The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer

from the hawley-shit dept

Josh Hawley, the waifish fascist Senator from Missouri, has made it onto our pages several times in the past. When he's not advocating breaking up Twitter because he doesn't like how a private company is run (fascist), or breaking up lots of other companies he simply disagrees with (fascist), you can typically find him pretending the First Amendment works the exact opposite of how it does in reality or explaining in published books and newspaper pages how much he's been silenced and canceled. It might all look very stupid on its face, but it isn't. It's actually quite diabolical.  

Hawley is a graduate of both Stanford and Yale. And, sure, you can convince me that someone can graduate from both of those schools somehow while being an idiot, but that's not Hawley. When he advocates for fascist policies and generally acts like a right-wing radio talk show host, it's not because he's stupid. It's because he's an assbag.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's talk about the Josh Hawley mug he's selling on his website.

See? He's an asshole. In case you can't see the image or don't know what the issue is, that picture of Hawley was snapped by the AP and was him saluting the crowd of strange people protesting outside the Capital building because their preferred candidate lost. Some of those people later stormed the capital in a violent attempt to overthrow the will of the America people. Now Hawley, in a plain bid to generate outrage, is utilizing that picture of him saluting that crowd in order to raise campaign funds. Immediately after the launch of the mug product, his team sent out an email fundraising on it, apparently purely over the joy of making liberals angry, which appears to be one of Hawley's major policy positions.

Everyone remembers the photo of profa senator Josh Hawley raising his fist to salute the murderous rioters who stormed the Capitol, injured 150 police officers, and tried to hang Mike Pence. Now Hawley is selling a curiously named "Show Me Strong White Coffee Mug" with the same image in an amateurishly designed graphic.

He says its a "perfect way to enjoy Coffee, Tea, or Liberal Tears!" and is "not a pro-riot mug."

None of this is new or creative. The liberal tears thing is at least as old as Ben Shapiro saying it all the time and is probably older than that. The slogan is lame. And the picture, as Boing Boing goes on to note, is from the AP.

In addition, his mug uses an image based on an Associated Press photograph and is probably a copyright violation. AP told Rolling Stone that it's investigating. As you might recall, artist Shepard Fairey used an AP photo of Obama a decade ago, and ended up paying AP an undisclosed amount to settle the copyright lawsuit.

And here is where we take the Techdirt turn. The Fairey case was settled out of court, but we argued all along the way that Fairey's use should have qualified as fair use. I take the same view of Hawley's use of an AP photo. The use is for raising campaign funds, rather than purely commercial use. The photo is being used as political speech. It's at least mildly transformative, although not as strongly as Fairey's, given that most people will recognize where that image is from. And, ultimately, Hawley's mug represents zero threat to the AP's business. The AP isn't selling mugs with the picture on it to those that wish to drink liberal tears.

So while it's fun to discuss what a jerk Hawley is, trying to pretend that we think this is copyright infringement just because I don't like him would be disingenuous. And I, unlike Josh Hawley, am not that.

Filed Under: copyright, culture war, fair use, insurrection, josh hawley, mugs
Companies: ap, associated press

[UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230

from the what-are-you-doing-liz? dept

Big Update: It turns out that this was a clerical error on the part of a Senate staffer, and that Elizabeth Warren is not co-sponsoring this bill from Lindsey Graham to repeal Section 230. The Congress.gov site is expected to be corrected and her name removed as a co-sponsor some time soon. I am leaving the original story below for posterity, but it's good to see that Senator Warren hasn't gone completely over to the dark side on this.

Original story here:

So, just yesterday I wrote about how Democratic Senators had been shying away from co-sponsoring bills with Senator Josh Hawley. Throughout 2019 and 2020, even as Hawley's populist fascist tendencies had become abundantly clear, Democrats were willing to partner with him because he was "anti-big tech." But after January 6th of last year, suddenly Hawley was left shouting on Fox News, rather than teaming up with Democrats to sponsor bills to regulate the internet.

So... it was more than a bit of a surprise that, yesterday, Senator Elizabeth Warren's name popped up as a co-sponsor on S.2972, a bill from Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, and Marsha Blackburn, to literally repeal Section 230.

It's such a bizarre and nonsensical move. Even for Senators who support reforming Section 230, repealing it seems unlikely to accomplish what they think it will. And, even more to the point, Warren is apparently already aware of how removing Section 230 can cause significant harm. She was behind a previous bill in the Senate that was designed to study the impact of FOSTA on sex workers, after tons of people realized (way too late, and despite widespread warnings from multiple experts) that FOSTA would create massive consequences for the sex work industry (and related industries).

Over the last couple of years, ever since she lost the Presidential primary, Warren seems to have shifted further and further away from the thoughtful Senator "with a detailed plan to fix things" to one who has fully embraced pure, naked, populism for the sake of political gain. She's especially leaned hard into attacking internet companies in ways that are extremely disappointing. Even if you believe that the big internet companies (and the wider internet itself) require regulation -- an argument that is easily defensible -- she has embraced truly extreme and unconstitutional positions that generate headlines and screams of support from people who just want to punish big companies, rather than create a better world.

This latest move -- teaming up with three extremist Republican Senators -- on a bizarrely stupid and dangerous plan to flat out repeal Section 230 makes absolutely no sense at all, and I don't see how it accomplishes any of Senator Warren's stated goals. Without Section 230, you end up helping the largest internet companies cement their position, while punishing smaller competitors and killing them with legal liability for things that they didn't actually do.

This is an unfortunate and cynical move by a Senator who I had thought was better than that.

Filed Under: elizabeth warren, intermediary liability, josh hawley, lindsey graham, marsha blackburn, populism, section 230

Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist

from the there-goes-that-plan dept

Karl recently wrote about how Congress' antitrust efforts are flailing (even with the plan to hold a hearing on Senators Klobuchar & Grassley's antitrust bill) and one reason why the efforts have stumbled may be Senator Josh Hawley's decision to really show off his fascist side.

We've been pointing out the serious problems with Hawley and his policy ideas since long before January 6th of 2021. Even though it was fairly clear from early on that his hypocritical posturing and populism were little more than a cynical attempt to get the Trumpian base to back his massive ego and ambition for a potential Presidential run, a bunch of Democrats were happy to cynically embrace Hawley because he was "anti-big tech" and willing to hate all the same people that some Democratic Senators hated as well. Of course, January 6th and Hawley's now infamous raised fist appear to have resulted in Democrats realizing that even if he hates Mark Zuckerberg too, that doesn't mean he's worth working with.

Now the Washington Post has noted that since January 6th, Democrats suddenly were no longer willing to partner with Hawley on bills that regulate "big tech," which is a bit of a problem, since he was their Republican co-sponsor on a variety of "bipartisan" legislation.

By this time last Congress in January 2020, Hawley had partnered with Democrats to lead at least eight letters on tech issues, including with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), then the Senate minority whip, according to a review by The Technology 202. The topics spanned from data privacy to kids’ online safety to potential risks posed by tech firms with links to China.

But a year into this Congress, during which his top issues have only gained prominence, Hawley hasn’t led any bipartisan letters on tech policy issues that his office has publicly released, according to a review. All of the new tech bills he’s introduced this past year have been either a solo or Republican-only effort. And of those four bills he co-led early last Congress, only one has been reintroduced — without him on it.

The article claims that this means that Hawley's "once-glowing prominence in the debate has faded," though I question that premise. He's still out there bashing tech in stupid, nonsensical ways. He's just doing it on Fox News and to an increasingly ignorant base who still thinks that he can magically ignore the 1st Amendment and force Twitter to allow idiots to spew nonsense. The fact that he can't actually advance any legislation is kind of meaningless here. Possibly (and this is good) it slows some of the legislation down, but Hawley has never been interested in actually passing legislation in the first place. It was always about getting his name in lights among the right people. And he got his headlines from Democrats who were willing to look the other way on Hawley's populist/fascist tendencies when it was politically convenient for them. And now Hawley doesn't need them any more to get the kind of headlines he needs.

The real thing for me is looking at just how cynical Democrats were to join up with Hawley on this prior to last January 6th. It was no secret -- certainly not in and around the Senate -- about Hawley's populist/fascist views, and his willingness to stomp all over principles or rights to feed his ambition. But they were willing to do so because it helped them out. It's good that they're apparently no longer willing to team up with Hawley to give him any kind of legislative "win" on this topic, but it remains ridiculous that they were ever willing to do so in the past -- back before Hawley was so commonly and publicly associated with the insurrection.

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, bipartisanship, josh hawley

Josh Hawley Thinks We Should Break Up Twitter Because He Doesn't Like The Company's Editorial Choices

from the you-fascist-karen dept

As I just made clear, I'm no fan of Twitter's new "private media" policy, which I think comes from a well-meaning place, but will lead to widespread abuse by malicious actors seeking to hide evidence of bad behavior (indeed, there's evidence this is already happening). But that's no excuse for Senator Josh Hawley (supporter of the January 6th insurrection, and who seems to think his job as Senator from the confused state of Missouri is to product manage internet services). Hawley reacted to this new policy by saying that it's a reason to break up Twitter. He says "we oughta break them up" at the end of a very bizarre interview with Fox News host Pete Hegseth.

We'll get to the other nonsense from Hegseth and Hawley in a moment, but let's start by focusing on the "we oughta break them up" line. First off, he's clearly saying that the company needs to be broken up in response to the company's editorial decisions. That's... just a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Hell, just imagine how he (or Hegseth!) would respond to a Democratic Senator saying Fox should be "broken up" because of the company's editorial bias. I imagine both Hawley and Hegseth would go nuts about such unconstitutional overreach. But here, Hawley suggests breaking up Twitter in response to its editorial choices, and Hegseth seems happy to support that position.

That's because neither of them have any principles. They're fine with ignoring the Constitution if it allows them to attack their perceived ideological enemies.

Second, under what possible theory would you "break Twitter up" here. Twitter is relatively small as a social media player. Reports from about a month ago show Twitter as the 15th largest social media service globally. Even in just the US, it appears that Twitter comes in at least 7th place and possibly lower, depending on WhatsApp and TikTok's growth.

So the company, in no way, qualifies for any sort of antitrust treatment no matter how you look at it. The only possible reason to suggest that we should "break up" Twitter is because you disagree with their policies, which is a blatantly authoritarian position. Which, well, fits when we're talking about Josh Hawley.

As for Hegseth, his little bit of pandering is ridiculous as well. After mispronouncing both the first and last name of Twitter's new CEO, Parag Agrawal, he blames Agrawal for the new policy (that surely was planned much earlier). He then goes on a rant about how this policy is "meant to protect" antifa and Black Lives Matter protestors, but insists that it won't be used to protect conservatives.

Of course, as we showed in our original post, nearly all of the examples of enforcement so far have gone the other way. The policy has been used to takedown images and videos of Trumpists and white nationalists who didn't like being called out by others. But, never expect a Fox News host to let facts get in the way of winding up the ignorant base. Hegseth also fails to mention the fact that the policy doesn't apply to public figures or newsworthy events -- and names multiple public figures and newsworthy situations that he insists will be "censored" under the policy. Basically, pure disinformation.

He then says:

It gives the social media platform even more control, which is scary. More control over what can be shown. And more proof that they are, indeed, a publisher, and not simply (eyeroll) an unbiased platform.

Except basically all of that is bullshit. Twitter has always had control over what it does and does not allow on its platform. That's how terms of service work. It's no different from the fact that Fox News and Hegseth would never have me on Fox News to explain to his face why he's an ignorant, pandering fool. Because that's their editorial discretion. That's the right of Fox News, just as it's the right of Twitter. Hell, Twitter allows WAY MORE speech on its platform that its executives disagree with than Fox News ever has and ever will.

And to then trot out the bogus and meaningless "publisher" / "platform" distinction (and throwing in a gratuitous and meaningless "unbiased") makes no sense. A publisher has 1st Amendment rights to choose what to host and what not to. And Twitter was never an "unbiased platform." That's just something that people made up to attack the company.

Hegseth then claims that Twitter will now use this to censor content "they don't want you to see." Which is... not at all how this works. He then brings on Hawley, who rambles on bizarrely and disconnected from reality. He insists that this won't be used to "protect the privacy of conservatives," which is nonsense. Again, all of the examples we've seen of content being taken down are examples of it being Hawley's fans and supporters who are abusing this new policy to hide their own bad behavior. Hawley then flat out lies about how Twitter operates, claiming that Twitter "tracks us around the web" builds a "dossier" on us and "sells our information." Twitter... doesn't actually do that? None of these companies "sell our information." They sell advertising, which is targeted based on our information but that's very different. And while you could say that Google and Facebook "track us," Twitter really doesn't except in the most limited of ways.

This is just random rage from Hawley in which he throws in a bunch of catchy sayings that don't actually apply to Twitter, because it riles up his ignorant base (the only kind of people who would ever support Hawley, apparently) and then calls for the company to be broken up. It's cynical, hypocritical and disgusting -- or basically a Josh Hawley specialty.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, antitrust, content moderation, editorial choices, fox news, free speech, josh hawley, pete hegseth
Companies: fox, twitter

Josh Hawley: The War On Men (?) Is Driving Them To Porn And Video Games (Things Many Men Like?)

from the lolwut? dept

If ever there were the walking, talking embodiment of hypocrisy in modern American politics, surely Josh Hawley would be a viable avatar for such a creature. There are few better at saying one thing and doing another than he. He's a free speech advocate... who thinks social media sites should be sued for their choices on speech on their platforms. Josh Hawley loves to talk about how much he's been canceled... despite being a sitting US Senator and being given pages in massive newspapers in order to say all of that. Josh Hawley hates discriminating against folks over their politics... except when it's against the folks who's politics he doesn't like. And, finally, Hawley is a "constitutional lawyer" who, by some measure, participated in an unconstitutional attempt to overthrow an election.

So forgive me if I can but laugh at Hawley's recent speech at the National Conservatism Conference about how the "war on men" is driving men to such vile hobbies as video games and pornography.

“Responsibility is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind, and men must be held responsible for their actions,” Hawley said. “Still, can we be surprised that after years of being told they are the problem, that their manhood is the problem, more and more men are withdrawing into the enclave of idleness, and pornography, and video games?”

So, here's the thing: I am a man. Not in the grandiose sense of course. I am only mildly "manly", whatever the hell that means. But I am a "male" in the traditional sense of the word. And before I ever realized that anyone might be critical of such man-ness, I had already played plenty of video games and (sorry Mom) had seen plenty of pornography. Nobody's critique of any of my behavior led me to video games or pornography. The awesomeness of video games did the former and the natural human curiosity that comes with puberty did the latter.

And I'm not particularly a creature of the left and yet I have never felt any of this war on men. Or Christmas. Or the troops. Or any of the other trumped up moral panics that get trotted out far too often just to rile everyone up. Perhaps I'm lucky... but I doubt it. When Hawley says men are being "told they are the problem", the obvious question is "for what?" If the answer is being assholes, well, society is changing and men can't get away with being assholes in the way they far too often used to. That isn't a war on men; it's a war on assholes. And leave video games and porn out of it.

And, frankly, Hawley's "cure" for all of this, um, leaves much to be desired.

Hawley ended his speech with a call to fight the war on men by increasing the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and creating new tax credits for getting married. If successful, a record number of men might put down their dicks and virtual assault rifles to rejoin the patriarchy.

What a silly thing to say! Dear men, have we a deal for you! We have a great factory job making widgets for you and the only cost to you is you have to ignore your own biology!

But that's how you know how performative this all is. Hawley knows there is no serious war on men. He knows that video games and pornography aren't some massive problem to be solved. And, most importantly, he knows that his constituents aren't as smart as he is and so they aren't aware of those premises. So, instead of leading, he plays to that base to build his popularity and get reelected.

Filed Under: josh hawley, manliness, moral panic, porn, video games

In Josh Hawley's World, People Should Be Able To Sue Facebook Both For Taking Down Stuff They Don't Like AND Leaving Up Stuff They Don't Like

from the basically-you-should-just-sue-facebook dept

Last year, Josh Hawley introduced one of his many, many pathetic attempts at changing Section 230. That bill, the "Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act" would create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue any social media company if they were unhappy that some of their content was removed, and to seek a payout. The obvious implication, as with a ton of bad faith claims by populists who pretend to be "conservative" is that websites shouldn't do any moderation at all.

However, this week, Hawley introduced another bill to attack Facebook and to create another private right of action against basically any website -- except this time the private right of action is for anyone who feels their "mental health" was harmed by content on that website. Contrary to what Hawley-loving propagandist rag "The Daily Caller" falsely claims, this bill doesn't actually "amend" Section 230, it simply uses the definition of an interactive computer service from 230, and introduces a weird new liability regime that is in total conflict with 230 (and with Hawley's previous bill -- but when you're culture warrioring and trying to be the face of the new insurrectionists, who has time for little things like consistency?). The Federal Big Tech Tort Act is a bunch of silly performative nonsense.

It used to be that Republicans were the party that was dead set against opening up new private rights of action and giving tort lawyers new ways to drag people and companies into court. No longer, I guess. Amusingly, Hawley's bill shares its DNA with Senator Amy Klobuchar's equally silly bill to hold social media companies liable for misinformation. The key part in the Hawley bill:

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—An individual who suffers bodily injury or harm to mental health that is attributable, in whole or in part, to the individual’s use of a covered interactive computer service provided by a social media company as described in subsection (b) may bring a civil action against the social media company in an appropriate district court of the United States or a State court of competent jurisdiction

The bill says that the liability applies to individuals who use social media when they are "less than 16 years of age."

So, if someone on social media, like Josh Hawley, contributes to your young teenager's depression by doing incredible dangerous things (like encouraging an insurrection at the Capitol to block the results of a free and fair election), you can now... sue Facebook for the damage to your kid's mental health? Because that makes sense.

Again, this is clearly (1) ridiculous, (2) unconstitutional, (3) completely at odds with Republican philosophy for the past half century, and just (4) an attack on the basic frameworks of how liability works. But none of that matters. The "consistency" for Hawley is that he has to keep attacking "big tech" or the headlines among the Trumpist populists will continue to go to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and that might make them the front runners for the 2024 Republican nomination instead of Josh Hawley.

Filed Under: content moderation, federal big tech tort act, intermediary liability, josh hawley, liability, mental health, section 230, tort reform
Companies: facebook

The Washington Post Thought It Might Be Nice To Provide Free Book Marketing To Insurrectionist Josh Hawley

from the zero-accountability dept

Let's be clear about something. The U.S. doesn't really do "accountability" particularly well. It's a major reason why we often repeat the same mistakes over and over again without learning much from history or experience. That's been made particularly clear by a U.S. press that continues to not only platform the insurrectionists who spread election fraud lies leading to the violent events of January 6, but treats these lies as valid and meaningful opinions. That, understandably, has led to concerns that it's going to happen again. But worse.

Case in point is the Washington Post, which this week decided, for whatever reason, to give Senator Josh Hawley oodles of free publicity for his latest book. Washington Post Live hosted Hawley as part of a chat, providing him ample free marketing for his book complaining about the "tyranny of big tech" (tyrannically sold by Amazon, and heavily marketed by Hawley on Twitter). Not only that, the Post couldn't be bothered to craft an accurate bio for Hawley, instead using the one provided by his publicist that paints Hawley in an aggressively inauthentic light:

Not too surprisingly, the Post marketing doesn't really bother to inform readers that Hawley's anti-monopolist credentials are largely nonexistent. Like most of the GOP, it's literally impossible to find an instance where Hawley, for example, so much as criticized a telecom monopoly. And, like most of the press, it's rare you'll find outlets like the Washington Post pointing out that a primary platform of the GOP for forty fucking years has been to encourage monopolization, whether we're talking about telecom, airlines, banking, or countless other marginally competitive and largely broken U.S. business sectors.

The GOP isn't engaged in histrionics over "big tech" because it genuinely cares about monopolization or unchecked corporate power. Decades of policy history make it abundantly clear that's not remotely true.

The GOP is angry at big tech because a handful of social media companies belatedly started policing disinformation and race-baiting, cornerstones of party power and recruitment in the face of an aging, sagging, and shifting electorate. There are plenty of very valid criticisms of "big tech," but the U.S. press seems incapable of acknowledging that many of the GOP's concerns on this front aren't entirely in good faith.

NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has long lamented the U.S. media's obsession with the "view from nowhere," and how this undermines accountability while letting bad actors off the hook. Rosen wasn't particularly impressed with the Post offering free book marketing to a guy who just got done spending months filling the American public's heads with dangerous fluff and nonsense, and shows absolutely nothing that could be mistaken as contrition in the wake of January 6:

Even if you just want to ignore that Hawley's anti-corporate power and anti-monopolist credentials are nonexistent, it shouldn't be that hard to see how treating Hawley's (read: Trump's) lies as valid can easily help undermine accountability for recent attacks on democracy. And while the Post did challenge Hawley somewhat on his role in the insurrection, the very act of free marketing and platforming Hawley then gives him ample opportunity to muddy the waters and distort his actual role in triggering the events of January 6, which he happily proceeded to do:

Rosen wasn't the only media scholar to take issue with the Post's decision to give Hawley's book free marketing in the wake of his attacks on democracy:

Comedians routinely critical of the U.S. press also took issue with the Post's decision to provide free book marketing to Hawley:

Of course the folks most in need of hearing and understanding this message, didn't hear it at all. In reality, Hawley has been facing nonexistent to very light accountability for lying repeatedly about the 2020 election results, which put the very fabric of democracy at risk. But for the "cancel culture" set the very act of questioning the Post's failures of accountability and journalistic standards is itself somehow viewed as "censorship":

Again, light accountability for lying about the results of an election is not "censorship." And criticizing someone for spreading lies that put elected officials' lives at risk shouldn't be seen as "conservative." One major reason America keeps stumbling through the same issues over and over without learning anything from the experience is because for the ad-based, impression-obsessed U.S. press. It's more profitable to heavily market Hawley and enjoy the resulting controversy than it is to do the right thing and not platform his dangerous lies at all. The age-old internet concept "don't feed the trolls" isn't adhered to because adhering to it harms profits.

That doesn't mean the Post shouldn't cover him when he does something of note (like being the only Senator to vote against a hate crime bill protecting Asian Americans), but they don't need to be helping him sell a book five months after his lies contributed to numerous human deaths, normalizing his behavior and setting an ugly precedent for something even worse just over the horizon.

Filed Under: big tech, censorship, insurrection, josh hawley, journalism, news coverage, platforming, promotion
Companies: washington post

Josh Hawley: We Must Break Up Companies Whose Politics I Disagree With For Discriminating Against People Whose Politics I Agree With

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

Josh Hawley is gonna Josh Hawley. The Senator from Missouri, who still has not apologized or admitted to supporting the invasion of the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election, has a long history of nonsense bills that are performative for his riled up base. His latest is more of the same. On Monday he introduced the "Bust Up Big Tech Act" and even if you're a supporter of antitrust and think that big tech should be "busted up," it should give you pause before supporting Hawley's nonsense. The bill itself is... weird. It seems to pick seemingly random activities and insist that no company can do two of them. Basically, he looked at different businesses that Amazon and Google are in, and the bill says "you're no longer allowed to do those different things." As some have pointed out, under this bill it appears that Walmart can no longer sell under a house brand, because the bill bars any company that qualifies from selling, advertising or otherwise promoting your own products.

But the thing that amazes me is just how upfront and blatant Hawley is that this bill is not about any principled stance regarding antitrust. It is entirely about "owning the libs," which is the performance Hawley thinks he needs to perform for his base. The fact that Hawley knows he needs to do stupid shit for his voters shows that he truly believes his supporters are a bunch of ignorant fools, and he's catering to that audience. He did it last week with his bill to attack MLB for its speech, and now he's doing it this week with this bill to go after "big tech." You can see it from the quote in his press release, in which he flat out admits he's doing it to attack "woke" companies.

“Woke Big Tech companies like Google and Amazon have been coddled by Washington politicians for years. This treatment has allowed them to amass colossal amounts of power that they use to censor political opinions they don’t agree with and shut out competitors who offer consumers an alternative to the status quo. It’s past time to bust up Big Tech companies, restore competition, and give the power back to the American consumers.”

Hawley has really embraced the phrase "woke capitalists" in the last few months as he realized that everything he used to pretend to stand for (he used to argue he was about "keeping government out of business") resulted in a bunch of companies recognizing that Josh Hawley is a power-hungry fascist in waiting. So now he has to attack the very companies he used to say he wanted the government's hands off of, so he's invented the laughable idea that these companies are "woke" (by which he means they're skeptical of his style of fascism, and therefore they need to be taken down).

But, really, that quote is quite incredible on multiple levels. He starts out by attacking the companies for their supposed (though, not actual) political beliefs ("woke"), and then says he has to do this to stop them from "censoring political opinions they don't agree with." So... that one quote alone shows Josh Hawley's true principles: punish those whose politics I dislike, and protect those whose politics I like.

Even if you dislike big tech and think the companies should be smashed to bits, that's no reason to support Josh Hawley's cynical brand of authoritarian retribution.

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, josh hawley, woke capitalists
Companies: amazon, google