Rep. Adam Schiff’s presence in Washington has been anything from quiet, with demands for justice and hearings on the Capitol Hill events of January 6th. Paul Sperry, a well-known journalist, asserts that Congressman Schiff committed a constitutional error that compromised his oath and further muddied the political waters.
Adam Schiff is under under investigation for possible constitutional infractions. By tweeting that demands for a journalist’s censorship violated Article I of the Constitution, Paul Sperry raised awareness of the problem. Many people would doubt if such a violation of free speech should be allowed since this action would be perceived as an excessive limitation on that right.
TRENDING: NEW Trump Diamond Bills Will Drive Liberals Crazy!
After an apparent misuse of the powers listed in Article I of the Constitution, which lists Congress’s right to legislate and declare war, Rep. Adam Schiff’s activities have come under scrutiny. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Sperry highlighted that when it came to Schiff’s use of his authority to try to limit journalists’ freedom, the mainstream media had been mostly unresponsive. It was a worrying reminder of how free speech can be when things are unclear. “DEVELOPING: DC press corps, including WaPo & POLITICO, have failed to cover congressional leader Adam Schiff strong-arming Twitter to ban a journalist, abridging press freedom & free speech,despite the smoking-gun email released from #TwitterFiles. Protecting a prominent Democrat.”
Later that day, Sperry added: “This is the oath @AdamSchiff violated: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution [incl the First Amendment]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion“‘
Later, Sperry went into further detail about Rep. Schiff’s actions and how they affected him, saying:
NOV 2020: Schiff requests that Twitter block me and delete information about whistleblowers; Twitter assures me that they will “review” my account — “again” (?!)
2021 January: J6 Riot
Congressman Schiff asked Retraction Watch International (RCI) to take down a whistleblower investigative journalist’s pieces from the prior year in February 2021. RCI quickly denied his request, however, citing J6 “violence,” and Twitter quickly followed suit by banning the writer.
Sperry attacked Representative Schiff for helping to have him banned from Twitter in a New York Post piece. His stinging statements revealed the congressman’s dubious behavior and called attention to the possible repercussions.
I was thrilled to find a fascinating email had been received while I was gone after a much-needed vacation. Who sent it? The famous independent journalist Matt Taibbi, who was chosen by Elon Musk personally to study internal Twitter papers addressing censorship and user bans on their site!
“Paul,” Taibbi wrote, “just found a crazy email on Twitter — did you know Adam Schiff’s staff . . . asked Twitter to have you banned?”
Representative Adam Schiff’s call to have me removed from Twitter was answered in February 2021, three months after his initial “request” via a memo sent to the social media platform by his staff.
Sperry concluded his persuasive case that Schiff’s conduct constituted unlawful state censorship with the following declaration:
I had developed a significant following on Twitter in less than 4 years, with more than 20K tweets and 340K followers, but my hard-earned success was undermined by an unjustified vengeance against me.
There has been a clear obstruction to journalists’ ability to conduct their jobs over the previous two years. Twitter is sometimes referred to as “social media,” yet in many respects it is just “the media.” The platform provides a multitude of tools for reporters and journalists, ranging from corporate press releases and vital data archives to breaking news items, all of which are crucial for producing meaningful content.
It may be claimed that this is an unacceptable instance of state censorship when a strong government official effectively prevents the public from reading one person’s articles and columns in America’s top digital publication.
