F**k you, Elon

Illustration by Sam Poling

Scott Ritter

On March 29, 2023, I appeared as a guest on the Alex Jones Show, where I discussed the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and the need for a renewed push for arms control between the US and Russia. I posted the link to this interview to my Twitter account the same day, so that my nearly 115,000 followers could watch and take in what I had to say.

I was permanently banned from Twitter the same day. No mention was made of any specific tweet, just a notification that I had violated some unmentioned “Twitter Rule” and, as such, would never be permitted to post on Twitter again.

I appealed this arbitrary decision, to no avail – Twitter simply ignored me, and the ban remains in effect.

This is the third time Twitter has “permanently” banned me. The first was for daring to observe there was overwhelming evidence that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who perpetrated the slaughter of unarmed civilians in the northern Kiev suburb of Bucha on or around April 1, 2022.

The second was for re-tweeting that same message.

And now this ban.

The cause-effect relationship between my posting the link to the Alex Jones interview and my Twitter ban could be written off as a simple coincidence, if it weren’t for the fact that Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, has singled out Alex Jones as someone he does not want on Twitter because of his stance on the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting where 26 people were killed, including twenty children between the ages of six and seven. Alex Jones had called the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax, claiming it was “staged” by the government so they could “go after our guns” and “start a civil war.” Jones also accused the parents of the murdered children of being “crisis actors” who faked their sorrow to turn the public against defenders of the Second Amendment.

In October 2022 a Connecticut court ordered Alex Jones to pay the families of the Sandy Hook victims $965 million in damages for the pain and suffering caused by his words. This ruling was on top of an almost $50 million judgement against Jones in a similar case in Texas.

The Alex Jones-related court decisions present numerous challenges to the notion of free speech protections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, such as distinguishing the fine line between defamation and the right to express an opinion, regardless of how fact-challenged and odious it might be, and whether free speech can be limited in the so-called interest of the administration of justice. So far, the courts have sided against Mr. Jones and free speech, something that should disturb every American regardless of where one stands on the issue of Sandy Hook.

For the record, I vehemently disagree with Alex Jones on Sandy Hook. The victims of that horrible incident were real, as was the pain and suffering of their family members. By the way, Alex Jones now agrees, having apologized for his past statements and acknowledging that the murders in Sandy Hook were “100% real.”

Subsequent apologies aside, I do believe Mr. Jones has the unfettered right to express himself on this issue, and any issue, as he sees fit, and I find his prosecution/persecution for exercising his right to free speech far more disturbing than his stance on Sandy Hook. One can always go on the record as to why Alex Jones is wrong about Sandy Hook. By punishing Alex Jones for articulating his point of view, the courts have set a chilling precedent which opens the door for similar prosecutions of persons expressing points of view that diverge from the mainstream narrative. If you’re an American citizen and you don’t see that, you are blind.

But it is not just the courts that have put a damper on free speech when it comes to Alex Jones. The foremost advocate for so-called “free speech absolutism”—billionaire Elon Musk—has decided that there are, in fact, limits on what constitutes “absolutism,” and one of those limits is Alex Jones. When queried by author Sam Harris on whether Musk would be lifting the ban on Alex Jones imposed under Twitter’s previous ownership as part of his much-touted “amnesty” program that brought silenced persons such as Donald Trump, Kanye West, and yours truly in from Twitter banishment, Musk declared that the ban would remain in place.“My firstborn child died in my arms,” Musk tweeted. “I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.”

Getting past whether or not what Musk tweeted was itself factually correct (his ex-wife takes umbrage over his words, declaring that the child, who passed away from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), died in her arms), the hypocrisy of Elon Musk’s statement is mind-boggling.

Let’s start with the case of Petro Poroshenko (@poroshenko, a still-active, unbanned account). In November 14, 2014, then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko delivered a speech to the citizens of Odessa, in which he spoke about how Ukraine was going to win the war in the Donbas. In a rambling address, the Ukrainian leader spoke about the situation faced by the citizens of the Donbas, comparing their lot to that of normal Ukrainians. “Because we have jobs, and they have not. We have pensions, and they have not. We have support of children and pensioners, they have not. Our children would go to kindergartens and schools, theirs would be sitting in cellars.”

On April 14, 2014, Petro Poroshenko declared war on the people of the Donbas, establishing an “Anti-terrorist operation” (ATO) which unleashed the Ukrainian military against those Ukrainian citizens who objected to the illegal, US-backed coup that ousted the constitutionally elected government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Through June 30, 2021, 3,390 civilians were killed as a result—including more than 150 children.

There is a monument to these slain children in Donetsk, listing the names of the dead and the date they were killed because of Petro Poroshenko’s war against his own people.

Read each name, Elon. You chose to support baby killers. And you continue to provide them with unfettered access to your Twitter platform.

F**k you, Elon.

But it gets worse for the so-called poster child of internet free speech. Elon Musk can pontificate all he wants about the sanctity of the lives of children. But the fact is he has not just sided with baby killers—the company Musk owns actively facilitates the ongoing murder of children in the Donbas. Starlink is a system of satellite terminals provided to Ukraine by SpaceX, a company owned and operated by Elon Musk. While SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell has declared that Starlink technology was “never meant to be weaponized,” she openly acknowledges that SpaceX has found it acceptable practice by the Ukrainian government to use Starlink to support military communications. When SpaceX discovered that Starlink was being used by the Ukrainian military to direct drone strikes against Russia, the company claims it took unspecified measures to prevent this from happening.

Elon Musk himself has acknowledged the dilemma that exists in providing Ukraine with the Starlink technology. “SpaceX Starlink has become the connectivity backbone of Ukraine all the way up to the front lines,” Musk noted. “This is the damned if you do part. However,” he added, “we are not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes. This is the damned if you don’t part.”

But Musk remains silent about the role played by Starlink in facilitating attacks on civilian infrastructure in the Donbas by Ukraine using HIMARS artillery rocket systems. Vadym Skibitsky, Ukraine’s deputy head of military intelligence and principal spokesperson for the intelligence service, has openly acknowledged the role played by western satellites in obtaining intelligence on targets to be struck using HIMARS, and how these targets are transmitted “in real time” using Starlink.

In July 2022, the Ukrainian army used HIMARS rockets to attack the Donetsk village of Makiivka, striking a playground where young children were playing at the time. Two boys were killed on the spot, and an 8-year-old girl later died in intensive care.

Their deaths are on you, Elon. Alex Jones did not help pull the trigger of the Sandy Hook murderer’s weapon. Can you say the same thing about those who fire the HIMARS rockets at civilian targets in the Donbas?

No.

F**k you, Elon.

I was banned by Twitter, it seems, because I had the audacity to appear on the Alex Jones Show, and then post evidence of this on my Twitter account.

My appearance was focused solely on the issue of nuclear disarmament and the need for effective arms control between the US and Russia. I couldn’t think of a more compelling and important issue for someone who claims, as Elon Musk does, to be a defender of children.

[…]

Via https://substack.com/profile/96369147-scott-ritter