Suspenders, not those kind

That @JohnBeaudoinSr guy indefinitely suspended by Twitter

Early Saturday morning, Twitter sent John Beaudoin, Sr. a message that his account was suspended. Here is the e-mail notification.

John remembers the context of the thread in which he tweeted the above message. Someone had posted that all doctors deserve justice in the form of a death penalty or something similar to that. John then posted the offending message to say that “justice” does not include punishing everyone with the most extreme criminal remedy appropriate for the most heinous acts.

The punishment should fit the crime. Hamurabi’s Code is not a fit for our current society because, in Hamurabi’s time, they would cut a hand off for any kind of stealing. We now differentiate between felonies and misdemeanors for very good reason.

After pointing out that it would not be justice to cut someone’s hand off for stealing a pack of gum, John addressed the topic of the thread above his tweet. John cannot see that exact conversation of tweets because his account is suspended and the tweets above his tweet herein are not available to view. Of all the people culpable for massive deaths due to covid vaccines, Fauci, in John’s opinion, deserves either the death penalty or life in prison, depending on jurisdiction.

John differentiates Fauci from other doctors who were coerced, solicited, or tricked into administering or recommending covid vaccines because the mens rea, or mental state, is different between most doctors and Fauci.

If Fauci knew, and John believes he did know, that covid vaccines are unsafe and untested on a large human population, and he knew that some would die, and he did not know whether the covid vaccines would work to prevent illness, then Fauci is at least “reckless.” A murder by reckless mens rea would afford Fauci five (5) to twenty (20) years in prison depending on the jurisdiction.

However, time is not static. Circumstances changed as time passed. The covid vaccines were killing many people. Diane died from stroke in March 2021. Brianna died in April 2021. Eden died in June 2021. Dan died in June 2021, Holly in September, Charles in November, Abby in December, Cassidy in January 2022, Amaya in August 2022, and many more died from covid vaccines.

John is not sure of the date of that tweet. However, one thing for sure is that Fauci knew that deaths were occurring from covid vaccines. He denied them, acted to cover them up, and, thus, is responsible for the massive number of subsequent deaths due to inaction to suspend the fatal covid vaccines.

Thus, the mens rea grew from “reckless” to at least “knowing.” And knowing mens rea can often carry the death penalty or life in prison depending on jurisdiction.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with John’s tweet by any rational standard. His opinion is that Fauci is responsible and he contextualized his tweet within the bounds of law and debate. There is nothing violent about John’s tweet.

Around the time John was suspended from Twitter, an account profile was disparaging John publicly. John had blocked him and avoided all contact except one Twitter space they both happened to be in. There was an ugly exchange between John and that other profile. Subsequently, that profile then attacked the Twitter space host and others. There is one common profile among chaos, abuse, and stalking.

Minutes or a few hours after John’s suspension, the other profile tweeted and seemed to be gloating that John was suspended from Twitter. The profile stated that John deserved it. If that profile was blocked by John, how did that profile owner know of John’s suspension so immediately? And how was he the first, or one of the first, to know John had been suspended? And then there are the gloating tweets to consider.

John’s tweet, claimed by Twitter to be a policy violation, is very old. Someone went back into John’s tweet history and filed a complaint with Twitter about the words “death penalty” being in a tweet. Twitter then enacted the suspension of John’s account.

If the offending stalker profile is the same one who filed a complaint against John, then the stalker and disparager gets his way, while John, who clearly tried to avoid the stalker, is penalized by Twitter.

Thank you to all John’s supporters on Twitter.

Below is the acknowledgement of request for reinstatement, followed by the rejection of reinstatement.

The interesting thing about this message is the choice of words. “After reviewing for reinstatement your account will not be restored.” That sounds permanent.

This suspension occurred just as John was beginning to write publicly about his upcoming book that is written and now needs a publisher.

For now, you use your judgment whether John’s post warranted suspension.

Elon Musk has made some very public statements about how Twitter is a platform of free speech. This suspension may end up being a mistake of some sort. But if it is not a mistake, then Mr. Musk’s very public statements about free speech are seemingly a fraudulent inducement to get people to engage in commerce on Twitter.

A gauge of what is “violence” could be Mr. Musk’s tweets from the past year; and if they are compared to the tweet above, will they hold up? If the standard is to suspend John for his tweet, will Twitter suspend Elon?

As I ponder the legal implications, Civil RICO comes to mind along with the FOIA releases from America First Legal regarding government collusion with Twitter to censor speech of citizens. Also, the case filing of Alex Berenson, before he settled out of court, should be interesting and bearing on this situation.

Some of the predicate crimes for Civil RICO could involve 18 USC § 241 Conspiracy against rights, 18 USC § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law (government interference), the Restraint of Trade portion of the Sherman Act legislation (standing between Beaudoin and his ability to sell his forthcoming book), racketeering, and other crimes.

This could be a legal education and righteous endeavor to sue Twitter for $100,000,000,000. John will research damages and relevant case history. Hopefully, the intersection of law and economics in punitive damages sets the right standard for US citizens against the Goliaths of the world in tort law. Many people do not understand the purpose and need for punitive damages in tort cases. The economic principles of thwarting opportunism by corporations manifest in harsh penalties to ensure that the public is not harmed consistently for the net financial gain of the corporations. Perhaps Twitter needs a lesson in the intersection of law and economics in tort theory and societal impact.