The bluechecks have finally figured out what PANDEMIA says about them... and they don't like it one little bit

What's disconcerting - but very interesting legally - is the fact that the hate for me and the book is raining down over Twitter - a platform I cannot access.

Two months after PANDEMIA was published, almost 100,000 copies in, the book has penetrated the consciousness of people like Molly Jong-Fast, whom it quotes as the ne-plus-ultra of the clueless panicked media Brooklynite.

Remember when Molly predicted a minimum of 7 million and up to 23 million Americans would die from Covid? She’d rather you didn’t. That tweet is long gone.

This delay would be funny if it weren’t so sad. It proves yet again that the people who consider themselves the most media-savvy and sophisticated in the world are so busy begging for each other’s approval that they have no idea the information that exists outside their own bubble.

Yet I cannot help feeling somewhat helpless as these people say terrible - and in some cases defamatory - things about me and PANDEMIA.

For the most part, they are talking on Twitter, and as you may have heard, Twitter has banned me. Thus I have no way to respond, except indirectly here; and Substack is a far smaller platform than Twitter, and one not designed for back-and-forth conversation.

And so Twitter is both permitting and profiting from discussions about me in which I am not allowed to participate. It is violating California state law and my First Amendment rights in order to sell ads for its own benefit.

Further, Twitter is allowing the publication of copyrighted material from PANDEMIA in these tweets. The tweets below contain screenshots from the book. The three Twitter users who posted or retweeted them - Molly Jong-Fast, Jamelle Bouie, and Nathan Robinson - collectively have approximately 1.5 million followers.

That fact - along with the admissions by everyone from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Albert Bourla (Pfizer’s chief executive) - that the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission - will put Twitter in a rather… interesting… place as Berenson v. Twitter progresses. If you were Twitter’s lawyers, would you want to spend a long time arguing about the accuracy of this tweet?

Instead, Twitter is likely to lean VERY heavily on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in its defense.

Put aside the California law that regulates Twitter as a common carrier, and the First Amendment issues generated by the federal government’s effort to preempt state law. Put aside the fact that subsection c(2) of Section 230 requires Twitter or any provider to act in “good faith” when it restricts posts - language that presumably includes Twitter following ITS OWN STATED RULES AND REPRESENTATIONS IN WRITING TO ME.

Essentially, what Twitter will be saying is, we may hold ourselves out as open to all, but some customers are more equal than others. You don’t like it? Find another lunch counter. Meanwhile we’re gonna let the folks here talk about you all you like, while we profit from the chatter.

Is that position legally defensible? Twitter and I will find out soon enough.

Is it morally or ethically? You already know the answer.

If you haven’t already, you can buy PANDEMIA here. I hope you will. Don’t let the censors win.