawmaker on a social media policy that complies with the First Amendment while also helping to combat "threats, abuse, and harassment" that have become so prominent online.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In response to criticism of her decision to block a small number of Twitter users, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday drew a clear distinction between those who engage in persistent "harrassment and abuse" and those who simply hold and express repugnant views--using Fox News host Laura Ingraham as an illustrative example of the latter.
"See? You're a neo-Nazi fan favorite and I don't block you for defending white supremacist viewpoints and mocking gun violence survivors," the New York Democrat tweeted at Ingraham.
Ocasio-Cortez's swipe at Ingraham came after the right-wing host attempted to correct the grammar of one of the congresswoman's earlier tweets, in which she defended her decision to block a select few Twitter users.
"I have 5.2 million followers. Less than 20 accounts are blocked for ongoing harassment. 0 are my constituents," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in response to Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which sent a letter urging the New York Democrat to "not to block Twitter users on the basis of viewpoint."
Ocasio-Cortez maintained she is not blocking Twitter users who disagree with her views, but those who are abusive.
"Harassment is not a viewpoint," said Ocasio-Cortez. "Some accounts, like [right-wing website] the Daily Caller, posted fake nude photos of me and abused my comments to spread it. No one is entitled to abuse."
The back-and-forth between Ocasio-Cortez and Ingraham comes after a federal appeals court ruled last month that public officials--including President Donald Trump--cannot block Twitter users "because they expressed views with which the official disagrees," a move that would violate the First Amendment.
But Ocasio-Cortez argued her decision to block a small number of Twitter accounts does not run afoul of First Amendment rights.
"People are free to speak whatever classist, racist, false, misogynistic, bigoted comments they'd like," the congresswoman wrote. "They do not have the right to force others to endure their harassment and abuse."
In its letter to Ocasio-Cortez, the Knight First Amendment Institute agreed with the congresswoman about the distinction between protected free speech and unprotected forms of harassment.
"We recognize that you may wish to block users for reasons that are both reasonable and constitutionally legitimate--for example, because their speech is threatening," the letter states. "We also recognize that abuse and harassment are significant problems on social media, especially for women and minorities, and that this abuse and harassment can deter speech and political participation that are crucial to our democracy."
In conclusion, Knight said it would be happy to work with the lawmaker on a social media policy that complies with the First Amendment while also helping to combat "threats, abuse, and harassment" that have become so prominent online.
In response to criticism of her decision to block a small number of Twitter users, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday drew a clear distinction between those who engage in persistent "harrassment and abuse" and those who simply hold and express repugnant views--using Fox News host Laura Ingraham as an illustrative example of the latter.
"See? You're a neo-Nazi fan favorite and I don't block you for defending white supremacist viewpoints and mocking gun violence survivors," the New York Democrat tweeted at Ingraham.
Ocasio-Cortez's swipe at Ingraham came after the right-wing host attempted to correct the grammar of one of the congresswoman's earlier tweets, in which she defended her decision to block a select few Twitter users.
"I have 5.2 million followers. Less than 20 accounts are blocked for ongoing harassment. 0 are my constituents," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in response to Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which sent a letter urging the New York Democrat to "not to block Twitter users on the basis of viewpoint."
Ocasio-Cortez maintained she is not blocking Twitter users who disagree with her views, but those who are abusive.
"Harassment is not a viewpoint," said Ocasio-Cortez. "Some accounts, like [right-wing website] the Daily Caller, posted fake nude photos of me and abused my comments to spread it. No one is entitled to abuse."
The back-and-forth between Ocasio-Cortez and Ingraham comes after a federal appeals court ruled last month that public officials--including President Donald Trump--cannot block Twitter users "because they expressed views with which the official disagrees," a move that would violate the First Amendment.
But Ocasio-Cortez argued her decision to block a small number of Twitter accounts does not run afoul of First Amendment rights.
"People are free to speak whatever classist, racist, false, misogynistic, bigoted comments they'd like," the congresswoman wrote. "They do not have the right to force others to endure their harassment and abuse."
In its letter to Ocasio-Cortez, the Knight First Amendment Institute agreed with the congresswoman about the distinction between protected free speech and unprotected forms of harassment.
"We recognize that you may wish to block users for reasons that are both reasonable and constitutionally legitimate--for example, because their speech is threatening," the letter states. "We also recognize that abuse and harassment are significant problems on social media, especially for women and minorities, and that this abuse and harassment can deter speech and political participation that are crucial to our democracy."
In conclusion, Knight said it would be happy to work with the lawmaker on a social media policy that complies with the First Amendment while also helping to combat "threats, abuse, and harassment" that have become so prominent online.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy