484 Comments

Everyone: I appreciate your passion here, but you don't know what you don't know. I am well aware of the commitment I made to you and my earlier public statements. That's truly all I can say right now. If you want to keep speculating and shooting arrows my way, go ahead.

Expand full comment

Um. What did you expect? And then not to even acknowledge the obvious situation with those that donated? And to deflect by bringing up some random point about Elon Musk?

Expand full comment

Agree, the Elon rant was totally and completely unnecessary... Sort of like when he took the shot at Dr. Malone.. Odd to say the least.

Expand full comment

Yeah. He's been known to be quite the little cunt. Blocked his emails several months ago after the Malone comments. I only heard about this via Reclaim The Net.

Expand full comment

I suspect he expected cooler heads among his subscribers.

A settlement has been reached in principle. A settlement that needs to be finalized. A settlement about which NONE OF US has ANY of the details, nor ANY indication that the details of the settlement will be suppressed.

I suspect he expected us to understand all of that. Perhaps that was his only mistake with this post, expecting more of us than we deserved.

Expand full comment

Re-read his post. He’s already laid the groundwork for not releasing anything substantial due to "confidentiality" agreements. I’m highly dubious that anything he ends up disclosing will be a far cry from the "help me" peel twitter's discriminatory practices wide open plea. Time will tell. And my bet is he'll be stringing everyone along with nothing substantial until the interest dies out.

Expand full comment

Ok, he's laid the groundwork. But until we know how much or how little he ends up revealing, it's premature for us to wax apoplectic over the unknown. IMO.

Expand full comment

I think you used a sort of double negative in your third sentence, saying, grammatically, the opposite of what you intended, which was, "I'm highly dubious that anything he ends up disclosing will be *close to* the "help me" peel twitter's discriminatory practices wide open plea."

Expand full comment

Exactly my thought — I almost got whiplash when he whipsawed from "but muh confidentiality agreement" to a complete non sequitur i.e. Musk. Methinks his "it’s not my fault" protestations are insubstantial and he knows it.

Expand full comment

I'm a lawyer and can't imagine how any settlement that Twitter would agree to would meet your prior commitments, but I am patiently waiting with some remaining hope. However, I would highly recommend that any settlement of a case that been this public and this publicly supported should not be confidential.

Expand full comment

Per Alex: "Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines."

Expand full comment

Thank you Angela for bringing this quote to the forefront!

Expand full comment

Zero chance a Twitter settlement will not include confidentiality. If Alex is true to his word, in spite of dollars dangling in front of him, he'll need to decline and go to court. He'll settle ("on the advice of counsel").

Expand full comment

sounds like a contract with donors

Expand full comment

Interesting thought....🤔😳

Expand full comment

Your curiousity to the result of a settlement doesn’t mean it’s in Berenson’s best interests, which are truly all that matter.

The reason for confidentiality in many of these cases is the defendant requires it to prevent copycat lawsuits and knowledge of how much can be gained by litigation. It’s possible Twitter would drop a confidentiality clause, but only by agreeing to a far smaller payout. As a plaintiff, I would happily take more and be required to keep my mouth shut than speak and get less

Expand full comment

It isn't truly "all" that matters after he made it a public interest lawsuit in his name supported by publicly solicited funds for a stated "reddest of all red lines" result. But, I'll withhold judgment until the fat lady sings. Aside from his insanely irrational reaction to all things Ivermectin, he's shown himself to be reasonably reliable and worth the risk.

Expand full comment

"WHEREAS, the parties propose no changes to the substance or sequence of the discovery

specified in the Order; "

Expand full comment

Exactly, take less money and have a TRANSPARENT settlement being people publically supported additional fuel for your fire.

Expand full comment

I am happy for you, if you got what you are looking for. I’m sad for me because I wanted you to bring them to justice. I in absolutely no way begrudge you for anything you do around this. You’ve been a beacon of light in a dark time. I just wanted a lot more light.

Expand full comment

There is no justice to bring them to. They are not bound by the 1st Amendment, they never owed anyone free speech or an account.

You rubes got played.

Expand full comment

Please show us proof that representatives of the federal government did not order or strongly suggest that Twitter ban Americans who disagreed with the official government stance.

Or at least show us evidence that a careful review of Twitter's internal communications was performed, and no evidence was found of collusion.

Oh wait, you can't.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed by the Court on April 29, 2022. If there was collusion, those claims would not have been dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

Lol - as tho the proceedings of our kangaroo courts have anything to do with "justice".

Expand full comment

There was no justice to mete out, Twitter never owed anyone free speech or an account, that's why the claims for banning him were dismissed in April.

Expand full comment

Sorry, all that evidence is “largely confidential”. 😂

Expand full comment

You seem to be a bot.

Expand full comment

No, I'm stating facts none of you clowns can refute.

Expand full comment

Take it easy on 'em. They're Lord & Savior just broke their naive wittle hearts!

Expand full comment

Their

Learn to spell, moron.

Expand full comment

Why do you feel the compulsive need to keep stating your facts here? I think we got your brilliant message. Now go back to the flat rock you live under.

Expand full comment

Awww...Zade got taken to the cleaners by Massa Alex.

Expand full comment

Depends on level of government collusion.

Expand full comment

There wasn't any.

Expand full comment

you don't yet know what the settlement is, before you can be happy or sad for Barenson or yourself

Expand full comment

If it's one thing we've learned throughout this 5+ year ordeal it's patience, so at least I will wait to see how this plays out. Many of us are just expressing our initial disappointment as we ALL KNOW what Twitter has been doing (hell I've even been banned for a time). We just want their EVIL to be revealed to all.

Expand full comment

Twitter isn't bound by the 1st Amendment, they never owed anyone free speech. That's not evil.

Expand full comment

It is when the US government uses it to stifle free speech to try and work around the 1st amendment.

Expand full comment

There was no collusion.

Expand full comment

Interesting that you can definitively say "There was no collusion".

Do you have access to Twitter's private correspondence with government officials? I highly doubt it. And if you don't, then at best you're just guessing. And in this case it's more like you're hoping.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29, 2022. If there was collusion, those claims wouldn't have been dismissed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

Drink the kool aid--you look thirsty.

Expand full comment

He's not thirsty - he's a hired shill. It's kinda obvious.

Expand full comment

LOL see AAPS v. Schiff, Daniels v. Alphabet, Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook, Doe v Google...

Expand full comment

And you know this how? Proof?

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed by the Court on April 29, 2022. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

I think it's EVIL when they suppress and ban posts on studies on therapeutics that could really help people battling COVID and then they promote any and all vaccine pushers. Thankfully they haven't been banning the posts on vaccine injuries/deaths lately, but by now most of the damage has been done. They are 100% EVIL in my book.

Expand full comment

Trolls gonna troll. Don’t bother.

We know the truth. I was banned from LinkedIn for sharing a NYPost article and asking “I thought vaccines worked? So why do you care if I have one or not?”

Free speech is fundamental and Twitter et al have a lot of apologizing to do.

Expand full comment

Private companies, like Twitter and LinkedIn, don't owe anyone free speech, they are not bound by the 1st Amendment.

If you boneheads knew this in the first place, you would never have donated to this grifter. LOL

Expand full comment

I disagree on all points and although Substack is private, I’m allowed to say what I want … and so are you … which exemplifies the very spirit of free speech, which is a fundamental human right.

Private businesses cannot discriminate against women, right? There are things that supersede public vs. private and I would argue free speech is atop all of it.

Go troll elsewhere. Twitter seems perfect for you, sir. Good day.

Expand full comment

Are you paid for each post? You're awfully snarky and repetitive. Fck off.

Expand full comment

We are approaching Standard Oil breakup levels with regard to Youtube, 90%+ online videos consumed by internet users. Vimeo is at like 9%. (Statista, 2022) What are the market shares for similar services to Twitter? How about Google for search? I completely get your 1st Amendment argument. We also have single corporations with massive shares in niche areas of what can be argued as the 'public square' for society today. What I see are dangers. The tendency to manipulate public thought, the government stepping in to 'suggest' what should and shouldn't be allowed based on political decisions, the incessant bombardment of completely false information by governments, the allowed tweets/videos on social media, and corporations...Do you see this as a danger? If not, then I would respectfully disagree. But if so, what are your thoughts?

Expand full comment

No, you're just a silly emotional child.

Expand full comment

Says the silly annoying child.

Expand full comment

Says the daft cunt

Expand full comment

Maybe that's the settlement? Twitter posters can talk all they want about vaccine injuries / deaths, as long as they don't talk about the war in Ukraine, or the WHO power grab, or any of a hundred other taboo topics.

Expand full comment

They're blatantly silencing speech for political reasons. It's as close to evil as you'll get. They're banning, for example. actual studies that go against a narrative they inexplicably support. But violent rhetoric from organizations like Antifa doesn't get banned. Actually, 1A or not - it is evil.

Expand full comment

No, it's not evil, they're a business making business decisions, that's their First Amendment right.

Why do you commies hate the 1A so much?

Expand full comment

These dolts are pro-business until someone that they *perceive* to be on their side decides to get his panties in a bunch.

Expand full comment

I've been called a lot of things in my life but commies is a first. Chapeau.

Expand full comment

Twitter is a for-profit corp making business decisions in order to attract ad revenue. You're against that, and you supported a lawsuit that would had the government controlling a private business and their free speech.

You're a commie and you didn't even know it.

Expand full comment

The federal government isn't allowed to stifle protected speech by proxy via third parties. If the government was ordering, or even strongly suggesting that Twitter suspend and ban people that didn't agree with the government's message, that is a first amendment violation. End of story. This is is basic con law.

And that doesn't even take into consideration that California has much broader protections for speech than those enumerated in the first amendment.

If Twitter acted on their own, then you would be correct. But they didn't, which is most likely why they are settling.

Expand full comment

The government wasn't ordering anything. The claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29, 2022, the discovery didn't show any collusion.

Expand full comment

Depends on level of government collusion.

Expand full comment

There wasn't any, the claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29, 2022.

Expand full comment

Alex sued in CA because free speech rights are different there according to their State Constitution.

Freedom of expression under the California Constitution

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Expand full comment

The claims for banning him were dismissed on April 29th.

Expand full comment

Twitter is the town square. So long as they can continue to censor public discourse in the town square, the settlement is a travesty of justice. Which is pretty well what one expects from our courts that are corrupt from top to bottom.

Expand full comment

Town squares are owned by the government, Twitter is not, it's private property. They are not bound by the 1A. The 1A lets them ban what they want.

Berenson didn't settle on his claims of being banned, those were already dismissed by the court earlier this year.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0_1.pdf

Expand full comment

three types of evil in this country. Multi nationals like the social media censor happy commies who hate the U.S. Straight up commies, and useful idiots like you

Expand full comment

They're for-profit companies making business decisions to attract ad revenue. They aren't bound by the 1a and they never owed anyone free speech. That's capitalism, not communism, you ignorant clown. LOL

Expand full comment

correct. But if you'll allow that social media has become the public square, then for the good of society, a 1A application seems like goodness, no ? (PS, I use twitter in the mode where I see (hopefully all) only what those I follow post. I don't defer to twitter to decide what's trending (tho Berenson restated would trend, eh ?)

Expand full comment

Public squares are owned by the government, social media companies are not, they're private businesses with their own 1A rights to ban what they want. You're saying you want the government to violate the 1A of those you disagree with. There is nothing good about that.

Expand full comment

Private companies don't get blanket indemnity from Congress

Expand full comment

Where's the hate icon?

Expand full comment

I supported your substack because I appreciate your articles on COVID/Vaccines. Not because of your legal case against Twitter.

Expand full comment

Actually, the Twitter case is important because we who follow on SubStack are many fewer than those who followed on Twitter. Twitter is where information reaches more of the public.

What we want to really know relates to the government telling Twitter what to publish.

Expand full comment

I'll listen, but there is a fundamental conflict between being a champion of truth, justice, and the American way, while at the same time signing onto a settlement in which "I won't be able to say much about."

Expand full comment

If you are worried about what others are saying about your settlement, be transparent so people don’t have to speculate about what they sent you money for.

Expand full comment

Dear Alex. We're not shooting arrows. Nature hates a vacuum and you've created a hell of a vacuum here. If you've enriched yourself without finishing the fight we all paid to see you're just as bad as all those you write about. Just sayin...

Expand full comment

I've got laugh my ass off at fools who donated money to someone suing Twitter over being banned. Twitter never owed anyone free speech or an account. lol

Expand full comment

Thanks Alex for the comments. Looking forward to more information in the near future.

Expand full comment

To be honest, I don't see how a settlement makes sense for Twitter at this point EXCEPT to stop discovery. Keeping internal documents and communications out of the public domain has to be their motivation. Discovery was what Team Reality desperately wanted, and would likely destroy Twitter's share price and increase Elon's leverage to discount his $54.20/share offer. Hoping Alex eventually lays out EXPLICITY his reason for the lawsuit, what he hoped to accomplish, and what terms he was willing to accept in a settlement. I can't imagine a legit reason for Alex to settle at this point. Maybe simply having his Twitter account reinstated was the goal??? I'll patiently wait and not jump to conclusions, but man right now, this REALLY hurts.

Expand full comment

There was nothing to discover, Twitter has a 1A right to ban what they want. When his claims for getting banned were dismissed by the court, he realized he had nothing so he offered to settle. Probably for pennies, and it was cheaper for Twitter to have insurance pay a nuisance settlement than to keep fighting.

You got played.

Expand full comment

I just see it as lawsuit because his right to post and share his facts and information… since he was treated unfairly as many Americans have been including president Trump.. because if you don’t think like they do

They eliminate you!… very wrong regardless of Alex’s reason I’m glad he is !

Expand full comment

He doesn't have a right to post on Twitter, nobody does. The court dismissed those claims, just like the court that dismissed trump's lawsuit.

Expand full comment

We live in America we still have freedom of speech!

The lefties in our government are slowly destroying that right..

Maybe your okay with it I am not

Expand full comment

The 1A protects people from the government only, not from Twitter. Nobody has freedom of speech on someone else's private property, dumbo.

Expand full comment

Then why make the post in the first place?

Expand full comment

OMFG!!! This is too perfect! Y'all rubes got suckered by your mortal enemy: (((a NYT "former" reporter))). That must truly sting.

Bravo, AB! I always knew you were on our side. Team Hysteria FTW assholes!!

Expand full comment

Thank you for commenting. This is reassuring.

Expand full comment

👍💪💪keep fighting for freedom of speech for all of us!

Expand full comment

His claims for being banned were dismissed in April. Twitter doesn't owe anyone free speech.

Expand full comment

I'm willing to wait and see what the settlement entails (I know, I know, isn't that awesome some anon poster says this, but hear me out). I think Berenson is enough of an ahole to not just settle for some lost revenue and reinstatement, he's going to want his pound of flesh too. He'll expose a glimpse behind the decision making process that led to his suspension. Even if that doesn't reset the suspension process, it'll be noteworthy.

If settlement means a gag order, and restatement, meh ... ya lost me.

Expand full comment

Incorrect. Berenson is enough of an asshole to swindle his semi-retarded acolytes. Taking some $ for a BS settlement is his MO.

Expand full comment

The claims for being banned were dismissed in April.

Expand full comment

Did you make money off these rubes who follow you? LOL They don't realize that Twitter isn't bound by the 1A and never owed anyone free speech.

Expand full comment

You're the biggest dork who follows him. I just read for free and a little entertainment. Only commented because you're an amazing idiot, and thought your unwarranted large ego needed to see what most people think of your comments.

Expand full comment

I don't follow the fool and I never gave him money or pay for anything here. LOL

Expand full comment

Who cares! You don't follow him...why are you here commenting? Are you 12 with your continuous LOL'S and other idiotic responses?

Expand full comment

Yikes! Sounds like someone, let's just call him "Shmalex Herenson," swindled poor Rick. It's ok Ricky. You'll still be able to buy mom's insulin. Just work a few doubles down at the warehouse.

Expand full comment

Only read for free and definitely didn't donate.

Expand full comment

Guyakaka....don't you have anything else to write?

Expand full comment

Give him a break...he's got weed to smoke, and one or two brain cells left to destroy.

Expand full comment

whoa whoa whoa. I thought the (or at least "a") primary purpose of the lawsuit was to see the extent of collaboration between gov't entities and Twitter? To the extent that isn't revealed, what did the contributors/supporters of your lawsuit get for their money? Having followed you for a couple years I hope/assume you ran them through the discovery ringer and will be able to make public who Twitter was colluding with in their bans/restrictions.

Expand full comment

Fair question - I will have some room to discuss it further once the settlement is finalized and filed.

Expand full comment

its really the only question that all of us want to know....and the most important.

Expand full comment

I know. In general I have been strategic about what I've said publicly about the lawsuit, and I believe those statements have served the suit well. I'm asking for a little more trust and patience.

Expand full comment

We need the discovery. I know you know this but it's worth repeating; they are pushing the fake vaccines on babies and the voices that could inform the public are still largely silenced. This has become life or death matter for millions of children. Parents are being denied the right to informed consent it has to stop.

Expand full comment

Today heard a radio ad from Chicago.gov encouraging parents to rush out and vaccinate their infants. Just infuriating!!

Expand full comment

Yeah, we want the discovery. This is bigger than you, Alex. As I guess you know.

And I share your concerns about Musk's conflicts, especially from China, which is remarkably effective in stifling speech they don't like.

Keep up the good fight,

Kim G

Roma Sur, Mexico City

Expand full comment

Will do....but the suspense is killing us!! LOL

Expand full comment

I trust you

Expand full comment

how about calling it for what it really is ... a bioweapon ...

Expand full comment

Sounds good!!!!

Expand full comment

Ditto

Expand full comment

That was my first reaction triggered by two words: settlement and confidential. That is not how the lawsuit was sold. Some room??? You're done!

Expand full comment

I humbly suggest we slow down. As a longtime follower of Alex I have a little more faith than you. Monetary terms could be confidential (and I'd be fine with that) but he could still be allowed to share other aspects of the case, such as CDC/NIH "consulting" that was done. Let's not string him up just yet...

Expand full comment