Why is Antifa Allowed On Twitter When Proud Boys Aren't? | JRE Twitter Special

I'm going to jump right off to a different train card here. Has law enforcement ever asked you to keep certain people on the platform even after they violated your rules? Uh, not that I'm aware. So then this, you know, to the next question pertaining to bias, you have the issue of Antifa versus the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. And Twitter permanently excised anyone associated with the Proud Boys, Antifa accounts who have broken the rules repeatedly, branded known cells that have been involved in violence, all still active. Is there a reason? Well, with the Proud Boys, what we were able to do was actually look at documentation and announcements that, you know, the leaders of that organization had made and their use of violence in the real world. So that was what we were focused on and subsequent to our decision, I believe the FBI also designated them as a... That's not true. That's not true? That's not true. No. No, that's not true. Yeah, you know, the Proud Boys started out as a joke. Gavin McGinnis, Anthony Kumea, who was part of Opie and Anthony, now it's his own show, told me about it. It happened on his show because there was a guy that was on the show and they made a joke about starting a gang based on him because he was a very effeminate guy and they would call him the Proud Boys. And they went into detail about how this thing became from a joke and saying that you could join the Proud Boys and everyone was, you know, it was like being silly to people joining it. And then it becoming this thing to fight Antifa and then becoming infested with white nationalists and becoming this thing. Well, in many ways it was, but it's been documented how it started and what it was and misrepresented as to why it was started. I think there's some things that should be clarified about them, but Gavin has made a bunch of statements that crossed the line. Yes. He claims to be joking. And so that's... Well, he did on my podcast. He was talking to me about Antifa, that when Antifa was blocking people like Ben Shapiro's speeches and things along those lines and stopping conservatives from speaking, you should just punch them in the face. We're going to have to start kicking people's asses. And I was like, this is not just irresponsible, but foolish and short-sighted and just a dumb way to talk. So then you have the Antifa groups that are engaging in the same thing. We've, you know, the famous bike lock basher incident where a guy showed up, hit seven... He hit seven people over there with a bike lock. They subsequently released his name. I'm going to leave that out for the time being. You have other groups like By Any Means Necessary. You have in Portland, for instance, there are specific branded factions. There's the tweet I mentioned earlier where they doxed ICE agents and they said, do whatever inspires you with this information. And I mean, you're tagged in a million times. I know you probably can't see it, but you can actually see that some of the tweets and the threat are removed. But the main tweet itself from an anti-fascist account linking to a website straight up saying, like, here's the private home details, phone number, addresses of these law enforcement officers is not removed since September. So what you end up seeing is, again, to point out, I think one of the big problems in this country is the media, because it was reported that the FBI designated Proud Boys an extremist group, but it was a misinterpretation based. A sheriff wrote a draft saying with, you know, the FBI considers them to be extremists. The media then reported hearsay from the sheriff and the FBI came out and said, no, no, no, we never meant to do that. That's not true. We are just concerned about violence. So the Proud Boys all get purged. And again, I think, you know, Gavin's a different story, right? If you want to go after the individuals who are associating with that group versus the guy who goes on the show and says outrageous things and goes on Joe's show. But then you have Antifa branded cells. Like what I mean by that is they have specific names. They sell merchandise and they're the ones showing up throwing mortar shells into crowds. They're the ones showing up with crowbars and bats and whacking people. I was in Boston and there was a rally where conservatives were planning on putting on a rally. It was literally just like libertarians and conservatives. Antifa shows up with crowbars, bats in balaclava with weapons threatening them. And so I have to wonder if, you know, these people are allowed to organize in your platform. Are you concerned about that? Why aren't they being banned when they violate the rules? Yeah, absolutely. We're concerned about that. Has the FBI designated them as a domestic terrorist? Yes. I'm sorry. Homeland Security in New Jersey has listed them under domestic terrorism. Okay. I understand there's a conundrum in that the general concept of anti-fascism is a loose term that means you oppose fascism. But Antifa is now, they have a flag. They've had a flag since the Soviet, you know, Nazi Germany and the Soviet era and they've brought it back. There are specific groups that I'm not going to mention by name that have specific names and they sell merchandise. They've appeared in various news outlets. They've expressed their desire to use violence to suppress speech. There was a... Is it a centralized organization the same way that I hear you on ProBoys, but like where they have like tenants that are written out and there's a leader and like... It's not the same, but there are specific branded cells. That's why I bring them up specifically. I realize, you know, someone showing up to a rally wearing a black hoodie and sunglasses, who are you going to ban? But there are groups that organize, specifically Call for Violence. They push the line as lightly as possible. They advocate sabotage and things like this. And you know, when the Proud Boys go out and get into fights, they're not getting into fights with themselves. They're, you know, so... And I should point out that they decided to call for violence based on Antifa calling for violence. Yeah. Based on Antifa actually actively committing violence against conservative people that were there to see different people speak. Well, it partly started because in Berkeley, there was a Trump rally. So actually after Milo got chased out of the Berkeley, there was $100,000 in damages. I mean, there's a video of some guy in all black cracking someone on the back, was on the ground looking like they're unconscious. So these conservatives see this and they decide to hold a rally saying we won't back down. They hold a rally in Berkeley and then Antifa shows up again. I understand you can't figure out who these people are for the most part. They're decentralized. But then this incites an escalation. You then get the rise of the based stick man. They called it. This guy shows up in armor with a stick and he starts swinging back. And now you have two factions forming. So while I recognize it's much easier to ban a top-down group, there are, you know, the difference I guess is while you look at the Proud Boys, it's straight top-down vertical. You look at Antifa and there's different cells of varying size and they're different accounts. So I'd have to, like, I guess the argument I could make is if you're going to ban the Proud Boys by all means under your justification, but if you look at a specific channel that's got 20,000 followers that cheers them on, right, these are people who throw mortar shells into crowds, isn't that advocating for, you know, terrorism and incitement to violence? Yeah, absolutely. So I guess the question is how come they don't get removed? Well in the past when we've looked at Antifa, we ran into this decentralization issue, which is we weren't able to find the same type of information that we were able to find about Proud Boys, which was a centralized leadership-based documentation of what they stand for. But absolutely, I mean, it's something that we'll continue to look into and to the extent that they're using Twitter to organize any sort of offline violence that's completely prohibited under our rules and we would absolutely take action. Would I ask you why Gavin was banned? Was there a specific thing that he did or was it his association with the Proud Boys? His association with the Proud Boys. You know, he's abandoned that. He's not only that, he's disassociated himself with it and said that it completely got out of hand and he doesn't want to have anything to do with it. Yeah, and I think this is a great, again, test case for how we think about getting people back on the platform in the long term. He's an interesting case because he's a really provocateur and he fancies himself, you know, sort of a punk rocker and he just, he likes stirring shit. I mean, when he came on my show last time he was on, he was dressed up like Michael Douglas and falling down. You know, he did it on purpose. He brought a briefcase and everything. I'm like, what are you doing? He's like, Michael Douglas and falling down. Like, he's a showman in many ways and he did not mean for this to go the way it went. He thought it would be this sort of innocent, fun thing to be a part of and then other people got involved in it. And then when people call for violence, the problem is they think that, you know, you're going to just hit people and that's going to solve a problem. It just creates a much more, much more comprehensive problem. It's important to point out Gavin said, has said, like he said things way worse than Alex Jones ever did. Sure. Whether you want to say it's a joke or not, he said things like, you know, choke them, punch them directly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh-huh. Yep, he did. But I guess was the primary reason for getting rid of them was what you thought that the FBI had designated them an extremist group? No, because we did it months and months in advance. Oh, okay. Yeah, I was just. So it was just his association with the Proud Boys. I don't recall and I would have to go back and I don't want to misstate things. I don't recall whether those statements that you're referring to of Gavin's were on Twitter. So they weren't. There's another, you know, when it comes to the weaponization of rules against like Gavin isn't creating a compilation of things he's ever said out of context and then sending them around to get himself banned. Other people are doing that to him. Activists who don't like him. And it's effective. In fact, I would actually like to point out there is one particular user who has repeatedly made fake videos attacking one of your other high profile conservatives. So much so that he said to file police reports, harassment complaints, and it just doesn't stop. You know, so I guess I'll ask this to this regard. If someone repeatedly makes videos of you out of context, fake audio, accusing you of doing things you've never done, at what point is that banable? Yeah, and if it's targeted harassment and we can establish it, it's just a really hard thing with us determining whether something is fake or not. It's also when things are out of context, you still have video of the person saying that. I agree that it's out of context and it's disingenuous, but it's still the person saying it and you're making a compilation of some pre-existing audio or video. So I think in this instance of Gavin, like one of the things he said was like a call to violence, but he was talking about, like it was in the context of talking about a dog and being scolded. Yeah. So he was like, hit him, just hit him. And then it's like, it turns out he was talking about a dog, like doing something wrong. And they take that and they snip it and then it goes viral and then everyone starts flagging, saying, you got to ban this guy. So again, I understand, like, you know.