Charles C. Johnson Is The Ugly Side Of Freedom

Assholes CAN blow smoke!

Assholes CAN blow smoke!


Charles Johnson, one of the Internet’s most infamous trolls, has finally been banned from Twitter

Chuck Johnson, the far-right mega-troll who doxed two New York Times reporters and argued that homosexuality caused the Amtrak derailment, may at last be off Twitter — this time, for good.

On Sunday, Johnson was permanently suspended from the site after asking for funds to “take out” the civil rights activist DeRay McKesson, who’s been active in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo. Twitter has also suspended a series of Johnson’s new accounts, including @citizentrolling and @freechucknow, prompting Johnson and his lawyers to threaten legal action and accuse the site of “censorship.”

“Twitter doesn’t seem to have a problem with people using their service to coordinate riots,” Johnson complained on his blog,, which has since been downed by an apparent DDoS attack. “But they do have a problem with the kind of journalism I do.”

In other words, Johnson’s saying, Twitter is differentiating between types of acceptable speech; they’re redrawing the boundaries of things you can say in public and things you can’t say in public, in a way that Johnson and others — including Twitter! — aren’t necessarily used to.

See, there’s a popular misconception that moderation on social networks and other Web sites is governed by the First Amendment. (For more on this mistaken point of view, plz see the comments section of virtually any Washington Post story.) That is not, however, technically correct. The First Amendment defines the relationship between you, as a citizen, and the government. It does not define your relationship between, say, you and a private corporation, or you and the university you attend, or you and your neighborhood association.

That means this notion we have about radical free speech — this distinctly American framework, that anyone can say anything, more or less, short of screaming “fire” in a theater or making a “true threat” — does not have to apply to online spaces. Instead, companies like Twitter can make new standards, new frameworks, according to their corporate values and the needs of their users. (Twitter, a longtime holdout here, has recently escalated its attempts to make sure that “differences of opinion do not cross the line into harassment.”)

This does not, alas, mean we’ve seen the last of Chuck Johnson, uber-troll extraordinaire. Banned by Twitter, he can simply take up residence elsewhere — say Facebook, where he purportedly maintains a personal account, or Reddit, where he’s promised an upcoming AMA.

But even Reddit, the mainstream Internet’s long-time champion of absolute free speech, modified its rules to clearly ban harassment on May 14. There’s a growing understanding, it seems, that the standards we use for speech off the Internet are not quite the same as the ones that work on it.

Chuckles Johnson is a shitstain on the underwear of humanity, but he should be shunned by civilized people, not banned from social media. Yes, Twitter has the legal right to ban him. They don’t even need a reason. They can ban anyone, as long as they don’t do it for a prohibited reason, like race, religion, or gender.

But having the right to do something doesn’t it make it the right thing to do. The principle of freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment, but it is somewhat larger in scope. The Constitution didn’t create our rights, it enumerated some of them.

Twitter and Facebook may be private property, but they are also the modern day public square. Freedom of speech becomes meaningless if a few non-governmental entities can effective control who can speak and what can be said.

Liberals want to control the internet so they can regulate “bad” speech. That idea is nothing new.

“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” – Justice Louis D. Brandeis in Whitney v. California, (1927).

Freedom isn’t free, and Charles C. Johnson is the ugly side of freedom. But his vile antics don’t endanger our freedom the way censorship does.

About Deplorable Myiq2xu™

I'm a basket case.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Charles C. Johnson Is The Ugly Side Of Freedom

  1. Myiq2xu says:

    In California shopping centers have to allow free speech:

  2. Myiq2xu says:
  3. Myiq2xu says:

  4. NewOrleans says:

    At the risk of getting put back in moderation, I’m bringing this up from the last thread since it’s the actual subject of the post.


    I’m sure Twitter founder Jack Dorsey cozying up with professional riot instigators had nothing whatsoever to do with Johnson’s ban.

    • NewOrleans says:

      What triggered moderation, Klown? Not a curse word in sight and I still get in trouble!

      • Somebody says:

        WordPress has a mind of its own sometimes, but not to worry everyone has been pitching in and making Klown’s dungeon really nice. I hope you enjoyed the brownies, banana bread and coffee while you were down there.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Don’t take it personally N.O., NSA has friends at wordpress😀 Seriously, it happens to all of us.

  5. Dora says:

    Not an important story, but some of us may be interested in whether or not Obama takes up the offer. 🙂

    Kenyan lawyer offers livestock to wed Obama’s daughter: report

  6. Myiq2xu says:
  7. HELENK3 says:

    IRS: Thieves use an online service provided by the agency to gain access to information from more than 100,000 taxpayers – @AP

  8. 1539days says:

    Chuckie is already banned from search engines. type his site’s name including the .com into Bing or Google and you get nothing.

  9. HELENK3 says:

    earlier today on facebook I saw a video of Tom Selleck schooling rosie o’donnell on free speech. I can not find it now. He nailed it

  10. HELENK3 says:

    there are no words , free or not for this

  11. Constance says:

    Progressives are only for freedom of speech that involves pornography. If actual speech is involved they are against free speech. Ideas and talking must be regulated by those who know best what’s right, progs.

  12. DeniseVB says:

    Freedom isn’t free, and Charles C. Johnson is the ugly side of freedom. But his vile antics don’t endanger our freedom the way censorship does.

    Not a fan, but I chose not to follow him or read his blog after he seemed to be making up sh*t for that *clickbait* effect to attract ad revenue. As they say, first they came for CCJ, then they’ll come for the rest of us (on Twitter anyhow). Have a feeling that which doth not kill him will make him stronger. This was reported in WaPo fer crissakes, they have fed the Mega Troll !

  13. HELENK3 says:

    there is really something wrong with this

  14. HELENK3 says:

    this is a bad example of how free speech can be used legally to hurt this country

  15. HELENK3 says:

    7 sons in WW2.

    stories like this no longer taught to the next generation

  16. DeniseVB says:

    Sigh, another Sidebar: Has Dandy Tiger joined ISIS ? (j/k NSA, chill). Wondering if I should following this tweep back😉

  17. Myiq2xu says:
  18. 49erDweet says:

    Neither could Kerry if we actually had adults running our government.

  19. Myiq2xu says:


  20. Myiq2xu says:
  21. threewickets says:

    He always seemed like a role player to me. Or more accurately a troll player.

  22. DeniseVB says:

    This was fun, not sure what I’m (was) doing, but I think I’m more qualified for President than Hilly ;P Sorry for the blog pimp…bwahhahah..not ….

  23. Myiq2xu says:
    • Myiq2xu says:

      A semi-threatening letter from an attorney will intimidate some people. But it won’t faze the kind of high-priced lawyers Twitter either has on staff or on retainer.

      • Myiq2xu says:

        Right now Chuckles Johnson reminds me of the expression used for late-stage terminally-ill patients: “Circling the drain.”

    • 1539days says:

      That whole lost income argument is dumb, but Twitter actually claims TOS violations when it is not the case. Like any average grocery store, they are actually exercising the right to refuse service for any reason. No one really supports Johnson anymore, since his site is dedicated to doxxing and outing people who annoy him.

  24. Myiq2xu says:

    Waitress Opens Big Can Of Whoopass:

  25. Myiq2xu says:
  26. Dora says:

    This is in regard to NY license plates. I think the decision is ridiculous. Who could possibly be offended by the words “Choose Life”? Only those who choose death, I suppose.

    Federal Court Rules Pro-Life Views Are ‘Patently Offensive’

Comments are closed.