Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

25 thoughts on “Twitter suspends Indiana Rep. Jim Banks’ official account

    1. Someone forgot to tell them that Orwell’s 1984 was not intended to be an instruction manual.

    2. Sorry Dominic, you’re the ones that live by the rules of 1984. The election was stolen, our kids are being taught CRT, vaccines are a hoax, etc.

  1. “If they silence me, they silence you.” Uh, nope. Wrong again Rep.

    I’ve not been silenced. Maybe that’s because I’m following the rules set by the company that owns the site. Don’t like the rules, go to a different social media platform or create your own. It really is pretty simple to understand.

    1. Brent B, I don’t think so. The only reason Trump is creating his own platform is to fleece the investors of the SPARC that got duped into buying into what is surely going to be another Trump failure. Proudly using other peoples money to be rich since the 90’s.

    2. So the same guy who runs around and tells refugees that if they think they have PTSD, they’re disrespecting veterans … then turns around and acts like this towards active duty military officials to score political points.

      Just remember that they next time you hear a Republican going on about a sports player disrespecting veterans because they took a knee for the National Anthem… as opposed to staying in the locker room or sitting on the bench.

      https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/1/10/21059025/ilhan-omar-ptsd-jim-banks-refugee-somalia

    3. What is your perspective of American freedom? Does it not bother you that a social media platform shuts down official government accounts of “elected representatives?” As an Freedom Loving American, don’t you find this sad and disheartening? Do you love freedom? I hope you do……This very same freedom allows you to write your perspective on this platform and have others rebut or comment on it. The echo chamber of Washington hurts the left and the right, and discussion should be heard. Can we still Agree to Disagree, or is Canceling just what we do now-a-days?

      This resembles the destruction of political speech that all American’s should read about……Just because you do not like the political right, do you truly believe that it should be silenced? Even, if in your mind they are wrong? Do you think the political left should ever be silenced? I would say, “They should not.” Elected officials should be heard even if someone thinks they are wrong, incorrect, or misleading. I can turn on CNN and hear that, “inflation is not happening” and “the border is closed.” Both statements, not true, both statements should be heard.

    4. No, it doesn’t bother me at all. Twitter has rules when you sign up. If you don’t like them, don’t go there. Entire exercise is a stunt to build his political profile (look, Banks earned his “censored by Big Tech” merit badge!) anyway. Todd Rokita has been trying and failing to do the same thing for months now.

      Banks is a congressman. He can mail his constituents whenever he wants and we have to pay for it. Heck, I get messages from WinRed every day … they have the means.

      What you’re asking for is a return of the Fairness Doctrine, which would be quite interesting spread across the entire media landscape … since conservatives benefitted the most from their newfound ability to rile up people since it was lifted.

      I suppose we should also just “agree to disagree” that there was election fraud in 2020, and that since some people believe the Big Lie, it’s OK to trash American Democracy too?

      I agree that Facebook is a problem but it’s not a symmetrical issue. Facebook has multiple right-wing folks in their leadership who know exactly what they are doing – they’re riling up people for profit.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/

  2. SO…now we have authorized Silicon Valley oligarchs to censor the political speech of duly elected officials to fit their own leftist ideology? Of course they only censor those who they disagree with. Meanwhile they allow warlords, anti-semites and various other reprobates to tweet away unimpinged.

    If you don’t like what he has to say, get busy before the next election and put up your candidate. Spare me the “private business” schtick; the political power of the silicon oligarchs has gone way beyond that of say the local television or radio station or newspaper. In fact, no broadcaster is legally allowed to censor political speech. Why should Twitter or Facebook be the final arbiter of political discourse?

    1. The First Amendment protects our freedom of speech against government censorship. It does not prohibit private businesses from such restrictions. If you owned a restaurant, you have the right to kick out and ban anyone (politicians included) spouting hate speech. If you did not have the right, imagine what would become of your restaurant.

    2. By the way, Dominic, Fox News Channel has the sole right to decide what “news” it broadcasts, and what it does not. The US government cannot dictate what must be communicated. You are mistaken that no broadcaster is legally allowed to censor speech.

    3. Wow…oligarchs…wouldn’t even have that word in our lexicon if DJT hadn’t been in bed with them in Russia. Oh oh yeah…it wasn’t oligarchy he joined in bed.. oh yeah…that didn’t happen…oh, yeah…Jan 6 were just a few tourists gone bad. Oh yeah, everything EVERYTHING is Nancy Pelosi’s fault. Oh yeah, 1619 didn’t really happen and visitors from Africa simply wanted those non paying jobs with white…uh oligarchs?… and and and.
      Jim Banks is a fraud…an empty suit like his buddy the former VP. and a grandstanding political hack like his hero the former President.

  3. He broke the rule and was cut off for doing so. So be it.

    There was no need for the discourteous, rude, nasty statement from Banks. In fact, Banks could have easily said nothing.

    Why the focused nastiness, one could ask Banks. Banks’ behaviour is shameful and sophomoric, unbecoming and disgraceful for any politician and certainly inappropriate and untoward for a gentleman. He should apologize to Ms Levine. At least she has foresight and intelligence to act like an adult, a rational individual, and a professional who has risen to excel in her work for and within government. What has Banks achieved that is particularly noteworthy.

    Banks’ freedom of speech however reflects the lowest common denominator in civil discourse. Social Media usage is not a right, but an opportunity for which rule apply. Furthermore, one just cannot say whatever one wants without potential repercussions; defamation is real.

    When political speech is speech to foment hate, speech to insult, speech to deprive follow citizens the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness — then the political system is broken.

    Voicing constructive criticism and alternative viewpoints must remain a hallmark of this nation’s open discussion of politics. Directed, target personal insults deserve no place in this discussion.

    Banks’ disparaging remarks had nothing to do with politics.

  4. I don’t think what he said was worth a suspension compared to a lot of other stuff. This censorship of only the right is why I deleted my Twitter account some time ago. It’s a one way street with all the major tech companies and it’s just flat out wrong! Talk about election influencing. Now that the left is openly censoring and subverting one side to help their preferred side how will we ever have a fair one again? Honestly the only thing that will help Republicans next time is that things are so bad that tech and the media can’t change the outcome. So far that’s a good probability with the left trying to go far left as they can. I so wish the centrists could take things back over because I like centrists in both parties, but those people are drowned out I guess because their boring.

    1. A right wing group in Arizona counted the ballots and all they found is more votes for Biden. Yet you must accept the Big Lie that there was election fraud in 2020 to be a member of the Republican caucus in good standing in 2021.

      But please, go on about how Big Tech is the problem with America for not allowing lies to be repeated to the point where crowds storm the Capitol again.

    2. Joe B who’s talking about The Big Lie or election fraud. I’m not saying the vote counting wasn’t fair, but you must admit that big tech and the bulk of tv and print media (the big ones outside of Fox) are clearly out to help one side. That’s not a good situation because too many people just hear one side. I know because I listen to them parrot everyday what was said on CNN. I just wish all of it wasn’t opinion anymore and more of them would present both sides. Silencing Republicans and suppressing right leaning material is bad for our country is all I’m saying. It just is. Not everyone is a critical thinker and does research like you. Most people just accept what is fed to them on the nightly news or in the print media and it’s decidedly one sided.

    3. So one side tells the truth, one side lies, and they’re supposed to get equal time? That’s as ridiculous as the school district in Texas where they’re supposed to teach “both sides” of the Holocaust.

      Republicans deserve to get equal time when they stop lying about everything, be it election fraud or the need to make it easier for them to fix elections or “repeal and replace” or “infrastructure week”. They are no longer a serious political party, they’re just autocratically-curious.

      Everything Donald Trump touches dies, let’s just hope that he only kills the Republican Party and not America.

  5. And by the way, every comment I’d missing one debate. It’s either ok to say something you disagree with or it’s not. Evidently it’s not even ok to say I don’t recognize men that want to say their the first woman whatever. He should have the right to say that and not be censored for it. It’s not hate and he’s not calling for something to be done about it or advocating violence. He’s simply saying I don’t recognize her as a woman. He shouldn’t have to. Under the law, yes, but not under his values.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}