top of page

Are You on the List?


Imagine this: if you've ever engaged with a tweet from former President Donald Trump on Twitter, you're now on a list. Jack Smith, the special counsel for the United States Department of Justice, issued a directive to the Department of Justice, to orchestrate a compilation of a roster containing the names of every American who dared to like or retweet President Trump's posts. This move, ostensibly motivated by concerns or directives, raises an emotional quandary—dancing on the edges of the First Amendment. The very act of expressing support or interest in political content now puts individuals on a watchlist, stirring emotions about the delicate balance between free expression and government scrutiny in our democracy.


In a heavily redacted document, it has come to light that the government issued a warrant for the comprehensive acquisition of all of Trump's communications on Twitter. Astonishingly, 𝕏 was slapped with a $350,000 lawsuit to hasten the process of obtaining the requested information. Recently unearthed by ALX on 𝕏 were four pages that had been previously classified. The contents of these documents, once concealed, should instill a sense of unease in everyone.


What's particularly alarming is that the government demanded information on anyone who posted on Trump's account, shared a Tweet, or commented on his posts. The scope of this demand extends to uncovering the identities of individuals expressing their views on the platform. This development raises profound concerns about privacy and the right to express opinions freely without fear of government scrutiny.





The revelation of redacted pages not only prompts questions about the boundaries of free speech, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment but also brings the privacy clause into sharp focus. The nature of the government's requests, if fully comprehended by the public, could indeed cast a chilling effect on free speech.


The 1st Amendment's protection of free speech is foundational to free societies, ensuring that individuals can express their thoughts and opinions without fear of censorship or repercussion. However, when government actions venture into scrutinizing the details of people's expressions—such as those on social media—it not only tests the limits of free speech but also raises privacy concerns.


The chilling effect on free speech arises when individuals become hesitant to express their views due to the fear of government scrutiny or potential consequences. If people fully grasped the extent of the government's requests, including the demand for information on those who engage with certain online content, it might lead to self-censorship and a reluctance to participate in open discourse.


This underscores the delicate balance between security concerns and the protection of civil liberties. Transparency about the government's actions and a robust public discourse on the implications of such requests are vital to maintaining the principles of free speech and privacy that underpin a democratic society.


While we at WECU believe that the 1st Amendment is not up for debate, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, in this case, it is not Congress but the Department of Justice that is prohibiting the exercise of free speech. All Americans should be wary of these actions taken by the Department of Justice in an effort to "Get Trump".


Please give us your thoughts on this matter. If you like our articles, please hit the heart and share them with your friends and family. Also, if you are able to contribute even $1 to our cash app $WecuNews, it will go a long way to helping keep our website running. Again Thank you for reading.



177 views1 comment

1 Comment


frochaiii
frochaiii
Dec 01, 2023

I'm there.

Like
bottom of page