My Face, Unshocked

I’ve let the Google story broken by Project Veritas percolated through the Interwebz for a day before commenting. I wanted to see how some of the usual suspects reacted. There’s only been one real surprise so far, and that was how long it took YouTube, a sister company to Google, to send the Project Veritas video down the memory hole. (BTW, if you haven’t seen the video, it’s available here. Go watch it, and come back. I’ll wait …)

Today’s TKPOTD deals with an effort back in 2015 to silence me. As part of that effort, my business and personal Twitter accounts were shut down. Twitter claimed that it was because of “targeted abuse” but could not cite a single example. I believe I was being punished for not following their approved narrative. However, I was one of the earliest victims of Twitter’s “safety” system, and my permanent suspension was only temporary. When the false criminal charge failed for lack of evidence, Twitter seemed to realize their potential liability. My business account was reinstated, but the lessons learned from that failure were used to refine their tactics.

Facebook, Google, YouTube, Pinterest, … the list goes on. They all seem to have the same sort of definition of fairness, one that wouldn’t survive the old Fairness Doctrine I worked under as a broadcaster in the ’60s and ’70s. These companies’ users aren’t customers. The users are the product being sold to advertisers, and as product, they are something to be moulded and controlled.

So why am I still on Twitter if I view it as an unfair platform and untrustworthy business partner? I can use it to promote blog posts at no real cost to me. Beyond that, it has no real appeal. I got on Gab when it was brand new, and I’ve made a small investment in the company because it really seems dedicated to free speech.

Except for Maps and Scholar, I’ll pretty much given up on Google. DuckDuckGo has been my default search engine for over a year. I’ll still link to YouTube content, put if I wanted to post a video, I’d use BitChute. I’ve deleted my Pinterest account. I no longer post to Facebook.

And I’m not the only person who has grown tired of online services who despise me.

Twenty years ago, as the Internet Bubble was bursting, Google survived because it was a robust company infrastructure with a viable business model. Coincidentally twenty years ago, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in the Western Hemisphere with thriving petroleum industry. While I’m saddened, I’m not shocked by what Marxism has done to Venezuela. If I’m still around in 2039, I suspect that I’ll feel more schadenfreude than sadness for what a post-modern, neo-Marxist business model is likely to do for Google. Or Twitter. Or the rest of ’em. I certainly don’t expect to have use my shocked face.

The Consequences of Commenting

I occasionally honor requests to remove comments from Hogewash!. For example, a frequent commenter who wished to remain anonymous mistakenly used his actual identity when making a comment. I took that comment down at his request. However, I recently received a request to delete some comments which I don’t intend honor. In that instance, a third party was objecting to comments which appear to be true and which add to the discussions of the topics raised in the related posts, and the third party was demanding that the commenter take them down. As far as I’m concerned, they’ll stay up.

Comments are permitted at my sole discretion. They are removed at my sole discretion. This is from the Terms of Service found on The Fine Print page.

Any comment posted to the site remains the property of the originator of the comment who is solely responsible for the content of his comment. Posting or attempting to post a comment to the site grants a royalty-free license to Hogewash! and its owner to reproduce the comment or any portion of it in any medium without limitation to the place or time of use or publication. Allowing a comment to appear on the site does not constitute an endorsement of its contents.

Note that even attempting to post a comment here gives me a royal-free license to reproduce that comment not only at Hogewash! but also anywhere else.

If a third party wants comments stricken, he can follow the procedure set forward in this site’s Terms of Service.


Hogewash! is not in the business of spreading false information about anyone or anything. If you believe that a post on this site contains erroneous information, please contact W. J. J. Hoge via one of the means on the DMCA page with an explanation of the error. If the error is confirmed, a correction or retraction will be issued forthwith. Please note that your opinion that something is amiss isn’t sufficient. Credible documentation of an error is required. Serial complainers who make frivolous claims will be dealt with as spammers. Because of prior harassment, persons listed in the Copyright Blacklist should not contact me.

On rare occasions, I’ve closed comments on a post, but the comment section is open on this one.

Dead Naming

I’ve been informed that my podcasting partner Stacy McCain has received a seven day suspension of his Twitter account because he engaged in “dead naming,” i.e., referring to a person presenting as the opposite sex of his or her biological sex by that person’s birth name.

Explaining Twitter Safety’s aversion to inconvenient truth might be easier if one could refer to Twitter Safety by its birth name, but the outfit’s exact origin is unclear. Cheka? Gestapo? Stasi? Savak? Miniluv? …

What I Saw In Court Yesterday

Here’s what I saw during the Gilmore v. Jones, et al. hearing on motions to dismiss at the U.S. District Court in Charlottesville, Virginia.

First of all, I saw Judge Moon from up close. At one point in his presentation, Aaron Walker  (representing Lee Stranahan, Jim Hoft, Scott Creighton, Michele Hickford, and Words-N-Ideas) was using a poster to clarify some of the points he was making. Because there wasn’t an easel in the courtroom, he asked me to hold it, and the judge asked me to bring right up to the bench. Judge Moon seemed to be familiar with the material in the written briefings from the Plaintiff and the three groups of defendants, and he engaged counsel from both sides with questions to clarify factual details. He did not ask many questions regarding the legal theories presented.

Andrew Grossman (representing Alex Jones. Lee Ann McAdoo, InfoWars, and Free Speech Systems) spoke first. He first attacked Gilmore’s claim that the court had jurisdiction over the defendants he represented. None are from Virginia. Because the only claims against them are based in state law, the requirements of the Virginia long arm statute must be met, and he noted that the Plaintiff has offered no evidence to support that assertion. Then he argued that, even if the court had jurisdiction over his clients, the things they were accused of saying or writing were expressions of opinion of the sort protected by the First Amendment and, thus, not actionable.

Aaron Walker went next. He made the same jurisdictional argument for his out-of-state clients. Then, he argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the case against Lee Stranahan. Stranahan and Gilmore are both residents of Virginia, and without a federal issue, a federal court doesn’t have jurisdictions over residents of the same state concerning a state law matter. The poster I held for the judge detailed the evidence for Stranahan’s residency in Virginia (extensive) versus Gilmore’s claim that Stranahan is resident of Texas (essentially non-existent). Initially, Gilmore had claimed that Stranahan had a Texas driver’s license, but his lawyers have backed off that claim when they were informed that Stranahan is legally blind. They now claim that Lee’s Texas voter registration was renewed in late 2017, but Stranahan has submitted two declarations relating to his Virginia residency, stating in one that he did not renew his registration and does not know how or even if it might have been renewed. Walker also argued that the remarks made by his clients concerning Gilmore were protected by the First Amendment and not actionable.

Brandon Bolling spoke for Allen West. He was brief and to the point. At the time the allegedly defamatory comments were published, the websites and social media accounts using West’s name were not under his control, and the Plaintiff has done nothing to show that West was in control of those sites. West had nothing to do with the remarks. If there is a case for defamation, it can’t be against someone who wasn’t involved. West should be dismissed from the case.

Two lawyers spoke on behalf of the Plaintiff. Andrew Mendrala of the Georgetown Law Civil Rights Clinic went first. He spent a good portion of his time on the issue of jurisdiction, and he made the statement that Stranahan had only submitted one declaration with respect his residency and that Stranahan had not dealt with the Plaintiff’s assertion that he was registered to vote in Texas. That was incorrect. During a recess, the error was pointed out to him, and he refused to correct the record.

Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center spoke for Gilmore as well. She asserted that the court did not need to consider the requirements of the Virginia long arm statute but should make a determination of personal jurisdiction based only on the limitations of due process imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The three lawyers for the Defendants then offered their rebuttals. Here are the highlights: Grossman pointed out that the case law in the Fourth Circuit (Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit) required the court to apply the state’s long arm statute. Walker pointed out the misrepresentation by the Plaintiff with respect to the Stranahan declarations and cited their locations in the record. Bolling simply repeated the fact that Allen West didn’t say or publish what Gilmore claimed and that there was no evidence to support Gilmore’s claim.

The judge took the case under advisement, and we’re waiting for a ruling.

Stay tuned.