Screenshot from Chase attending the pro-Trump rally at the National Mall Jan. 6.

by James A. Bacon

Democrats coined a highly effective phrase, “voter suppression,” to describe Republican efforts to regulate the integrity of the voting process. Maybe it’s time Republicans popularized the phrase, “candidate suppression.”

Sen. Amanda Chase, R-Chesterfield, is a case in point. As the Republican Party of Virginia nears its nominating convention for statewide offices, Facebook appears to have permanently removed her official state Senate page, reports Virginia Business.

Let me be clear: I am not a Chase fan. But the fact that her rhetoric and behavior is objectionable to many (including me) does not cancel her right to run for office and express her views. Chase leads in polls of Republican Party candidates for governor. It is is not remotely acceptable that Facebook has shut down one of her most important means of communicating with voters.

Chase still has a personal Facebook page and supporters of her gubernatorial campaign maintain a private Facebook group, but she claims to have had 144,000 followers on the Facebook page that was shut down. Virginia Business describes her Facebook tribulations in detail.

Chase campaign worker John Findlay, a former executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia, attempted last week to get Chase’s Facebook page reinstated before the convention. The social media giant first restricted Chase from streaming live video, posting or commenting on the page for 30 days in early January, and it took down two videos Chase posted from the National Mall in Washington, D.C., during a pro-Trump rally that took place a few hours before the violent takeover of the Capitol.

On March 11, Findlay, whose wife is also part of Chase’s campaign staff, emailed Facebook employee Rachel Holland, who is responsible for U.S. politics and government outreach. Findlay’s email to Holland was conciliatory, writing that Chase was “more than willing to comply” with Facebook’s requests, including deleting posts and “avoiding forbidden content.” Findlay added that Chase “would like to do a great deal of advertising” on Facebook. He said in an interview Sunday that he considered the request “likely a longshot, but it was a distinct possibility,” noting that Chase and Trump are the only high-profile political figures whose pages have been removed by Facebook.

However, Facebook did not change its mind. Reiterating a Jan. 19 communication with Chase’s campaign, Holland wrote in a March 16 email that Chase’s Senate page “was correctly disabled upon incurring multiple violations of our Community Standards which resulted in content removal. … Due to the potential for real-world harm, we do not allow exceptions [to] this policy.”

Facebook’s de-platforming of Chase follows the suspension of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) Facebook account and Mailchimp’s email service in January. VCDL had sponsored peaceful gun rights rallies in Richmond but had no involvement with the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol building that prompted a wave of shutdowns and suspensions. (The VCDL Political Action Committee still has a presence on Facebook.)

Let us not forget that the Virginia Senate also voted to censure Chase following her involvement in the rally, even though she had no involvement with the mob scene at the Capitol, and stripped her of committee assignments. And in other General Assembly action, Governor Ralph Northam declined to schedule a snap election after the death of Sen. Ben Chafin in January, effectively disenfranchising the 200,000 voters of his Southwestern Virginia senatorial district for the 2021 session.

Does anybody see a pattern here?

Bacon’s bottom line: When conservative elected officials, candidates and advocacy groups are de-platformed, how do they react? Do they take it lying down like good little right-wingers, shut up, and do what their masters bid them? Or do they retreat into darker recess of the Internet beyond the reach of the censors, gaining freedom of expression but inhabiting bubbles where contradictory views are not heard and conspiratorial thinking flourishes? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter. If the goal is to breed paranoia, extremism and unhinged thinking, chasing conservatives from mainstream media is a very effective way of doing it.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

37 responses to “Candidate Suppression in Virginia”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    It’s not rhetoric. It’s factually challenged. Like Sydney Powell asks, “What reasonable person would believe me?”

    1. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
      Trump is a Russian agent.
      I have indisputable evidence Trump colluded with the Russians.
      Just because I slept with a Chinese spy and let her infiltrate my staff with a minion, does not mean I violated the people’s trust.
      The border is not open.
      Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a world renowned Islamic scholar.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Actually, that first one was true for persons buying through the MarketPlace, which was the only major change affecting “your doctor”. You just changed carriers to keep your doctor. As Mitt said, “I like to fire people (my insurance company).”

    2. Who decides what’s a “fact” and what’s not? You?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Apparently, Amanda set herself up as the arbiter of porn, so yeah, me.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Reasonable people apparently. But just asking the question you have shown that you are not capable.

        Email — alternative fax.

        Listen, James, I’ve said it before, and I’m repeating it. If the RPV nominates her somehow, I’ll vote for her! She will destroy your party.

        1. “If the RPV nominates her somehow, I’ll vote for her! She will destroy your party.”

          That being the case, I wonder why Facebook is not letting her post whatever she wants…

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Zuckerberg is a Republican?

          2. No, Zuckerberg wants to see the republican party destroyed.

            Try to keep up – after all, you are the one who said she will destroy the RPV if she is elected.

            🙂

  2. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Demonizing the right. Shame, silence and sue.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    What did I say elsewhere? Turning us into North Venezuela? Oh, look, donuts….

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Just tried to find her campaign webpage and Googley Woogley took me to other candidates, Wiki, etc — but not her website. The main way people are signing up to be delegates is through the home pages….They really are out to get her.

      Bacon’s right. This really is a “they came for the nutjob, but I didn’t say anything because….” moment. Crushing her is just the start.

  4. “…inhabiting bubbles where contradictory views are not heard and conspiratorial thinking flourishes? ”

    Sort of like Facebook?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Or Hanity?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Oh, is it two n’s?

          1. Who?

  5. “Facebook’s de-platforming of Chase follows the suspension of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) Facebook account and Mailchimp’s email service in January. VCDL had sponsored peaceful gun rights rallies in Richmond but had no involvement with the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol building…”

    Facebook can do whatever they want, but I would like to see the specific “lies” VCDL allegedly posted that led to Facebook suspending their page.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “It was ANTIFA” was one. Chase posted that one.

      “Virginia state Sen. Amanda Chase was fuming, posting on Facebook that the state’s largest newspaper smeared her in an article it based on a police report about her run-in with an officer that, according to her, even got the description of her car wrong.

      “Neither the article or the report are accurate and I intend to take this up with my contacts at the Richmond Times dispatch (sic) and the Capitol Police,” Chase wrote. “Just for starters, I don’t drive a white Lexus.”

      1. Got it! [Some] Facebook users are responsible for the things others post to their Facebook page(s).

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Authorized user?

  6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “It is is not remotely acceptable that Facebook has shut down one of her most important means of communicating with voters.”

    Facebook is not the public airways. If she wants to maintain access to those private outlets, perhaps she should use better judgement in what she posts.

    1. sam elias Avatar
      sam elias

      Agree, FB can make editorial decisions of third party content, just as this site can make its own editorial decisions.

  7. If republicans do not like the way they are being treated by Facebook, they should all shut down all of their Facebook accounts and use other social media to communicate with their constituents.

  8. StarboardLift Avatar
    StarboardLift

    I just want Zuckerberg to formalize the disclosure that he is a publisher. The public has previously understood it as an unedited bulletin board.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    A freebie for BR. Here’s your free, from me, talking point for the 2022 elections; “Merrick Garland charged those speakers at the January 6 rally with sedition out of revenge.”

    My prediction: By July, the GOP will wish they had safely tucked him away on the SCOTUS.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Facebook is a private company, not a government agency. It operates in a competitive free-market where people can choose who to buy from and the companies can establish terms of service.

    Someone the free market has morphed into some kind of liberal dystopia?

    GAWD!

  11. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    According to the Virginia Business article, Chase’s personal Facebook account and a private group account are still active. (Jim conveniently left that out of the long quote from Virginia Business in his post.) Therefore, she has not been “de-platformed”. She still has a social media presence. I assume that she is mad about her Senate account being blocked because, presumably, the official Senate site has some cachet that would be advantageous in her campaign.

    1. Dick, re-read my post, specifically the fourth paragraph, where I wrote:

      “Chase still has a personal Facebook page and supporters of her gubernatorial campaign maintain a private Facebook group, but she claims to have had 144,000 followers on the Facebook page that was shut down.”

      I didn’t leave anything, conveniently or otherwise!

      My guess is that she’s not worried about the lost cachet as much as the 144,000 followers!!

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I apologize. I was looking at the quote from Virginia Business and missed your mentioning it in the paragraph above.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I was reading FB’s TOS and considering the claim of “deplatforming” a Conservative Candidate , i.e. Candidate “suppression” .

    Chases candidate page” has violated FB’s terms of service, not just once but several times apparently – even as her personal page has not. So, she actually has made choices.

    Characterizing the ban as”deplatforming” a Conservative Candidate is not exactly an accurate or fair or even true characterization given her own choices and behaviors.

    Let’s call it what it really is – more grievance-based hyperbole ostensibly about “free speech” and supposed suppression of it for a candidate.

    “Free speech” is NOT guaranteed anywhere we want. Not even in Bacon’s Rebellion can one say whatever one wants with impunity. We actually don’t get to decide, Jim Bacon does.

    So, ironic that Jim himself then rebukes FB for their TOS when his own also suppresses “free speech” and,in fact, also threatens “de-platforming” if one violates Jim’s TOS too much.

    “Facebook

    Enforcing Our Community Standards
    We believe in giving people a voice, but we also want everyone using Facebook to feel safe. It’s why we have Community Standards and remove anything that violates them, including hate speech that attacks or dehumanizes others. Earlier today, we removed four Pages belonging to Alex Jones for repeatedly posting content over the past several days that breaks those Community Standards.

    https://about.fb.com/news/2018/08/enforcing-our-community-standards/

    compare that to BR’s own TOS:

    ” Engage civilly. Address other commenters respectfully, no matter how much you might disagree with them. Contest other peoples’ arguments with the greatest of vigor, but never attack the person. We do not tolerate profanity or personal insults, and we will intervene aggressively to shut down flame wars”

    FB and BR are also truly competitors in a competitive free market and we have self-proclaimed free market folks whining about the “freedom” of a company or individual to set their own TOS.

    In our competitive free market, there actually ARE competitor blogs and other social media that are way less strict , like Parlar , and others, that do tolerate lies, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks.

    Undoubtedly, these competitors will grow if other competitors have more restrictive TOS.

    Customers/clients DO pick your own poison according to your own standards of discussion. Why would you WANT to force yourself on folks who don’t like the way you talk and don’t talk that way themselves in the first place?

    No one is “de-platforming” you – you’re making choices about which services suit your own behavior and conduct. Find a service you like and where you are welcomed. Find your home and be happy.

  13. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    So, Facebook should de-platform Chase but not the Facebook group that sought to publish the names, addresses and occupations of parents in Loudoun County who disagreed with that county’s Critical Race Theory? The group also espoused illegal cyber-crime against those who disagree with them. The interim superintendent of Loudoun County Public Schools has now admitted that this did happen. He then asks listeners to suspend their disbelief by claiming Loudoun County Public Schools are not implementing a Critical Race Theory philosophy. In addition, it is being reported that six of Loudoun County’s school board members were also members of that group.

  14. sam elias Avatar
    sam elias

    Republicans need to police their own, and that means reining in the nutso elements of the party.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      We’d have no Dem party if the opposite was true.

      1. sam elias Avatar
        sam elias

        I disagree, but agree the nutso elements on the Democratic party needs to be reined in as well (looking at you, Squad).

  15. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    A first hand account from one of the victims of the Loudoun County Parents / Teachers Facebook Group.

    http://thebullelephant.com/how-writing-a-federalist-article-put-me-on-chardonnay-antifas-cancel-list/

Leave a Reply