A year after the deadly `` Unite the Right '' rally in Charlottesville , Va. , white nationalist groups are treading cautiously into the anniversary weekend .\nThe violence in Charlottesville sparked damaging lawsuits against the organizers and a crackdown from tech companies that has complicated recruitment and fundraising efforts , splintering the movement just as it 's trying to show solidarity heading into Sunday 's `` Unite the Right 2 '' demonstration in Washington .\nJason Kessler , a lead organizer of both events , is discouraging participation by the more hard-core elements of the white supremacist movement , and some are happy to sit this one out .\n“ These post-Charlottesville marches have no purpose , other than to make anyone who supports white self-determination look like a fringe lunatic , ” Andrew Anglin , publisher of the Daily Stormer , a neo-Nazi website , wrote this month in a blog post disavowing Sunday ’ s rally . “ We do not want the image of being a bunch of weird losers who march around like assholes while completely outnumbered and get mocked by the entire planet . ”\nRichard Spencer , a key organizer of the Charlottesville rally , is even steering clear and urging others to do the same .\n“ I know that many have good intentions in going , but a rally like this [ does n't ] make sense at this time . I do n't know exactly what will happen , but it probably will not be good , ” tweeted Spencer , head of the National Policy Institute , which aims to “ give voice to the interests of white peoples . ''\nThe long-term effect of the Charlottesville violence on the larger white nationalist movement is still unknown . But the initial consequence , experts say , has been a new degree of internal discord that ’ s expected to dampen turnout at Sunday ’ s rally across the street from the White House .\n“ I don ’ t know that ’ s it ’ s substantially grown or shrunk , ” said Keegan Hankes , senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center ’ s Intelligence Project , which tracks hate groups around the country . “ What I can say is , since the previous Unite the Right , it is far more disorganized . ”\n“ Every one of these groups is afraid they ’ re going to be associated with any potential violence , but also be further associated with the violence last year , ” he added .\nDon Black , founder of Stormfront , a white nationalist website , said the reverberations of Charlottesville — financially and strategically — are still being felt a year later .\n“ A lot of people have reevaluated the tactic , ” Black told ███ on Saturday in a phone call . `` I don ’ t have a problem with Jason Kessler . … But some other people do because he ’ s a … very recent convert to our side and they feel that … his events haven ’ t been properly planned . ''\n“ Most of the organization leaders who supported the Charlottesville event are not supporting this one , ” he added .\nThe division and infighting suggests a movement still licking its wounds in the aftermath of last year ’ s demonstration , when hundreds of white supremacists gathered to protest the city ’ s removal of a Robert E. Lee statue — the largest march of its kind in decades .\nThe event quickly devolved into a series of violent clashes between marchers and counterprotesters . Amid the tumult , a car sped into a group of counterprotesters , injuring dozens and killing Heather Heyer , a 32-year-old paralegal . James Alex Fields Jr. , a then-20-year-old white nationalist from Ohio , has been charged with first degree murder .\nSeparately , two Virginia state police officers monitoring events from the air were killed when their helicopter crashed .\nThe backlash came quickly . Numerous lawsuits , still pending , were filed against the organizers , including Kessler and Spencer , who are accused of promoting violence . And the giants of the technology world — Facebook , Google , Twitter and YouTube — also intervened in an effort to cull racist voices from their platforms .\n“ That ’ s probably been one of the most damaging things that ’ s happened to the movement in the last couple years , ” said Hankes . “ They can ’ t disseminate propaganda as easily [ and ] it ’ s a lot harder to raise money . ”\nBlack , of Stormfront , confirmed the trend . After Charlottesville , his website was frozen for a month , and in December he was kicked off Twitter — an event he called “ the great purge . ”\n“ A lot of people depended on social media , and they still use it but it ’ s always iffy . Their accounts are regularly canceled and posts deleted , ” he said . “ It ’ s hard to even find a credit card processor now . ''\n“ We ’ re more under siege than we ’ ve ever been , '' Black said .\nKessler had initially sought to stage the anniversary rally in Charlottesville . The city denied his petition , and last week he dropped a lawsuit seeking reconsideration , saying he would focus instead on the demonstration in Washington .\nIt ’ s unclear how many people will attend Sunday ’ s march , which will follow Pennsylvania Avenue from Foggy Bottom to Lafayette Square . Kessler has taken steps to avoid a repeat of last year ’ s violence , prohibiting shields , weapons of any kind and “ non-approved flags , ” all of which were featured elements of the Charlottesville marches . American and Confederate flags , however , are welcome .\nTorches , another prominent feature of the Charlottesville marches , are also forbidden , given the National Park Service ’ s ban on fire in Lafayette Square .\n“ No fire allowed , ” Kessler wrote on Facebook in May , in a post obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) . “ We need to forget about the torch thing . ”\nPeter Montgomery , an expert on right-wing extremism at the liberal advocacy group People For the American Way , said the changes reflect a rebranding effort on the part of some white nationalists following “ a real blow to their public relations ” with the death of Heyer .\n“ You had people who wanted to disassociate themselves from who they saw as more embarrassing manifestations — people who come to these rallies holding Nazi signs and swastikas , ” he said . “ There ’ s a part of the movement that wants to be a kinder gentler face of the alt-right , but as a result it ’ s kind of splintered . ”\nUnite the Right 2 organizers did not respond to questions posed through the rally ’ s website . Questions sent directly to Spencer and Anglin also went unanswered .\nThe Charlottesville violence shone a bright light on a white nationalist debate that was already percolating with the rise of President Trump Donald John TrumpWhite House says Turkey will soon launch Syria operation Trump associates pressured Ukraine over gas firm in order to benefit allies : report Trump praises Woodward , slams other journalists over 'Face the Nation ' segment MORE in 2016 — a victory cheered by racist leaders who see the president as a vindication of their own views , particularly on issues such as guns and immigration .\nTrump ’ s inner circle has featured figures like Stephen Bannon — the Breitbart News executive who has boasted of using the conservative news site as “ a platform for the alt-right. ” And the president ’ s equivocal response to the Charlottesville violence — there were “ very fine people ” on both sides , he said at the time — only fueled the view among white nationalists that they have an ally in the White House .\nIn its annual census of hate groups , released in February , SPLC identified 954 such organizations across the country in 2017 , marking a 4 percent increase over the previous year and a 20 percent jump over 2014 . More than 600 of those were associated with the white nationalist movement .\nAnti-hate groups are quick to warn that whatever troubles white nationalists are facing , those political conditions remain . Indeed , a number of Republican candidates with nationalistic , if not outwardly racist views , are running for House and Senate seats this cycle , including Arthur Jones in Illinois , Seth Grossman in New Jersey and Paul Nehlen in Wisconsin .\nTrump has endorsed Virginia Senate GOP nominee Corey Stewart , a controversial figure who is a vocal supporter of Confederate heritage and has said the Civil War was not ultimately fought over slavery . The National Republican Senatorial Committee has not pledged support for Stewart .\n“ In that big-picture sense , Trump ’ s campaign really electrified and energized white nationalists who had been quite marginalized in American political discourse , ” Montgomery said . “ He really opened up space for them to move more into the political conversation . And they ’ ve taken advantage of that . ”\nSophie Bjork-James , an anthropologist at Vanderbilt University who has researched the white supremacist movement , agreed , saying “ both sides have been galvanized ” since the Charlottesville clashes .\n“ While there is an increased organized response against white nationalism , many in the movement still feel emboldened by the broader political climate and are trying to use anti-immigrant sentiment as a recruitment tool , ” she told ███ .\nHankes , of the SPLC , said white nationalists aren ’ t bowing out post-Charlottesville , even though they may be rethinking their tactics .\n“ I don ’ t think it ’ s had a chilling effect ; I think basically they ’ re being more careful , ” he said . “ What was illustrated to me very clearly … last year is they had more to lose than they thought . ”


More than 45 million Americans live under the poverty line , and roughly 30 million more are near-poor ( defined as 1 to 1.5 times the poverty line ) , according to the latest Census Bureau data .\nthinking about poverty as being only about income levels obscures the important dimension of income uncertainty\nPoverty , of course , is determined simply by figuring out who earns below a certain threshold . Leaving aside the obvious problems with how we calculate that threshold , thinking about poverty in this way also obscures an important dimension of what it means to be low-income : uncertainty .\nAs author Linda Tirado explained to ███ last week , being poor is n't just about money being tight ; it 's about an inability to plan for the future . Volatile income wreaks havoc on finances as workers hope each month goes perfectly , both when it comes to money inflows and outflows . In a passage from her upcoming book `` Hand to Mouth , '' she tells about her life among the working poor :\n`` If I 'm saving my spare $ 5 a week , in the best-case scenario I will have saved $ 260 a year . ... Of course , you will never manage to actually save it ; you 'll get sick at least one day and miss work and dip into it for rent , '' she writes . Or any other litany of misfortunes could strike , she adds : high gas prices , work pants could tear and need replacing . And those sorts of things will almost certainly happen several times per year , which can easily deplete any sort of savings .\nIn other words , it 's not just about how much you 'll put on your tax return ; it 's about how much you 'll get in your next paycheck and the one after that , and what emergencies that money might have to cover .\nAnd that sentiment is borne out by recent research . According to the US Financial Diaries Project ( whose research on savings circles I highlighted yesterday ) , which follows the spending and savings habits of 200 low-to-moderate-income households over the course of a year , volatility makes life much harder . One of their reports from 2013 shows just how this looks more specifically for struggling families . Here 's a look at two different months ' income for one Kentucky family where the mother ( `` Molly '' in the charts below ) works in a school cafeteria and does n't get any income in the summer months .\nMolly may in fact be lucky , because her job is at least regular , despite the three-month summer gaps . The real troubles are for the many people who have temporary or seasonal jobs . Up and down the spectrum of one sample of low-to-moderate-income households , the project found that incomes could swing widely for various jobs .\nThis is n't a representative sample of Americans , but it does illustrate that many of these people 's jobs leave them guessing each month about how they will fare .\nThere 's other evidence of this as well . Fully 20 percent of Americans in the bottom quintile of earners experienced an income drop of 50 percent or more within a year , according to a 2010 paper from the Urban Institute . That 's not a huge share of Americans , but it is a higher share than for any other quintile , and those swings are likely to be more meaningful for a poorer family .\nWhat any of this information means is that poverty is a much more complex phenomenon than it may seem on the surface , and that fixing it might be a question of targeted policies like the EITC and a higher minimum wage , but also simply of boosting the economy to create better , steadier jobs .


The places that have the very highest rates of mobility for black men , like Boston , actually have lower rates of upward mobility than the very worst places of upward mobility for white men , like Charlotte .\nChetty 's research showed that job growth and investment happening in Charlotte and Atlanta , for example , are n't creating opportunities evenly , and black male youths are disproportionately being left behind .\nWhat they did : The researchers analyzed outcomes of about 4 million families that moved across neighborhoods and tracked the outcomes of children of low-income parents over 30 years .\nWhat they found : Childhood environments are stronger indicators of upward mobility than where individuals go to college or move as young adults .\nMoving to a better neighborhood at a very young age correlated with much stronger upward mobility as adults . In fact , every extra year of exposure to better childhood environments improved outcomes .\nDownward mobility is also critical . White men from affluent families are likely to stay affluent as adults . But black men from affluent backgrounds are nearly just as likely to end up in the bottom tier of the income distribution than the top tier .\n`` If you think of achieving the American dream as climbing an income ladder for white Americans , it ’ s more like being on a treadmill for black Americans . Even after you 've made the climb up in one generation , there are tremendous structural forces that tend to push you back down in the next generation and you have to make the climb again . ''\n— Raj Chetty , speaking at the Results for America Summit in Washington , D.C .\nAnd the disparities are likely to worsen over the next decade .\nBy 2030 , African American workers stand to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of increased automation , widening the racial wealth gap and weighing down overall U.S. growth , according to a report from McKinsey & Co .\nThe bottom line : A strong national economy only goes so far . The most important factor in determining upward mobility is the conditions in the half-mile radius around where you live , Chetty said .\n`` While we often think of the decline of the American dream as a national problem — a challenge we ’ d like to solve through federal policy solutions — I really think the roots of these issues are at the very local level . ''


Across America , there are pockets of poverty , communities that have been left behind or deprived of the basics needed to develop , like Pembroke Township , a small community south of Chicago along the Indiana border . In this community , one-third of the families live below the poverty line . It is one of the poorest communities in the country , with a median income that is among the lowest .\nIn the 1860s , newly freed slaves — Freedmen — settled into the rich farmland of the region . It was a land of promise and opportunity . During the Great Migration and the Great Depression , waves of black farmers settled here . Land was still available for black farms in part because much of it was seen as marginal .\nColumnists In-depth political coverage , sports analysis , entertainment reviews and cultural commentary .\nThe land is so bad , the joke became , as Rev . Hezekiah Brady Jr. , reported , “ you can ’ t raise hell on it . ”\nToday , the residents of Pembroke Township are denied the hope that their ancestors once held . In Pembroke , residents lack heat and access to basic necessities . They are the victims of economic violence in many ways . They can ’ t develop basic infrastructure without capital investment . Investment won ’ t come without basic infrastructure . They face a Catch 22 all too familiar to poor communities in this country .\nIn recent months , this has begun to change for the 2,100 residents of Pembroke . Wi-Fi has come to the community . Now Nicor Gas is joining with local officials trying to work out a plan to bring natural gas to Pembroke . A secure source of energy would help kickstart other development — and in turn create jobs and generate hope .\nTo bring energy to Pembroke will require regulatory changes , millions in investment and support from the business community , the residents of Pembroke , the state of Illinois and the U.S. Department of Agriculture . Nicor has made a serious commitment . Now it is time to turn up the heat on the others to ensure that the residents of Pembroke have heat .\nDr. Martin Luther King always envisioned the civil rights struggle in three different movements or phases . First would come basic civil rights , the end of segregation . The Supreme Court and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 helped achieve that . Then came political rights : The Voting Rights Act helped move toward that . It wasn ’ t just African Americans who profited , but women , young people and other minorities all made great strides to equal justice .\nThe final movement , which Dr. King knew would be the most difficult , was the movement for economic justice . Sadly , the war on poverty that was making great strides was lost in the jungles of Vietnam , and then abandoned under Ronald Reagan in 1980 .\nNow , as America suffers extreme inequality , a declining life expectancy , rising deaths of despair — from alcohol , or drugs or suicide — we need a new push for economic justice . It should focus on the pockets of poverty like Pembroke . It must engage the efforts of private enterprise and public and private resources .\nKeystone legislation like that proposed by Rep. James Clyburn , D-S.C. , that would target federal spending to the communities that have been mired in poverty for decades , joining the urban and the rural poor , across regional and racial lines , as the focus for new energy and new hope .\nWhat ’ s clear is that our current course won ’ t do it . Unemployment is low , but poor urban and rural communities still have not recovered . Communities like Pembroke won ’ t recover without focused energy .\nAs Dr. King taught us , that will happen only if citizens organize and lead the way .


Despite lingering gloom from the economic recession , life is getting much better for the most distressed people all over the world . Since the 1980s , the share of people living on less than $ 1.25 day has plummeted from 53 % to just 17 % in 2011 . Globally , those at the bottom of the economic ladder is “ falling faster than ever , ” according to Oxford economics Fellow , Max Roser .\nIndeed , the World Bank is so elated by the trend that it believes , for the first time in human history , poverty can be completely eliminated by 2030 .\nYet , at the same time , the global rich-poor class gap is skyrocketing ; as of 2014 , the richest 80 people in the world now control more wealth than the bottom 50 % combined [ PDF ] .\nLund University economist , Andreas Bergh , has a contentious , if fascinating , theory : greater inequality means a greater portion of the population exists at the lowest income , making it cheaper to provide goods to a larger share of lower-income consumers . The more people need cheap products , the more incentive companies have to streamline non-luxury versions of food , education , and other goods . In other words , lower-income people scale .\nIn this way , rather than having an even distribution of income over many economic classes ( e.g . low , low-middle , middle , upper-middle , and upper ) , an economy with only a few classes allows companies to focus on making products for greater portion of similar customers .\nIn his paper , “ When More Poor Means Less Poverty , ” Bergh finds that as inequality increases around the world , the cheaper rice and Big Macs become .\nOn average , a 10 point increase in the Gini coefficient ( corresponding to shifting from the level of inequality in Latvia to Kenya ) decreases the time required to buy a kilo of rice by 7 minutes ( compared to the 2007 global average of 22 minutes ) . Similarly a corresponding inequality increase would on average decrease the time required for a Big Mac by 16 minutes ( compared to the 2007 global average of 37 minutes ) .\nThink of the difference between the global poor and rich as the difference between the iOS and Android operating systems . Apple designed a phone that only a relatively small portion of the world can afford . But the iPhone opened up an entirely new mobile market , allowing Google to create its free mobile operating system for the rest of the non-iPhone-toting world . Android especially thrives in countries with a broad lower-income base .\nThe more people need a cheap operating system , the more demand Google and its hardware partners have in making smartphones accessible . In other words , the co-existence of an influential rich class and large lower-income class can have economic benefits .\nIndeed , this could be one reason why even in Sweden , the former poster-child for financial equality , poverty is decreasing while the rich are getting richer [ PDF ] .\nNow , careful readers will note that an inverse relationship between poverty and equality is not an iron law of economics . It ’ s often the opposite . In many nations and U.S. states , increasing inequality makes life worse for the poor . The rich get richer , and nothing trickles down . Moreover , in nations where poverty is decreasing , it is often because welfare services have expanded . The market itself is not eliminating poverty .\nBut inequality and a shrinking middle class is not inherently bad for the poor . This is not to say we should cheer inequality or that the middle class should donate their money to the rich in the interests of alleviating poverty .\nThere is a nuanced relationship between income distribution and extreme poverty . We must be careful how we model welfare systems and taxes so that we maintain the productive parts of inequality while reducing its ill effects .


The notion that racism is solely about institutionalized white power simply doesn ’ t compute for most Americans .\nA couple of weeks ago , the New York Times editorial board hired a technology writer , Sarah Jeong . When it was revealed that she had tweeted barbs against white people , conservatives formed a Twitter mob to demand her dismissal . While a few on the right said — or claimed — that they were offended by the substance of her tweets , the overriding passion derived from an understandable outrage about liberal double standards .\nThe argument took a familiar form : “ If a white or conservative person said something like this about any other group , her career would be over ! ”\nMany liberals responded that conservatives just don ’ t get it . There is no such thing as anti-white racism because racism is all about power . Whites — or white men — have power and other groups don ’ t .\nPerhaps because this theory defies lived experience , progressives offered a new defense : “ We don ’ t really mean it when we attack the pale patriarchy . ”\nVox ’ s Ezra Klein recalled that he didn ’ t enjoy the Twitter hashtag # KillAllMen , which apparently became popular in his progressive circle a while back . “ I didn ’ t like it . It made me feel defensive . It still makes me feel defensive . ”\n“ But , ” Klein added , “ I also knew that wasn ’ t what they were saying . They didn ’ t want me put to death . They didn ’ t want any men put to death. ” They just wanted things to be better for women .\nKlein has a point , but he also misses one . I have no doubt that many of his female — or male ! — compatriots aren ’ t much interested in wholesale androcide . Nor do I think Jeong is interested in “ canceling ” white people . These are shibboleths of the Woke Establishment .\nBut what Klein and others miss is that they can ’ t play Humpty Dumpty when it comes to the language they use . “ When I use a word , ” Humpty Dumpty famously said , “ it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less . ”\nThe notion that racism is solely about institutionalized white power simply doesn ’ t compute for most Americans . In common parlance , racism means prejudice or bigotry on account of race or skin color . Period . The pathetic racists who marched on Washington this weekend don ’ t have much cultural power . Surely that explains their racism more than it mitigates or absolves it .\nIf a neo-Nazi paints a swastika on a Jew ’ s front door , no decent person withholds judgment pending an audit of the victim ’ s social or institutional power . We just call it anti-Semitism . Would you wait for a clever explanation if someone launched the hashtag # KillAllJews or # CancelBlackPeople ? It makes no sense to claim that Louis Farrakhan is not a racist when he says “ White people are potential humans — they haven ’ t evolved yet ” but that David Duke is a racist when he says something similar about blacks .\nEven if we were to collectively accept that “ racism ” means structural oppression by whites , we ’ d still need a word for hating or degrading people solely on account of their race . Why reinvent the wheel ? And why muddle the principle that this is bad ?\nThink of it this way : Would you want your kids to go to a school where the white kids were taught that the slightest racial insensitivity was a profound sin but all the non-white kids were free to say whatever they wanted about the white kids ?\nIt is right and proper to teach kids that bigotry against blacks or other particular groups is especially evil for historical reasons . But it is morally daft to celebrate or condescendingly explain away bigotry against whites as some sort of historical comeuppance for the sins — real or alleged — of their ancestors . ( It ’ s also counterproductive : There ’ s ample evidence that calling non-racist people racist actually makes them more racist . )\nDouble standards breed resentment and rage , regardless of ideological orientation . There ’ s a reason white supremacists co-opt the language of the Left , demanding identity politics for white people . “ I consider myself a civil- and human-rights advocate focusing on the underrepresented Caucasian demographic , ” Jordan Kessler , the racist “ Unite the Right ” rally organizer , told NPR .\nThe double standard that says the Left can say whatever it damn well pleases , but the Right must constantly check its privilege , fuels hateful buffoons like Kessler .


Feeling maligned by the media , Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them .\n`` I love free press . I think it 's great , '' he said Saturday on ███ Channel , before quickly adding , `` We ought to open up the libel laws , and I 'm going to do that . ''\nThe changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that `` when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles , we can sue them and win lots of money , '' he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth , Texas .\nTrump added that , should he win the election , news organizations that have criticized him will `` have problems . '' He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post .\nTrump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino . On Twitter , Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations , including The Associated Press .\n`` The press has to be fair , '' he said in the broadcast interview .\n`` His statement shows why we need libel protections , '' said Gregg Leslie , legal defense director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press . `` Trump gets offended , he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate . That 's not a good reason to sue someone . ''\nLibel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them . To win such a case , the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth .\nTrump said he would like to lower that standard . `` We 're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before , '' he said .\nBecause the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard , Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress , Leslie said .\n`` I 've never heard of politicians say they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment , '' he said . `` You 'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that . ''\nTrump 's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law . Last year , he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States .\nCourts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American . Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way .\n`` You do n't have to do a constitutional amendment . You need an act of Congress . I 'm telling you -- you need an act of Congress , '' he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of ███ last year .


A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—or among their family , friends , and work colleagues—when they believe their own point of view is not widely shared . This tendency is called the “ spiral of silence . ”\nSome social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions , thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues .\nWe set out to study this by conducting a survey of 1,801 adults . It focused on one important public issue : Edward Snowden ’ s 2013 revelations of widespread government surveillance of Americans ’ phone and email records . We selected this issue because other surveys by the ███ at the time we were fielding this poll showed that Americans were divided over whether the NSA contractor ’ s leaks about surveillance were justified and whether the surveillance policy itself was a good or bad idea . For instance , Pew Research found in one survey that 44 % say the release of classified information harms the public interest while 49 % said it serves the public interest .\nThe survey reported in this report sought people ’ s opinions about the Snowden leaks , their willingness to talk about the revelations in various in-person and online settings , and their perceptions of the views of those around them in a variety of online and off-line contexts .\nOverall , the findings indicate that in the Snowden case , social media did not provide new forums for those who might otherwise remain silent to express their opinions and debate issues . Further , if people thought their friends and followers in social media disagreed with them , they were less likely to say they would state their views on the Snowden-NSA story online and in other contexts , such as gatherings of friends , neighbors , or co-workers . This suggests a spiral of silence might spill over from online contexts to in-person contexts , though our data can not definitively demonstrate this causation . It also might mean that the broad awareness social media users have of their networks might make them more hesitant to speak up because they are especially tuned into the opinions of those around them .\nPeople reported being less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in social media than they were in person—and social media did not provide an alternative outlet for those reluctant to discuss the issues in person .\nFully 86 % of Americans reported in the Pew Research survey they were “ very ” or “ somewhat ” willing to have a conversation about the government ’ s surveillance program in at least one of the physical settings we queried —at a public meeting , at a family dinner , at a restaurant with friends , or at work . Yet , only 42 % of those who use Facebook or Twitter were willing to discuss these same issues through social media .\nOf the 14 % of Americans who were not willing to discuss this issue in person , almost none ( 0.3 % ) said they were willing to have a conversation about this issue through social media . This challenges the notion that social media spaces might be considered useful venues for people sharing views they would not otherwise express when they are in the physical presence of others .\nNot only were social media sites not an alternative forum for discussion , social media users were less willing to share their opinions in face-to-face settings .\nWe also did statistical modeling allowing us to more fully understand the findings by controlling for such things as gender , age , education levels , race , and marital status—all of which are related to whether people use social media and how they use it . That modeling allowed us to calculate how likely people were to be willing to express their views in these differing settings holding other things constant .\nThe results of our analyses show that , even holding other factors such as age constant , social media users are less likely than others to say they would join a discussion about the Snowden-NSA revelations .\nIn both offline and online settings , people said they were more willing to share their views on the Snowden-NSA revelations if they thought their audience agreed with them .\nPrevious research has shown that when people decide whether to speak out about an issue , they rely on reference groups—friendships and community ties—to weigh their opinion relative to their peers . In the survey , we asked respondents about their sense of whether different groups of people in their lives agreed or disagreed with their positions on the Snowden leaks . There was some notable variance between those who feel they know the views of their peers and those who do not know what others think . Generally , the more socially close people were—e.g . spouses or family members—the more likely it was that the respondents felt their views matched .\nWe again calculated how likely it was that someone would be willing to share their views in different settings , depending on their sense of whether their audience agreed with them . We found that , in the case of Snowden ’ s revelations about the NSA , it was clear that if people felt their audience supported them , they were more likely to say they would join a conversation :\nAt work , those who felt their coworkers agreed with their opinion on the government ’ s surveillance program were 2.92 times more likely to say they would join a conversation on the topic of Snowden-NSA .\nAt a family dinner , those who felt that family members agreed with their opinion were 1.90 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA issue .\nAt a restaurant with friends , if their close friends agreed with their opinion people were 1.42 times more likely to be willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA matter .\nOn Facebook , if a person felt that people in their Facebook network agreed with their position on that issue , they were 1.91 times more likely to be willing to join a conversation on the topic of Snowden-NSA .\nThose who do not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agree with their opinion are more likely to self-censor their views on the Snowden-NSA story in many circumstances—in social media and in face-to-face encounters .\nIn this survey on the Snowden-NSA matter , we found that when social media users felt their opinions were not supported online , they were less likely to say they would speak their minds . This was true not only in social media spaces , but also in the physical presence of others .\nThe average Facebook user ( someone who uses the site a few times per day ) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant . If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue , their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher , although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion .\nThe typical Twitter user ( who uses the site a few times per day ) is 0.24 times as likely to share their opinions with colleagues at work as an internet user who does not use Twitter . However , Twitter users who felt that their online Twitter followers shared their opinion were less reserved : They were only 0.66 times less likely to speak up than other internet users .\nThe survey did not directly explore why people might remain silent if they felt that their opinions were in the minority . The traditional view of the spiral of silence is that people choose not to speak out for fear of isolation . Other Pew Research studies have found that it is common for social media users to be mistaken about their friends ’ beliefs and to be surprised once they discover their friends ’ actual views via social media . Thus , it might be the case that people do not want to disclose their minority views for fear of disappointing their friends , getting into fruitless arguments , or losing them entirely . Some people may prefer not to share their views on social media because their posts persist and can be found later—perhaps by prospective employers or others with high status . As to why the absence of agreement on social media platforms spills over into a spiral of silence in physical settings , we speculate that social media users may have witnessed those with minority opinions experiencing ostracism , ridicule or bullying online , and that this might increase the perceived risk of opinion sharing in other settings .\nPeople also say they would speak up , or stay silent , under specific conditions .\nIn addition to exploring the impact of agreement/disagreement on whether people were willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA revelations , we asked about other factors that might shape whether people would speak out , even if they suspected they held minority views . This survey shows how the social and political climate in which people share opinions depends on several other things :\nTheir confidence in how much they know . Those who felt they knew a lot about the issues were more likely than others to say they would join conversations .\nThose who felt they knew a lot about the issues were more likely than others to say they would join conversations . The intensity of their opinions . Those who said they had strong feelings about the Snowden-NSA matter were more willing than those with less intense feelings to talk about the subject .\nThose who said they had strong feelings about the Snowden-NSA matter were more willing than those with less intense feelings to talk about the subject . Their level of interest . Those who said they were very interested in the Snowden-NSA story were more likely than those who were not as interested to express their opinions .\nPeople ’ s use of social media did little to increase their access to information about the Snowden-NSA revelations .\nWe asked respondents where they were getting information about the debates swirling around the Snowden revelations , and found that social media was not a common source of news for most Americans . Traditional broadcast news sources were by far the most common sources . In contrast , social media sources like Facebook and Twitter were the least commonly identified sources for news on this issue .\nThere are limits to what this snapshot can tell us about how social media use is related to the ways Americans discuss important political issues . This study focuses on one specific public affairs issue that was of interest to most Americans : the Snowden-NSA revelations . It is not an exhaustive review of all public policy issues and the way they are discussed in social media .\nThe context of the Snowden-NSA story may also have made it somewhat different from other kinds of public debates . At the time of this study , the material leaked by Edward Snowden related to NSA monitoring of communications dealt specifically with “ meta-data ” collected on people ’ s phone and internet communications . For a phone call , the meta-data collected by the NSA was described as including the duration of the call , when it happened , the numbers the call was between , but not a recording of the call . For email , meta-data would have included the sender and recipient ’ s email addresses and when it was sent , but not the subject or text of the email .\nAdditional information leaked by Snowden after our study was completed suggests that Western intelligence agencies monitored and manipulated the content of online discussions and the NSA recorded the content of foreign phone calls . In reaction to these additional revelations , people may have adjusted their use of social media and their willingness to discuss a range of topics , including public issues such as government surveillance . However , given the limited extent of the information leaked by Snowden at the time the survey was fielded , it seems unlikely that the average American had extensively altered their willingness to discuss political issues . Future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on-and offline as a result of government surveillance programs . While this study focused on the Snowden-NSA revelations , we suspect that Americans use social media in similar ways to discuss and get news about other political issues .\nAn informed citizenry depends on people ’ s exposure to information on important political issues and on their willingness to discuss these issues with those around them . The rise of social media , such as Facebook and Twitter , has introduced new spaces where political discussion and debate can take place . This report explores the degree to which social media affects a long-established human attribute—that those who think they hold minority opinions often self-censor , failing to speak out for fear of ostracism or ridicule . It is called the “ spiral of silence . ”\nThis report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals :\nOther major reports from the ███ Internet Project on the social and political impact of social networking sites on social and political activity can be found at :\nThis report contains findings from a nationally representative survey of 1,801 American adults ( ages 18+ ) conducted by the ███ and fielded August 7-September 16 , 2013 by Princeton Research Associates International . It was conducted in English and Spanish on landline ( N=901 ) and cell phones ( N=900 ) . The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points . Some 1,076 respondents are users of social networking sites and the margin of error for that subgroup is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points .


Gloria Alvarez , the young woman from Guatemala I wrote about last week , just got blocked by Facebook . Why ? Because she criticizes socialism .\nAfter Alvarez joined me in my American studio to make a video we titled `` Socialism Fails Every Time , '' she flew to Mexico City to make a speech .\nA few days later she wrote me that `` some leftist 'students ' posted on a fanpage called 'Marxist and Leninist Memes ' : 'BOYCOTT Gloria Alvarez in our University ! We wo n't let her in ! ' ''\nSo Alvarez posted ( in Spanish ) on her own Facebook page : `` My dear Mexican socialists intolerants : Thank you ! for trying to boycott my event… showing that panic that you have for the debate of ideas . Given yours are so bad , that only with bullets they can be obeyed just like in Venezuela and Nicaragua . You demonstrate once again that you are the intolerant ones against freedom . ''\nShe ended her riff with a wise defense of free speech : `` Where words are exchanged , bullets are no longer exchanged . ''\n`` You recently posted something that violates Facebook policies , '' wrote Facebook .\nWhat violated Facebook policies ? Was it calling the people who demanded that she not be allowed to speak `` socialists intolerants '' whose ideas `` are so bad that only with bullets they can be obeyed '' ?\nWhen social media companies block you , the ███ is often mysterious .\nFacebook did say , `` For more information , visit the Help Center… ( U ) nderstand Facebook 's Community Standards . '' Good luck getting an explanation that way .\nAlvarez suspects she was blocked because her opponents , boycott advocates , complained about her . Leftists are good at launching campaigns to shut people up .\nFortunately , Alvarez has connections . A few days later she wrote , `` a friend of mine that has a cousin working on Facebook Latin America ( helped ) me to unblock my page this morning . ''\nExcept , most of us do n't have a friend whose cousin works for Facebook .\nFacebook , YouTube , Twitter , and other social media platforms promote themselves as sites that enhance communication , not censor it .\nI should n't use the word `` censor . '' When a private company blocks someone , it 's called editing . Companies edit to increase civil communication , improve the quality of discussion , delete threats and lies , etc . Editing helps make their sites more pleasant places to visit .\nCensorship and the First Amendment apply to governments . America 's Founders feared government censorship because government can use force , and we have just one government .\nBut if Facebook blocks me , I still can communicate via Twitter , my YouTube videos , or Instagram .\nBut wait . Facebook bought Instagram . And Google bought YouTube . If these big companies edit me out , it will be hard to reach people .\nConservatives claim social media companies are quicker to censor conservative speech . That 's probably true . The people who work for social media companies lean left . Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that , telling CNN , `` We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias , which I fully admit is more left-leaning . ''\nThat 's why conservative sites like PragerU have been limited by YouTube . Restricting Prager University 's videos is absurd . The site has millions of followers . It offers dignified lectures on conservative philosophy . They explain things my Princeton professors never taught me .\nThe lectures violate neither YouTube 's standards nor Facebook 's standards . But recently , PragerU discovered that some of its Facebook videos were watched by no one . Zero people .\nFacebook later apologized , saying someone flagged PragerU 's videos as `` hate speech , '' and at least one Facebook human `` content monitor '' agreed . He was being `` retrained , '' said Facebook .\nRight-winger Alex Jones was banned by all major social media platforms . Milo Yiannopoulos was banned by Twitter .\nBut I have n't seen enough data to convince me that the sites actively limit conservative speech alone . Facebook just deleted 800 political pages , including some that criticize police brutality .\nLeftist Glenn Greenwald tweeted after that purge , `` those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content … are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed . That 's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history . ''\nThe best answer to speech we do n't like is : more speech .\nI like being able to hear numerous opinions—even if I disagree with them .


If CNN reporter Jim Acosta is such a troublous force inside the White House Briefing Room—a “ rude , terrible person ” as President Donald Trump recently put it—deserving of being banned from White House grounds , then why did Trump and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders routinely call on him during the televised question and answer periods at the White House over the past 22 months ?\nHad Acosta ’ s behavior truly offended them , Sanders and Trump could have permanently stifled the pesky reporter by treating him like a ghost , averting their gazes and picking other reporters during question time . Acosta couldn ’ t have done anything about it . Instead , Sanders and Trump regularly called on Acosta , counting on the likelihood that he would do that Acosta thing of speechifying and playing microphone hog as he attempts to turn a question into an extended back-and-forth . Sanders and Trump have pretended exasperation at Acosta ’ s posturing—posturing that hasn ’ t broken much news , by the way—but not so secretly they happily wallow in his pomposity . By getting Acosta to play the preening , self-aggrandizing , sanctimonious reporter and using him as the punching bag for the White House ’ s anti-press strategy , Sanders and Trump have created a unique public venue to exhibit their hatred for the “ fake news ” of CNN .\nThe TV moments created by Acosta 's clashes—see the Guardian 's reel of their best sparring matches—have served him , too . If you ’ re a fan of reporters who are better at lecturing than asking a question and think White House briefings and presidential press conferences should resemble the bloodsport of duels , then you probably find the Acosta clashes sufficiently enriching to make CNN your cable news destination .\nAcosta ’ s forced exile and the lawsuit filed by CNN today demanding that Sanders and Trump return the “ hard pass ” that will allow him to roam the White House grounds have turned him into a free speech martyr , which I suppose he is . Like all First Amendment radicals , I deplore the Acosta ban and look forward to the day that he ’ s back in the White House making a pest of himself again . The case law cited in the suit by lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous , a top cock in the First Amendment bar ’ s pecking order , appears to prevent the White House from arbitrarily banning reporters from White House press facilities “ for less than compelling reasons. ” Even Fox News Channel ’ s legal analyst Andrew Napolitano predicts that the matter will be resolved “ quickly “ in CNN ’ s favor .\nThe original charge Sanders made when barring Acosta—that he had placed “ his hands ” on the White House intern trying to retrieve his microphone during the presser—has been disproved . Today , attempting to argue against the CNN suit , Sanders shifted her rationale for the de-Acostafication of the White House , accusing him additionally and accurately for not surrendering the microphone when approached by the intern .\nBut as Sanders herself acknowledges , this was not the first time Acosta had resisted yielding the floor . So where is the common justice in ejecting him from White House grounds without so much as a warning ? Sanders and Trump have thrilled in Acosta ’ s bad manners not only because his acting out helped personify their critique of CNN but also because it has made great TV drama for the president . Anything that ’ s good for ratings is good with Trump . It ’ s obvious from viewing the Acosta-Trump faceoff that Trump was spoiling for a fight— “ Here we go , ” Trump interrupted as Acosta began the wind-up on his first question—and started swinging back from the get-go . He wanted what Acosta was bringing so he could re-assume his old reality-TV role as the heavy who banishes the pretentious upstart . When the CNN lawsuit rolled in today , Trump must have clicked his heels in joy at the prospect of kicking Acosta and CNN around some more .\nTelevised White House briefings have always been political theater but under Trump ’ s management they ’ ve generated as much genuine news as a low-wattage kitchen microwave . The endless bickering between Sanders and the press corps and her obfuscations have become the story , much to the detriment of journalism . I wouldn ’ t go so far to call the briefings useless—they can connect reporters to otherwise hard-to-find facts and get the administration on the record—but for real news you have to rely on reporters like Maggie Haberman who spend little time in the daily briefings waiting for news to arrive .\nLike so many episodes of The Trump Show , the martyrdom of Jim Acosta provides an entertaining sideshow . While it ’ s true that he ’ s more of a pain in the neck than a true newshawk , we can still call for his return to the White House briefing room in good conscience because being a pain in the neck is often a necessary part of the job . Besides , Sanders and Trump already miss him .


President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon signed his much-hyped executive order on campus free speech — which he deemed a `` historic action to defend American students and American values '' that have `` been under siege '' on campuses .\n`` Under the guise of speech codes and safe spaces and trigger warnings , these universities have tried to restrict free thought , impose total conformity and shutdown the voices of great young Americans , '' Trump said Thursday before signing the order .\nThe order , however , essentially reinforces what schools are already supposed to be doing by formally requiring colleges to agree to promote free inquiry in order to get billions of dollars in federal research funding .\n`` While many schools — or all schools — are frankly supposed to follow this currently , it will ensure that grant dollars are associated through the grant-making process , and schools will have to certify that they ’ re following this condition , '' a senior administration official said earlier Thursday .\nStill the move , and the president 's rhetoric surrounding it , raised alarms for some civil liberties groups and conservatives — including at least one Republican lawmaker — who expressed concerns about federal overreach .\n`` I don ’ t want to see Congress or the president or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus , '' Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) , who chairs the Senate HELP Committee , said in a statement . `` The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech . Federal courts define and enforce it . The Department of Justice can weigh in . Conservatives don ’ t like it when judges try to write laws , and conservatives should not like it when legislators and agencies try to rewrite the Constitution . ”\nThe order directs 12 federal agencies that fund university research to add language to existing agreements that colleges have to sign to get the money . Public universities will have to vow to uphold the First Amendment — something they already must do — and private universities will have to promise to uphold their own `` stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech , '' essentially setting their own rules .\nIt will be up to the agencies to enforce the agreements , as they already do .\n`` Today we ’ re delivering a clear message to the professors and power structures trying to suppress dissent and keep young Americans — and all Americans , not just young Americans … from challenging rigid , far-left ideology , '' Trump said . `` If the university does n't allow you to speak , we will not give them money — it 's very simple . ''\nThe president vowed it was `` the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students ' rights . ''\nThe executive order is `` plainly unnecessary , '' the president of a group of public universities said .\n`` Public universities are already bound by the First Amendment and work each day to defend and honor it , '' Peter McPherson , president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities , said . “ As institutions of higher learning , public universities are constantly working to identify new ways to educate students on the importance of free expression , provide venues for free speech , and advance our world through free academic inquiry .\n“ This executive order doesn ’ t do much with regard to free speech , '' ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement . `` Instead , it tells public universities to abide by the First Amendment , as they are already required to do , and private universities to abide by their existing policies . ''\nSome conservatives , however , believe colleges have n't done that , and are regularly stifling speech — especially conservative speech — by banning speakers , creating speech zones and pushing trigger warnings .\n`` College campuses are ground zero in the campaign by the liberal left to shut down conservative dissent , '' said Chandler Thornton , chairman of the College Republican National Committee . `` President Trump 's executive order is critically needed because college and university bureaucrats have absolutely failed to protect free speech on campus . ''\nTrump previously threatened to withdraw federal funding to the University of California , Berkeley , after riots on campus led it to cancel an event at which far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak . At Trump 's CPAC speech where he first mentioned the executive order , the president brought to the stage Hayden Williams , a conservative activist who was punched in the face while recruiting on the Berkeley campus for the conservative youth group Turning Point USA .\nThe Justice Department under the Trump administration , meanwhile , has backed lawsuits against colleges it believes are suppressing speech , including Berkeley .\nDonald Trump , Jr. , touted the move on Twitter Thursday morning as `` A big momentous day ! ''\n`` Super excited today that @ realDonaldTrump is signing an executive order today to protect free speech rights for ALL students ! '' he wrote . `` Great work by @ TPUSA and @ charliekirk11 who have been pushing this since the first time I met him years ago . ''\nSome , however , remained skeptical of federal intrusions into campus speech , especially given the president ’ s framing of the issue . The conservative Charles Koch Institute pointed to a statement the White House issued in which Trump slammed “ oppressive speech codes , censorship , political correctness , and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas . ''\n“ We are concerned that wrongly framing censorship as an ideological issue works against efforts to foster open intellectual environments on campus , '' Sarah Ruger , director of Free Speech Initiatives at the Koch Institute , said in a statement . “ The best policies are those that empower the academy to uphold its core ideals of academic independence and free inquiry . ''\nThe Foundation for Individual Rights in Education , which has sued colleges it believes are stifling speech , said in a statement that the order could result in `` unintended consequences that threaten free expression and academic freedom . ''\n`` To the extent that today ’ s executive order asks colleges and universities to meet their existing legal obligations , it should be uncontroversial , '' the group said . `` We note that the order does not specify how or by what standard federal agencies will ensure compliance , the order ’ s most consequential component . FIRE has long opposed federal agency requirements that conflict with well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence . We will continue to do so . ''\nThe American Council on Education , the leading higher education lobbying group , meanwhile , said the order is `` unnecessary and unwelcome , a solution in search of a problem . ''\n`` What remains to be seen is the process the administration develops to flesh out these requirements and the extent to which it is willing to consult with the communities most affected — especially research universities , '' said Ted Mitchell , the group 's president , in a statement . `` No matter how this order is implemented , it is neither needed nor desirable , and could lead to unwanted federal micromanagement of the cutting-edge research that is critical to our nation ’ s continued vitality and global leadership . ”\nThe order makes some moves beyond free speech , as well .\nIt directs the Education Department to add program-level data , including information on debt , earnings , repayment and default rates , to the existing College Scorecard . In addition , the order directs the department to publish the performance , by college , of PLUS loans for parents and graduate students . It also orders up a report from the department with recommendations on how the administration can put colleges on the hook for how well their students do after graduation .\n`` We ’ re going to make them have an incentive to keep their costs down , '' Trump said . `` I ’ ve watched this over a period of time . I figured it out very , very quickly . I just see their numbers go up very rapidly , because they do n't have the burden on them . ''


Twitter 's verification program put the company at the center of another political headache this week , with the social media giant stuck between liberals who demand stricter rules about hate speech and misinformation and conservatives who fear the site will target them for their political views .\nTwitter 's `` blue checkmark '' verification program is meant to authenticate the identities of high-profile users . But it 's also come to be seen as an endorsement or mark of approval from Twitter , sparking outrage when the checkmarks were bestowed on white nationalists like Richard Spencer or Charlottesville , Va. , `` Unite the Right '' rally organizer Jason Kessler .\nThe social media site responded to the criticism Wednesday by taking checkmarks away from several users affiliated with the far right or white nationalism , as well as kicking one prominent Charlottesville marcher off the platform permanently .\nFurther changes are expected next week , when Twitter says it will implement more rules . Twitter declined to comment on the changes .\nWhile liberals cheered the crackdown , conservatives worried that they 'll be punished next . Describing the crackdown , a Breitbart headline declared that “ conservative figures ” had been “ purged . ”\nOne user who lost her verification , Laura Loomer , charged that Twitter was trying to “ annihilate conservatives from the internet . ”\n“ They ’ re absolutely targeting people on the right , ” said Tim Gionet , an internet troll better known as Baked Alaska who attended the Charlottesville march with white supremacists and has made anti-Semitic statements on Twitter . “ Can you name one liberal that was deverified ? ”\nWhile several far-right and white nationalist figures affected by Twitter ’ s policy change on Wednesday lost their verified checkmarks , Gionet appears to be the only one who was outright banned from the platform .\nWhile the punishments focused on Twitter ’ s fringe right , some more mainstream conservatives raised concerns about taking away verifications .\n`` If they want to ban people , ban them . But verification is to prevent fraud , not to endorse viewpoints , '' tweeted conservative pundit Ben Shapiro in response to the changes .\nOthers took issue with a specific provision in the company ’ s new rules , which states that Twitter can deverify users based on behavior that occurs off Twitter .\n“ It 's worth noting that Twitter can remove your verified badge for behaviors made /off/ the platform , ” tweeted Ian Miles Cheong , a contributor to Tucker Carlson ’ s The Daily Caller . “ Just as well , the company can take action against your account for supporting any group or individual that it claims promote certain behaviors . ”\n“ You know what this means for # MAGA , ” he warned , referring to President Trump ’ s campaign promise to “ make America great again . ”\nCheong told ███ that he doesn ’ t support the views of white nationalists like Spencer and Kessler , but argues that it ’ s damaging for Twitter to censor speech .\n“ The reason why is : if you drive them underground ... they ’ re going to radicalize further , ” Cheong argued . “ The best way to counter arguments is to provide good arguments . ”\nThe Twitter crackdown comes amid concerns that other Silicon Valley firms are discriminating against the right .\nInternet conservatives similarly fumed after YouTube began to strip their videos of ads , cutting into the revenue right-wing internet pundits receive from them . Some of the community ’ s most extreme members were also incensed when Reddit moved to purge Nazi subreddits from its site .\nNew decisions from tech companies are frustrating members of the fringe-right , whose communities had blossomed on sites like Reddit , Twitter and YouTube in recent years .\nTwitter once declared itself “ the free speech wing of the free speech party. ” While the company still prides itself on being a forum for open discussions , it ’ s now less comfortable with that characterization .\n“ I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas , the world is automatically going to be a better place , ” Twitter co-founder Evan Williams told The New York Times in May . “ I was wrong about that . ”\nGab — a Twitter rival with laxer content rules that British provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and other fringe right figures have taken to after being banned from Twitter — agreed with calls from some right-wing figures for Twitter to be regulated as a utility .\n“ Twitter essentially is like a telephone , ” Gab ’ s Chief Operating Officer Utsav Sanduja told ███ . “ It is a public utility and it needs to be regulated one . ”\nSpencer made a similar argument , calling on “ Washington to regulate Silicon Valley ” on Twitter .\nTheir sentiments echo former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon ’ s push to regulate massive Silicon Valley tech firms like Google , Facebook and Amazon .\nSuch arguments have been made more typically by Democrats like Sen. Al Franken Alan ( Al ) Stuart FrankenAl Franken to host SiriusXM radio show ███ 's Morning Report - Presented by National Association of Manufacturers - The impeachment of President Trump has begun GOP Senate candidate said Republicans have 'dual loyalties ' to Israel MORE ( D-Minn. ) , who has advocated for net neutrality-styled regulations of major internet firms .\nDespite increasing calls for tighter oversight of internet firms , such policies are still unlikely in the short term . In the meantime , some high-profile members of the online right see Gab as their next best bet — albeit one with far less reach than Twitter .\nGab says that Twitter ’ s stricter verification rules have benefited it . Sanduja said over email on Wednesday night that the platform saw a spike of 2,000 new user sign ups on Thursday , the day the new Twitter rules went into effect .\nGab platform has 310,000 users in total , according to Sanduja .\n“ These unforced errors from Twitter have been fantastic for Gab , ” the company said in a statement .


Earlier this month , I wrote a column asking what Democrats should do about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden , the party 's presumptive nominee for president . My answer ? Not much . The accusation made by Tara Reade , a former Biden staffer from his days in the Senate during the early 1990s , did n't strike me as especially convincing , so Democrats , I suggested , could move forward without much concern . Though toward the end of the column I included two caveats : If Reade offered further corroboration of her claims or if evidence emerged of a larger pattern of abusive actions toward women on Biden 's part , that could well change my views of the matter .\nJust two weeks later , both of my conditions have been met .\nLast week we learned that Reade 's mother called into the Larry King Show in 1993 to talk about how her daughter had quit working for a `` prominent senator '' after unspecified `` problems '' as a staffer . Then earlier this week Business Insider reported that a former neighbor of Reade 's ( a self-described `` strong Democrat '' ) recalls a conversation with her in 1995 or 1996 in which Reade tearfully described being sexually assaulted by Biden . Together , those two stories help to corroborate Reade 's specific claim about herself .\nFinally , on Tuesday , a 2008 essay by the late Alexander Cockburn surfaced in which the journalist reported that Biden had made `` unwelcome and unwanted '' sexual advances against a woman in 1972 or 1973 . That establishes a possible longstanding pattern of Biden 's behavior that further validates Reade 's accusation ( and potentially opens the door to others ) .\nIn light of these revelations , the time has come for a two new questions : Can Biden survive the gathering storm around Tara Reade 's allegations ? And if so , will that fact be good or bad for the Democratic Party in November ?\nThe first question is the easier one to answer : Biden 's presumptive nomination is quite likely to survive the corroboration of Reade 's claims . That 's because members of Biden 's electoral base in the Democratic Party — older , culturally moderate white working-class voters in the Midwest and older , culturally moderate African Americans — are unlikely to be turned against him by one corroborated allegation of sexual assault from nearly three decades in the past . If anything , rank-and-file Democrats have expressed regret that some # MeToo allegations have taken down popular members of the party ( former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken is the example cited most frequently ) — and they 're also irritated that Democrats are expected to adhere to standards their opponents openly flout .\nThe factions of the party most likely to turn on Biden because of a sexual-assault scandal are those who 've been least wedded to his candidacy from the start — those firmly on the left , who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders ; and white urban progressives , who tended to favor Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's candidacy . Neither group possesses the numbers or influence in the party to get it to overrule the preferences of the other two electorally crucial factions — and obviously their opinions will also carry little weight with the candidate himself . This means that , so long as no additional corroborated accusations materialize , Biden will most likely get to hold onto the nomination if he wants to .\nThat might turn out to be a very bad thing for the party come November .\nBut how could this be ? How could a sexual assault allegation place Biden at a disadvantage in the general election against President Trump , a man who has openly bragged on tape of sexual assault and has himself been accused of rape on multiple occasions ?\nOn substance , Trump will have zero moral ground to stand on . But he wo n't be taking a stand in the name of treating women with respect . Neither will he be accusing Biden of being a sexual predator . Instead , he and the entire Republican noise machine will constantly , relentlessly hammer Biden , leading Democrats , and the media for flagrant hypocrisy and double standards . The moral content of the issue wo n't matter one bit . What will matter is that Biden has set himself up as a moral arbiter on issues of sexual harassment and violence , insisting we must `` believe all women , '' and that in the fall of 2018 he and many other members of his party sought to destroy the reputation of Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for allegations of sexual assault that were less convincingly corroborated than those Reade has lodged against Biden .\nThe Democratic nominee for president and his party are ruthless political operators who seek above all else to destroy their enemies and help themselves , all the while setting themselves up as impartial moral authorities . This will be the message , driven home over and over again : that claims of purity and impartiality are pretense , transparent fakes . Democrats might posture like they 're better than Republicans , including the president , but they are n't . They 're every bit as bad . They 're just more dishonest about it .\nThe Biden campaign 's effort to portray itself as a moral reset from the debasement of the Trump years will run into this counter-message like a power sander . The Trump campaign will strip it away with a barrage of paid ads , prime-time cable news diatribes , and a hailstorm of tweets — all of it repeating the message ( illustrated with clips from and about the Kavanaugh hearings ) that Biden and his fellow Democrats are every bit the BS artists that Trump is , only they wo n't admit it . They 'll lie about it , right to your face .\nTo Democrats this prediction may sound implausible . There 's no way that Trump , a man whose mendaciousness is well established and total , can possibly succeed in portraying Biden as more dishonest than he is . But he wo n't have to show that Biden is worse , just that he 's no better .\nThat 's Trump 's ( perhaps only ) winning move — to bring the playing field down to his level , to lower Biden 's favorability rating , to make him seem less admirable , less likable , less morally upstanding , less … superior than Trump . He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton in 2016 , using the FBI investigation of her email practices while secretary of state as a cudgel . Last summer , the strategy was to impugn Biden 's son , making them both look like corrupt wheeler dealers in Ukraine . That did n't work out , but now Reade 's allegations have made it possible for Trump and his party to do what they love most of all , which is to accuse Democrats and the media of smarmy double standards instead .\nOf course this wo n't work with most Democratic voters , but that wo n't be its aim . The aim will be to ensure maximal turnout and Trump loyalty among Republicans — and the destruction of Biden 's reputation among independents in crucial swing states .\nWill it succeed ? Trump will be facing re-election while presiding over a deadly pandemic and the early stages of an economic depression , so who knows . What I do know is that the behavior Tara Reade has plausibly alleged about the presumptive Democratic nominee is going to be a major liability for him as we head toward Election Day .\nWant more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox ? Sign up for The Week 's `` Today 's best articles '' newsletter here .


The head of US media giant CBS , Les Moonves , has resigned with immediate effect following allegations of sexual misconduct .\nCBS had been investigating Mr Moonves since allegations appeared in the New Yorker in July - and fresh accusations from six more women appeared on Sunday .\nMr Moonves , 68 , denies the allegations , calling the latest `` appalling '' .\nIn a statement CBS said a $ 20m ( £15.4m ) would be paid immediately in support of the # MeToo movement .\nIt said one or more organisations that supported # MeToo and female workplace equality stood to benefit , but did not specify which .\nThe donation has been deducted from any severance benefits that may be due to Mr Moonves - the amount of which is pending the results of an ongoing independent investigation into his conduct .\nThey appear in a new article in the New Yorker by Ronan Farrow , who also authored the July piece and this year shared a Pulitzer Prize for detailing assault accusations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein .\nThe six women in the latest piece allege sexual harassment or assault by Mr Moonves between the 1980s and the first decade of this century .\nSome allege he forced them to perform oral sex or exposed himself without their consent .\nSome say he damaged their careers when they rebuffed him .\nTV executive Phyllis Golden-Gottlieb and writer Jessica Pallingston are two of the women who give graphic descriptions of the misconduct they accuse Mr Moonves of carrying out .\nUnder Mr Moonves ' leadership , CBS has been the most-watched network in the US . He developed hits like CSI and The Big Bang Theory , while his $ 69.3m ( £53m ) earnings in 2017 made him one of the highest paid chief executives in the world .\nHis tenure at the top of CBS , which he joined in 1995 , has been marked by a power struggle with Shari Redstone who , through her family 's business National Amusements , is the controlling shareholder in both CBS and the media conglomerate , Viacom .\nMs Redstone and Mr Moonves had been engaged in a court battle as he tried to thwart her plan to merge CBS and Viacom .\nBut the announcement of Mr Moonves ' departure came at the same time as CBS said it was ending legal action against National Amusements . For its part , National Amusements said it would not seek a merger between the two companies for the next two years .\nIn a statement it announced that Mr Moonves would step down as chairman , president and CEO with immediate effect .\nThe Financial Times said Mr Moonves was resigning because this would entitle him to a hefty severance package , including stock options .\nUS media said the resignation package for Mr Moonves could amount to $ 100m .\nHowever , CBS said he would not receive any severance benefits until the result of an independent investigation into him .\nIn a separate move , six directors have stepped down and six new ones have been elected .\nMr Moonves issued a statement on Sunday saying : `` Untrue allegations from decades ago are now being made against me that are not consistent with who I am . ''\nThe New Yorker quoted a statement in which he says : `` The appalling accusations in this article are untrue . What is true is that I had consensual relations with three of the women some 25 years ago before I came to CBS .\n`` And I have never used my position to hinder the advancement or careers of women . In my 40 years of work , I have never before heard of such disturbing accusations . ''\nA further six women also accused Mr Moonves earlier this year . All of them said they believed their careers had suffered because they rejected his advances .\nAt the time Mr Moonves said he `` may have made some women uncomfortable '' in the past , adding : `` Those were mistakes , and I regret them immensely . But I always understood and respected ... that 'no ' means 'no ' .\nOn Monday , CBS This Morning presenter Norah O'Donnell told viewers that `` he 's my boss - or he was my boss - and that makes it hard to comment on it '' .\nShe discussed her conversation over the weekend with co-host Gayle King about how it had been less than a year since their fellow CBS presenter , Charlie Rose , resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations against him .\nShe then turned to the camera and said : `` There is no excuse for this alleged behavior . It is systemic and it is pervasive in our culture . ''\n`` And this I know this is true to the core of my being : Women can not achieve equality in the workplace or society until there is a reckoning and a taking of responsibility . ''


Speaker Ryan On Sexual Harassment : 'We Are Having A Watershed Moment In This Country '\nHouse Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wis. , says the rash of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations coming to light could end up being a `` watershed moment '' in changing the culture — including on Capitol Hill — that has covered them up far too long .\n`` We are having a watershed moment in this country . I think this is a defining moment in this country . And I think it needs to be a defining moment in this country , '' Ryan told Morning Edition 's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Capitol Hill on Thursday .\nPolitics Listen : House Speaker Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans In 'Morning Edition ' Interview Paul Ryan Defends GOP Tax Plans Listen · 7:02 7:02\n`` I think we 're all horrified at these stories we 've been seeing unfold in the last few weeks . I think we 're all realizing that sexual harassment in America is absolutely pervasive and it 's got to go and we need to end it , '' Ryan continued . `` And nowhere more is this important to set a standard and an example than elected officials . We should be held to a high standard . ''\nPoliticians in both parties have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent weeks . On Thursday , Ryan called for Rep. John Conyers , D-Mich. , to resign after a former aide made public her allegations of sexual harassment against the veteran lawmaker . House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , also called on Conyers to step down . The Michigan Democrat has been hospitalized for stress .\nAnother accuser also came forward on Thursday against Sen. Al Franken , D-Minn. , alleging that he groped her during a 2003 photo opportunity , bringing his total accusers to five women who say the senator groped or forcibly kissed them in recent weeks . The Senate Ethics Committee confirms it has launched an initial inquiry into the allegations against Franken .\nMeanwhile , Republicans are continuing to grapple with Alabama GOP Senate nominee Roy Moore , who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault when they were teens and he was in his 30s . Several women say he pursued them romantically , and one woman said he had sexually assaulted her when she was 14 .\nPresident Trump himself was accused of sexual assault by several women during the 2016 campaign , allegations he continues to deny . And in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape that surfaced just ahead of the election Trump bragged about groping and forcibly kissing women . According to reports , Trump has now begun to privately assert that tape was a fake , despite acknowledging its veracity last year .\nInskeep asked Ryan about the differences between the allegations against Moore — which the House speaker reiterated he believed were `` very , very credible '' — and the accusations against Trump .\nThe speaker said he was `` focused on Congress '' because that 's where Moore wants to go . `` My job here as speaker of the House is to help make sure that Congress is an institution that we 're proud of and that 's what I 'm focused on , '' he said .\nAsked again about the differences , Ryan said , `` I have n't spent my time reviewing the difference in these two cases . ''\nRyan admitted , `` It 's no secret that [ Trump ] and I have had our differences of opinions , '' but he underscored they still align on policy issues and goals .\n`` What I see is a president who is fighting for the things that I 'm fighting for . I see a president who 's fighting for an agenda that will make a positive difference in people 's lives , '' Ryan said . `` Is this president unconventional ? No two ways about it . He 's very unconventional . But if we make good by the American people by actually improving their lives and fixing problems and finding solutions that are bothering them ? That 's a good thing . ''\nAll these recent political allegations are in addition to women coming forward with stories of sexual assault against high-profile Hollywood moguls such as Harvey Weinstein and journalists like NBC 's Matt Lauer , CBS ' Charlie Rose and top NPR executives as well .\nRyan told NPR that , as a father , the issue is a personal one for him as he has watched the swirl of scandal over the past few weeks .\n`` I want my daughter to grow up in a country — she 's 15 years old — where she is empowered and respected . Wherever she goes , wherever she works , and whatever she does . And I think nowhere should that be more obvious and apparent than working here on Capitol Hill , '' Ryan said .\n`` So I think here in Congress we should set ourselves to standards that we expect of other people , '' the House speaker added . `` We should set high standards for ourselves , so that we can be role models and set examples , and clearly people have been falling short of that , and I think we always have to endeavor to do a better job on that . ''\nCongress has recently passed legislation to adopt mandatory training on harassment and discrimination for lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees . In a news conference on Thursday , Ryan applauded the legislation but also said , `` This is an important step , but it 's one step . ''


A new piece of evidence has emerged buttressing the credibility of Tara Reade ’ s claim that she told her mother about allegations of sexual harassment and assault related to her former boss , then-Sen. Joe Biden . Biden , through a spokesperson , has denied the allegations . Reade has claimed to various media outlets , including ███ , that she told her mother , a close friend , and her brother about both the harassment and , to varying degrees of detail , the assault at the time . Her brother , Collin Moulton , and her friend , who has asked to remain anonymous , both confirmed that they heard about the allegations from Reade at the time . Reade ’ s mother died in 2016 , but both her brother and friend also confirmed Reade had told her mother , and that her mother , a longtime feminist and activist , urged her to go to the police . In interviews with ███ , Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to “ Larry King Live ” on CNN , during which she made reference to her daughter ’ s experience on Capitol Hill . Reade told ███ that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade , then in her 20s , left Biden ’ s office . “ I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired , where can she go for help ? I was mortified , ” Reade told me . Reade couldn ’ t remember the date or the year of the phone call , and King didn ’ t include the names of callers on his show . I was unable to find the call , but mentioned it in an interview with Katie Halper , the podcast host who first aired Reade ’ s allegation . After the podcast aired , a listener managed to find the call and sent it to ███ .\nOn August 11 , 1993 , King aired a program titled , “ Washington : The Cruelest City on Earth ? ” Toward the end of the program , he introduces a caller dialing in from San Luis Obispo , California . Congressional records list August 1993 as Reade ’ s last month of employment with Biden ’ s Senate office , and , according to property records , Reade ’ s mother , Jeanette Altimus , was living in San Luis Obispo County . Here is the transcript of the beginning of the call : KING : San Luis Obispo , California , hello . CALLER : Yes , hello . I ’ m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington ? My daughter has just left there , after working for a prominent senator , and could not get through with her problems at all , and the only thing she could have done was go to the press , and she chose not to do it out of respect for him . KING : In other words , she had a story to tell but , out of respect for the person she worked for , she didn ’ t tell it ? CALLER : That ’ s true . King ’ s panel of guests offered no suggestions , and instead the conversation veered into a discussion of whether any of the men on set would leak damaging personal information about a rival to the press .\nReade , after being read the transcript of the call , said that it gelled with her memory of it , and , after the video was surfaced , confirmed it is her mother ’ s voice on the call . “ Aww , I have not heard my mom ’ s voice in awhile , ” she said . There are several notable things about the emergence of the call . On the one hand , the caller does not specifically mention “ sexual harassment ” or retaliation , as Reade had recalled . On the other hand , the reference to being unable to “ get through with her problems ” aligns with Reade ’ s claim that she complained to superiors in Biden ’ s office and got nowhere , and the reference to going to the press makes clear that the caller is talking about more than just generic problems at the office . The problems , she makes clear , would damage the senator if exposed . Reade ’ s inability to remember the exact date of the alleged assault , or its precise location , or the precise location of the office where she picked up the form needed to file a complaint , has been used by skeptics to suggest the allegation is fabricated . What the emergence of the call shows is that even if Reade ’ s memory is off on timing or details , the substance of her claims — in this case , that her mother called Larry King and discussed her situation — can still be true .\nThe call also calls into question the credibility of Biden ’ s denial . Reade said that she filed a complaint about Biden ’ s harassment with Marianne Baker , effectively the office manager in the Biden office . The Biden campaign released a statement from Baker , which said that neither Reade nor any other employee had ever complained about improper behavior . “ In all my years working for Senator Biden , I never once witnessed , or heard of , or received , any reports of inappropriate conduct , period — not from Ms. Reade , not from anyone , ” Baker said in the campaign ’ s statement . “ These clearly false allegations are in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades. ” For Baker ’ s statement to be true , Reade would have had to have lied to her friend , brother , and mother about having complained to Biden ’ s office . There is no obvious reason Reade would make up a story to those closest to her about the Senate office not taking Biden ’ s harassment seriously , while at the same time resisting pressure to go to the press . Reade has said that the complaint she filed was related to the harassment she said she faced , and did not address the assault . The complaint was left with Biden ’ s office , and if it still exists , is with Biden ’ s papers at the University of Delaware . The school recently told reporter Rich McHugh that the papers are sealed until two years after Biden leaves public life .\nAnd @ UDelaware -- which houses the collection of Joe Biden 's senatorial papers -- just confirmed to me that the papers `` will remain closed to the public until two years after Mr. Biden retires from public life . '' — Rich McHugh ( @ RichMcHugh ) April 21 , 2020


Former Vice President Joe Biden addresses a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids , Iowa , April 30 , 2019 . ( Jonathan Ernst/Reuters )\nIt ’ s just basic American due process , so why is Betsy DeVos getting slammed ?\nWhy should Joe Biden get due process , but not others accused of sexual misconduct ?\nThat ’ s the question raised by the progressive reaction to Tara Reade ’ s accusation against Biden on the one hand , and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos ’ s new rules for handling sexual-harassment cases on college campuses on the other .\nThere have been voices on the left who believe Reade , but generally the note has been one of skepticism about her allegation , along with admonitions that the evidence must be considered carefully .\nMany of the popularizers of the phrase “ believe women ” have climbed down to simply saying that women ’ s accusations should be heard and then evaluated in light of the facts .\nIn other words , what any fair-minded person has maintained throughout the # MeToo era , including during the Brett Kavanaugh battle .\nAnd yet there is still progressive outrage over the new Title IX rules developed by DeVos that seek to bring balance and fairness to the consideration of accusations against people who aren ’ t the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States .\nThe actor/activist Alyssa Milano , an erstwhile vocal advocate of “ believe women , ” has now modulated her view to accommodate her continued support of Biden . She explains that we need to shift our mindset “ to believing women . But that does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations , and it ’ s got to be fair in both directions . ”\nThis is an unassailable position , and one that obviously has implications for the Title IX debate . Even if it doesn ’ t entail supporting every particular of DeVos ’ s reforms , it should mean an openness to them . Nonetheless , late last year Milano slammed DeVos over the proposed changes in highly personal terms .\nThe upshot of Milano ’ s inconsistency is that a famous and powerful man , whom she happens to know and support , should get more consideration than a young , politically powerless , unknown student somewhere .\nA piece from Vox on what “ believe women ” means in the context of Reade ’ s allegation quoted Sage Carson , manager of an advocacy organization called Know Your IX . According to Carson , the concept has been twisted “ into this idea that you never provide a fair process for folks to go through . ”\nAn article in Mother Jones reported that anti-sexual-assault activists still supporting Biden have a number of reasons . One of them is “ an eagerness to replace Trump ’ s cabinet , including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , whose overhaul of campus sexual assault policy has prompted outcry from survivors . ”\nIn other words , Biden gets the benefit of the doubt on Tara Reade explicitly as a means to continue to deny the accused on campus any such benefit of the doubt .\nThe DeVos changes are meant to inject elementary fairness into proceedings that went off the rails in response to Obama-administration guidance in 2011 . Students punished by these kangaroo courts have had considerable success appealing their cases in the courts .\nThe DeVos rules reverse the single-investigator model that empowered one person to investigate a case and recommend a decision .\nNow the investigator and adjudicator must be different . Students must have access to evidence , and the accused must know what is alleged and by whom and when .\nThere must be a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination by both sides .\nTitle IX coordinators and investigators can ’ t be biased one way or the other .\nThese measures are so in keeping with basic American traditions that it ’ s hard to believe that anyone could oppose them .\nThe ultimate irony is that Joe Biden was a prime mover behind the Obama-era Title IX rules . As Robby Soave of Reason magazine notes , “ If the allegation against Biden were being decided by the kind of adjudication system that he helped enshrine on college campuses , it ’ s quite likely that he would be found guilty . ”\nThere ’ s a lesson there , although it ’ s doubtful anyone — emphatically including Biden himself — is willing to learn it .


House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi is facing a backlash for defending Rep. John Conyers and even questioning those accusing him of sexual harassment during a Sunday interview .\nPelosi , D-Calif. , touted Conyers , D-Mich. , on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” as an American icon .\n“ John Conyers is an icon in our country , ” she said . “ He has done a great deal to protect women . ”\nShe added : “ I believe he understands what ’ s at stake here . He will do the right thing . ”\nPelosi said Conyers , and the women accusing him , were entitled to “ due process , ” but also asked : “ I don ’ t know who they are—do you ? ”\nHost Chuck Todd asked whether Pelosi believed the women alleging Conyers treated them inappropriately .\nPelosi ’ s interview drew harsh criticism on Twitter from those who accused her of playing party politics and focusing on “ power . ”\n“ Pelosi is a survivor and knows she can ’ t lose support in black caucus so she is gentle w Conyers . It ’ s always about power , ” Chairman of the American Conservative Union Matt Schlapp tweeted Monday .\nPolitical editor for TownHall.com and Fox News contributor Guy Benson pointed to Pelosi ’ s interview as an example of a “ double standard ” used by Democrats in regard to sexual harassment allegations . Benson cited Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore , who has been accused of pursuing teenage girls when he was in his 30s , and even sexual assault -- claims he denies .\n“ I ’ m no Roy Moore defender , to put it mildly . But for those unable to comprehend why many conservative voters are willing to stand by him , look no further than Pelosi ’ s MTP performance today . Many GOP voters see Dems as ruthless defenders of power & are sick of double standards , ” Benson tweeted Sunday .\nDespite Pelosi ’ s defense of Conyers ' record , she applauded the Democratic congressman 's decision later Sunday to step down from his leadership position on the House Judiciary Committee while the Ethics Committee reviews the harassment allegations against him .\n“ Zero tolerance means consequences , ” Pelosi said in a statement Sunday , noting that she asked for an ethics investigation into Conyers and that he “ agreed to step aside ” as ranking member on the committee .\n“ We are at a watershed moment on this issue , and no matter how great an individual ’ s legacy , it is not a license for harassment , ” Pelosi said . “ I commend the brave women coming forward . ”\nPelosi ’ s statement seemed to add more fuel to the Twitter fire , as pundits and journalists pointed out the difference in tone from her comments earlier that day .\nThe ethics committee announced last Tuesday that it began an investigation into Conyers , after receiving allegations of sexual harassment and age discrimination involving staff members and about the congressman using “ official resources for impermissible personal purposes . ”\nThe announcement followed a BuzzFeed News report last Monday that Conyers ’ office paid a woman more than $ 27,000 under a confidentiality agreement to settle a 2015 complaint that she was fired from Conyers ’ staff for rejecting his sexual advances .\nAlso last week , Melanie Sloan , a lawyer who worked with Conyers on the House Judiciary Committee , alleged that she was called into Conyers ’ office to discuss an issue and found him “ walking around in his underwear. ” It is unclear when the alleged incident occurred . She also claimed Conyers screamed at her , fired and re-hired her , and criticized her for not wearing stockings .\nConyers has continued to deny the allegations , but said he would fully cooperate in the probe .