<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Secret Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech &amp; Political Content</title>
	<atom:link href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/secret/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/secret/</link>
	<description>Christian, Political, ‎‏‏‎Social &#38; Legal Free Speech News &#124; Ⓒ2024 Good News Media LLC &#124; Shepherd for the Herd! God 1st Programming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jul 2023 18:09:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>The Twitter Files: Part 2 &#8211; Soviet-Style &#8216;Secret Blacklists&#8217;</title>
		<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/the-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Truth News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2022 02:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Corruption Over the Years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter Files]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zee Truthful News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bans of Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blacklists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elon Musk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exposed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret Blacklists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shadow-Bans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shadow-Bans of Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Soviet-Style]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Twitter Files]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Twitter Files Part 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter Files Part 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter Scandal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=4728</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Chief Twit Elon Musk  @elonmusk The Twitter Files Part 2: Soviet-Style &#8216;Secret Blacklists&#8217; and Shadow-Bans of Conservatives Exposed Twitter’s Secret Blacklist • Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) What is in The Twitter Files, Part Two? The document dump follows a similar batch of recent disclosures from fellow Substacker Matt Taibbi, who dove into the details of Twitter’s October 2020 [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1awozwy r-1hwvwag r-18kxxzh r-1b7u577">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n" data-testid="Tweet-User-Avatar">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-18kxxzh r-1wbh5a2 r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1wbh5a2 r-dnmrzs">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-h3s6tt r-bztko3" data-testid="UserAvatar-Container-elonmusk">
<div class="r-1p0dtai r-1pi2tsx r-1d2f490 r-u8s1d r-ipm5af r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-1pi2tsx r-1wyvozj r-bztko3 r-u8s1d r-1v2oles r-desppf r-13qz1uu">
<div class="r-1adg3ll r-13qz1uu">
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">
</div>
<div class="r-1p0dtai r-1pi2tsx r-1d2f490 r-u8s1d r-ipm5af r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-sdzlij r-ggadg3 r-1udh08x r-u8s1d r-8jfcpp">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-sdzlij r-1wyvozj r-1udh08x r-633pao r-u8s1d r-1v2oles r-desppf">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1niwhzg r-1pi2tsx r-13qz1uu"></div>
</div>
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-sdzlij r-1wyvozj r-1udh08x r-633pao r-u8s1d r-1v2oles r-desppf">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-14lw9ot r-1pi2tsx r-13qz1uu"></div>
</div>
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-14lw9ot r-sdzlij r-1wyvozj r-1udh08x r-633pao r-u8s1d r-1v2oles r-desppf">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-1udh08x">
<div class="r-1adg3ll r-13qz1uu"></div>
<div class="r-1p0dtai r-1pi2tsx r-1d2f490 r-u8s1d r-ipm5af r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1niwhzg r-vvn4in r-u6sd8q r-4gszlv r-1p0dtai r-1pi2tsx r-1d2f490 r-u8s1d r-zchlnj r-ipm5af r-13qz1uu r-1wyyakw"></div>
<h1 class="css-1dbjc4n r-1p0dtai r-1mlwlqe r-1d2f490 r-1udh08x r-u8s1d r-zchlnj r-ipm5af r-417010" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601020109807448064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601020109807448064%7Ctwgr%5E51e74c55245c6a5b80bdd4c9fd429cfbd2ee1097%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimesofindia.indiatimes.com%2Fgadgets-news%2Ftwitter-files-part-2-blacklists-disfavoured-tweets-and-more%2Farticleshow%2F96110886.cms" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img decoding="async" class="css-9pa8cd aligncenter" draggable="true" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1590968738358079488/IY9Gx6Ok_x96.jpg" alt="" width="142" height="142" /></a><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 css-1hf3ou5 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" style="text-align: center;"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Chief Twit <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601020109807448064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601020109807448064%7Ctwgr%5E51e74c55245c6a5b80bdd4c9fd429cfbd2ee1097%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimesofindia.indiatimes.com%2Fgadgets-news%2Ftwitter-files-part-2-blacklists-disfavoured-tweets-and-more%2Farticleshow%2F96110886.cms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Elon Musk</a>  </span></span><a style="text-align: center;" href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601020109807448064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601020109807448064%7Ctwgr%5E51e74c55245c6a5b80bdd4c9fd429cfbd2ee1097%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimesofindia.indiatimes.com%2Fgadgets-news%2Ftwitter-files-part-2-blacklists-disfavoured-tweets-and-more%2Farticleshow%2F96110886.cms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@elonmusk</a></h1>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h1 class="page-title" data-swiftype-name="title" data-swiftype-type="string">The Twitter Files Part 2: Soviet-Style &#8216;Secret Blacklists&#8217; and Shadow-Bans of Conservatives Exposed</h1>
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1awozwy r-1hwvwag r-18kxxzh r-1b7u577">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n" data-testid="Tweet-User-Avatar">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-18kxxzh r-1wbh5a2 r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1wbh5a2 r-dnmrzs">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-h3s6tt r-bztko3" data-testid="UserAvatar-Container-elonmusk">
<div class="r-1p0dtai r-1pi2tsx r-1d2f490 r-u8s1d r-ipm5af r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-1pi2tsx r-1wyvozj r-bztko3 r-u8s1d r-1v2oles r-desppf r-13qz1uu">
<div class="r-1adg3ll r-13qz1uu">Twitter’s Secret Blacklist • Bari Weiss (@bariweiss)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1awozwy r-1hwvwag r-18kxxzh r-1b7u577">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n" data-testid="Tweet-User-Avatar">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-18kxxzh r-1wbh5a2 r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1wbh5a2 r-dnmrzs">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-h3s6tt r-bztko3" data-testid="UserAvatar-Container-elonmusk">
<div class="r-1p0dtai r-1pi2tsx r-1d2f490 r-u8s1d r-ipm5af r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-1dbjc4n r-1adg3ll r-1pi2tsx r-1wyvozj r-bztko3 r-u8s1d r-1v2oles r-desppf r-13qz1uu">
<div class="r-1adg3ll r-13qz1uu">
<h2 id="h55912" class="sc-1bwb26k-1 fvPqJk"><strong>What is in The Twitter Files, Part Two?</strong></h2>
<figure id="attachment_4738" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-4738" style="width: 773px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4738" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Twitter-Files-2-2.jpg" alt="Russian Style Blacklisting at Twitter UNDER PREVIOUS UNDER JACK DORSEY" width="773" height="435" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Twitter-Files-2-2.jpg 1200w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Twitter-Files-2-2-300x169.jpg 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Twitter-Files-2-2-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Twitter-Files-2-2-768x432.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 773px) 100vw, 773px" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-4738" class="wp-caption-text"><em><span style="color: #ff6600;">Russian Style Blacklisting at Twitter UNDER PREVIOUS UNDER JACK DORSEY</span></em></figcaption></figure>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">The document dump follows a similar batch of recent disclosures from fellow Substacker Matt Taibbi, who <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://gizmodo.com/twitter-files-hunter-biden-elon-musk-taibbi-explained-1849851303" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;Internal link&quot;,&quot;https://gizmodo.com/twitter-files-hunter-biden-elon-musk-taibbi-explained-1849851303&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">dove into the details</a> of Twitter’s October 2020 decision to halt the spread of a New York Post story about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. Both Weiss and Taibbi’s threads are part of what Musk is calling “<a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://gizmodo.com/twitter-files-hunter-biden-elon-musk-taibbi-explained-1849851303" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;Internal link&quot;,&quot;https://gizmodo.com/twitter-files-hunter-biden-elon-musk-taibbi-explained-1849851303&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">The Twitter Files</a>.”</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">The thesis of the publication of the documents is that Twitter enforced its policies unevenly, punishing Republicans. Musk <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601059434330890241?s=20&amp;t=-i4LH9_a_nZ2j_rGEIscYA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601059434330890241?s=20&amp;t=-i4LH9_a_nZ2j_rGEIscYA&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">made it plain</a> in a Thursday tweet: “As @bariweiss clearly describes, the rules were enforced against the right, but not against the left.” Twitter has, in the past, uncovered internal and algorithmic bias in the opposite direction: In 2018, <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">Twitter’s own researchers found</a> a “statistically significant difference favoring the political right wing” in the United States and five other countries.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Weiss <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601011428579717121?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601011428579717121?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">wrote</a> in one of her examples, “Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a ‘Trends Blacklist,’ which prevented his tweets from trending.” In the internal view of Bhattacharya’s account, a yellow label reading “Trends Blacklist” appears, which would have excluded his tweets from “Trending Topics.” Another label reads “recent abuse strike.” Whether placement on the blacklist follows a strike is unclear.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>The release of the controversial &#8220;Twitter Files&#8221; continues, confirming the previous left-wing agenda of the social media giant. The latest evidence reveals how conservatives were shadow-banned from the site despite not violating any rules or policies.  Twitter CEO and owner Elon Musk continues his work to overhaul the site and is now uncovering the lengths former executives went to censor and block conservatives on the platform in surreptitious ways.  A new series of tweets published by former NY Times Editor Bari Weiss confirms that Twitter had a series of &#8220;secret blacklists&#8221;, which gave executives the capability of shutting down a person&#8217;s profile, even if they did not violate community standards.  &#8220;Teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users,&#8221; Weiss explained.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Another of Weiss’ <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601012181138407425?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601012181138407425?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">screenshots</a> showed that Fox News contributor Dan Bongino had been placed under “Search Blacklist.” MAGA activist Charlie Kirk’s profile had been labeled “Do not Amplify.”</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Weiss also revealed the existence of a high-level Twitter team, “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support” (SIP-PES), which included the company’s chief legal officer, head of trust and safety, and CEO. User ‘Libs of TikTok,’ an account that re-posts individuals’ videos and calls them examples of liberal brain rot, was labeled “Search Blacklist” and “Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES.” That team, Weiss <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601017524996304896?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601017524996304896?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">said</a>, was responsible for suspending the account multiple times, but did not delete a viral tweet containing the owner’s address –the implication being that Twitter executives were liberal liars and hypocrites, as were the policies they enforced. Chaya Raichik, who runs the Libs of TikTok account, <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601095423019876353?s=20&amp;t=-i4LH9_a_nZ2j_rGEIscYA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601095423019876353?s=20&amp;t=-i4LH9_a_nZ2j_rGEIscYA&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">said</a> she was “feeling entirely vindicated” by Weiss’ work.<a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601020109807448064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601020109807448064%7Ctwgr%5E51e74c55245c6a5b80bdd4c9fd429cfbd2ee1097%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimesofindia.indiatimes.com%2Fgadgets-news%2Ftwitter-files-part-2-blacklists-disfavoured-tweets-and-more%2Farticleshow%2F96110886.cms" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img decoding="async" class="wp-image-4737 alignleft" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/elon-musk-artik-twitter-kullanmayacak-5831339.jpg" alt="" width="447" height="235" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/elon-musk-artik-twitter-kullanmayacak-5831339.jpg 800w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/elon-musk-artik-twitter-kullanmayacak-5831339-300x158.jpg 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/elon-musk-artik-twitter-kullanmayacak-5831339-768x403.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 447px) 100vw, 447px" /></a></p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Continuing, Weiss <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601014175366402048?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601014175366402048?s=20&amp;t=kaSnagj7QztXK5ggl2MwlA&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">wrote</a>, “What many people call ‘shadow banning,’ Twitter executives and employees call ‘Visibility Filtering’ or ‘VF.’ Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning.” Whether you believe “shadow banning” and “visibility filtering” are synonymous determines whether you think the second group of Twitter Files are a scandal or a nothingburger.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">To many of Twitter’s own employees, outside journalists, and the terminally online, the difference between the two is large and obvious—of course, they say, and Twitter had already disclaimed that it did such things. In May 2018, the company announced a slate of moderation features in a blog post headlined “<a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/product/2018/Serving_Healthy_Conversation.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/product/2018/Serving_Healthy_Conversation.html&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">Serving healthy conversation</a>.” Ex-head of trust and safety head Del Harvey wrote, “There are many new signals we’re taking in, most of which are not visible externally… These signals will now be considered in how we organize and present content in communal areas like conversation and search.” That’s not very clear, it’s unmemorable, and most likely forgot about it. But put more plainly, it might say: Twitter will hide your tweets or your profile if you behave badly, and Twitter gets to choose what that means.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">To those who remember that post, the documents make a mountain of a molehill. They describe how Twitter went about doing something that we knew it had been doing. But to the company’s critics, the screenshots are proof that the company was lying through its teeth when its chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">wrote in July 2018</a>, “We do not shadow ban.”</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">To my mind, there is genuine news value in knowing whose accounts, exactly, Twitter de-amplified. The screenshots do not, however, prove that the company only banned the political right: Weiss’ cache may be representative of the larger corpus of accounts, or may not be. Without more documents and some assurance that we are viewing a complete or representative sample of limited accounts, we cannot know for certain.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Twitter’s former head of product, Kayvon Beykpour, <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1601038768135233536?s=20&amp;t=37tzmiJD8plHNWQXX6mUpw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1601038768135233536?s=20&amp;t=37tzmiJD8plHNWQXX6mUpw&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">said</a> Weiss’ framing of the blacklists was “deliberately misleading.” His <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1601038930777776129?s=20&amp;t=37tzmiJD8plHNWQXX6mUpw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1601038930777776129?s=20&amp;t=37tzmiJD8plHNWQXX6mUpw&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">response</a> provides the best illumination in the debate over how to interpret the second Twitter Files dispatch: “We never denied de-amplifying things… you are characterizing any de-amplification as equating to shadow banning which is either a lazy interpretation or deliberately misleading. De-amplification is obviously necessary and even Elon himself believes so.”</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Elon himself does believe so. Beykpour quote-tweeted a <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598752139278532610?s=20&amp;t=37tzmiJD8plHNWQXX6mUpw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598752139278532610?s=20&amp;t=37tzmiJD8plHNWQXX6mUpw&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">Dec. 2 announcement</a> from the Twitter CEO reading, “Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.”</p>
<h2 id="h55913" class="sc-1bwb26k-1 fvPqJk">What is the difference between “shadow banning” and “visibility filtering”?</h2>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">To someone who is attempting to skim this news story—perhaps they do not use Twitter at all—the daylight between “de-amplification” and “shadow banning” is miniscule. The split between the hairs is thin.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Weiss’ side of the debate holds that any interference by Twitter that hides someone’s tweets is shadowbanning. She writes, “Twitter once had a mission ‘to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.’ Along the way, barriers nevertheless were erected.” The quote she deploys comes from Twitter’s <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx#:~:text=back%20to%20top-,What%20is%20Twitter's%20mission%20statement%3F,a%20free%20and%20global%20conversation." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;External link&quot;,&quot;https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx#:~:text=back%20to%20top-,What%20is%20Twitter's%20mission%20statement%3F,a%20free%20and%20global%20conversation.&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">mission statement</a>.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">In a July 2018 blog post, Beykpour wrote, “The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.” The key word there is “everyone.” To Beykpour and Gadde, the post’s coauthor, an action that hides tweets from some people is not a shadow ban.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Hidden from everyone? Shadow ban. Hidden from only some people? Not shadow ban. Got it?</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Beykpour’s side of the debate argues for nuance. Twitter’s feed, its main feature, ranks tweets, and some accounts rank lower because of past behavior, he argues. Some are banned from auto-populating in search altogether, but if you visited a profile directly, you would see all the tweets from that account.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">“We certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology. We do rank tweets and search results,” he wrote with Gadde.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Nuance is, of course, something that Twitter as a social network is famous for not having.</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Perhaps Elon Musk wants to have it both ways. He may de-amplify accounts and filter their visibility, as Jack Dorsey and others had done before him, but he may say he will not enact any “shadow bans,” attempting to shed all the baggage those words arrive with. He desperately desires to be seen as a free speech champion while doing all the things that made Twitter appealing to the advertisers that are so hurriedly decamping. He has made strident statements about being a “free speech absolutist” while also <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-explains-never-ban-speech-alex-jones-twitter-1849807270" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;Internal link&quot;,&quot;https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-explains-never-ban-speech-alex-jones-twitter-1849807270&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">declaring he would never allow bankrupt conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to return</a>.</p>
<h2 id="h55914" class="sc-1bwb26k-1 fvPqJk">What’s next in the Twitter Files?</h2>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Could Twitter release all the documents it’s already given to hand-picked journalists, allowing the public and other news outlets to sift through them and make their own conclusions?</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Ex-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has called on his former pal to do just that, <a class="sc-1out364-0 hMndXN sc-145m8ut-0 kVnoAv js_link" href="https://gizmodo.com/jack-to-elon-can-we-just-get-the-doxxing-over-with-1849864704" data-ga="[[&quot;Embedded Url&quot;,&quot;Internal link&quot;,&quot;https://gizmodo.com/jack-to-elon-can-we-just-get-the-doxxing-over-with-1849864704&quot;,{&quot;metric25&quot;:1}]]">writing that</a> “If the goal is transparency to build trust, why not just release everything without filter and let people judge for themselves? Including all discussions around current and future actions? Make everything public now.”</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Alex Stamos, former Facebook security chief and current head of the Stanford Internet Observatory, replied to Musk’s remark about rules being enforced against the right, but not against the left, asking, “How about you provide the transparency necessary for external groups to verify that statement?”</p>
<p class="sc-77igqf-0 bOfvBY">Musk retorted, “You operate a propaganda platform.” Musk has found the journalists he trusts. It seems unlikely we will see the files for ourselves.</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-0&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601011428579717121&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2022%2Fdecember%2Fthe-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed&amp;sessionId=a3555dcb6c4cad57d5da862edcdf5d5adf6a740b&amp;siteScreenName=CBNNews&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601011428579717121" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-1" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-1&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601012181138407425&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2022%2Fdecember%2Fthe-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed&amp;sessionId=a3555dcb6c4cad57d5da862edcdf5d5adf6a740b&amp;siteScreenName=CBNNews&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601012181138407425" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-2" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-2&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601012976894373888&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2022%2Fdecember%2Fthe-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed&amp;sessionId=a3555dcb6c4cad57d5da862edcdf5d5adf6a740b&amp;siteScreenName=CBNNews&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601012976894373888" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<p>Weiss shared that Twitter shadow-banned or blocked a person&#8217;s tweets or trending themes to minimize their reach – without the users&#8217; knowledge.   One engineer told her, &#8220;We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do.&#8221;  Weiss adds that two additional Twitter employees confirmed that statement.   Weiss claimed former executives Vijaya Gadde, Yoel Roth, and subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal were aware of the practice.   &#8220;Twitter denied that it does such things. In 2018, Twitter&#8217;s Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: &#8220;We do not shadow ban.&#8221; They added: &#8220;And we certainly don&#8217;t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology,&#8221; she wrote.  But in effect, that&#8217;s exactly what they did, using what employees called &#8220;visibility filtering.&#8221;  &#8220;Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It&#8217;s a very powerful tool,&#8221; one senior Twitter employee told Weiss&#8217; new publication, The Free Press.  &#8220;&#8216;VF&#8217; refers to Twitter&#8217;s control over user visibility. It used VF to block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet&#8217;s discoverability; to block select users&#8217; posts from ever appearing on the &#8216;trending&#8217; page; and from inclusion in hashtag searches,&#8221; she added.   Weiss points to the account LibsofTikTok, a conservative account that brings attention to social media videos and posts that promote a progressive liberal agenda.</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-3" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-3&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601018810495995904&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2022%2Fdecember%2Fthe-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed&amp;sessionId=a3555dcb6c4cad57d5da862edcdf5d5adf6a740b&amp;siteScreenName=CBNNews&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601018810495995904" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<p>Weiss notes that the profile&#8217;s creator, Chaya Raichik, was subjected to six suspensions in 2022. Each time, she was blocked from posting to the site for a week.  Twitter repeatedly informed Raichik that she had been suspended for violating Twitter&#8217;s policy against &#8220;hateful conduct.&#8221;  But an internal memo from the social media organization showed she did not violate any policy. Still, they justified her suspension claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of &#8220;hospitals and medical providers&#8221; by insinuating &#8220;that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming.&#8221;  In a tweet Thursday, LibsofTikTok thanked Musk for his work to clean up Twitter.  &#8220;Twitter won&#8217;t be perfect in the future, but it will be *much* better,&#8221; he replied.  Musk also vowed to end the practice of shadow banning.  &#8220;Twitter is working on a software update that will show your true account status, so you know clearly if you&#8217;ve been shadow banned, the reason why and how to appeal,&#8221; he tweeted.  He also defended former CEO Jack Dorsey alleging he was &#8220;unaware of systemic bias&#8221; at Twitter.   &#8220;The inmates were running the asylum,&#8221; he wrote.</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-4" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-4&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601073437056765952&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww1.cbn.com%2Fcbnnews%2Fus%2F2022%2Fdecember%2Fthe-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed&amp;sessionId=a3555dcb6c4cad57d5da862edcdf5d5adf6a740b&amp;siteScreenName=CBNNews&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601073437056765952" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<div>
<hr />
<h1 class="post-headline ">Elon Musk and Facebook&#8217;s former chief security officer got into it on Twitter over the release of the &#8216;Twitter Files Part 2&#8217;</h1>
<ul class="summary-list">
<li>Elon Musk sparred on Twitter with Facebook&#8217;s former security chief over &#8220;Twitter Files part two.&#8221;</li>
<li>Alex Stamos tweeted &#8220;Musk fired the lawyer&#8221; who would tell him what happens if non-employees have access to users&#8217; DMs.</li>
<li>Musk replied that Stamos operates &#8220;a propaganda platform,&#8221; after he told Musk to be transparent.</li>
</ul>
<p>Elon Musk and Facebook&#8217;s former chief security officer, Alex Stamos, sparred back and forth on Twitter following the platform&#8217;s release of &#8220;Twitter Files part two.&#8221;  On Thursday, conservative columnist Bari Weiss tweeted <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600?s=20&amp;t=LqVZ-sVP68i8z5KoiD-ICA" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="40">the latest thread</a> of &#8220;files,&#8221; <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-bari-weiss-the-twitter-files-blacklisted-accounts-2022-12" rel="" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="40">an installment about</a> &#8220;Twitter&#8217;s secret blacklists.&#8221; The <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601008766861815808?s=20&amp;t=LqVZ-sVP68i8z5KoiD-ICA" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="40">&#8220;investigation&#8221; revealed</a> that employees at Twitter &#8220;have blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics—all in secret, without informing users,&#8221; Weiss tweeted.  Journalist Matt Taibbi tweeted <a href="https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?s=20&amp;t=Jso59cXu1T02FOtpRZLjpw" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="40">the first part of</a> the &#8220;Twitter Files&#8221; last week, which <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-files-free-speech-suppression-apple-2022-11" rel="" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="40">Musk described as</a> internal communications that would reveal Twitter tried to censor free speech on the platform.  Weiss&#8217;s tweet thread on Thursday showed Twitter&#8217;s internal profile of the Libs of TikTok&#8217;s account, which Weiss said &#8220;rose to this level of scrutiny,&#8221; a sidebar that included the account&#8217;s direct messages was visible, which drew concern from users on Twitter like Stamos.  Abraham Gutman, a health reporter at The Philadelphia Inquirer, <a href="https://twitter.com/abgutman/status/1601037060864811009?s=20&amp;t=vRVgZ-YC4FmMKm5d79EUMA" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="60">tweeted a screenshot</a> of Weiss&#8217;s tweet about Libs of TikTok, and tweeted &#8220;.@elonmusk, yes or no — do Weiss and Taibbi have access to users&#8217; DMs? It would be good to get clear explanation about this screen and yes/no answer to this straightforward question.&#8221;  Stamos retweeted Gutman&#8217;s tweet and said, &#8220;Musk fired the lawyer responsible for telling him what happens if Weiss or Taibbi click that button.&#8221;</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-0&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601038512219770880&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Felon-musk-former-facebook-security-officer-got-into-it-twitter-2022-12&amp;sessionId=2b1c492a5631c993fdaa8b3578225a66a21594d2&amp;siteScreenName=sai&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601038512219770880" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<p>Musk confirmed on Tuesday <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-fired-james-baker-deputy-general-counsel-twitter-files-2022-12" rel="" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="60">that he fired</a> Twitter&#8217;s deputy general counsel James Baker, &#8220;in light of concerns about Baker&#8217;s possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue,&#8221; in reference to the first release of the &#8220;Twitter Files.&#8221; At the start of Musk&#8217;s takeover of  Twitter, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-executives-fired-quit-takeover-agrawal-segal-edgett-2022-11#legal-chief-vijaya-gadde-4" rel="" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="60">he fired legal chief</a> Vijaya Gadde, who was behind the social media platform&#8217;s decision to ban former president Donald Trump after the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.  &#8220;Hopefully that button doesn&#8217;t actually work for them; Twitter has put a lot of work into internal access controls,&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1601038514035994624?s=20&amp;t=vRVgZ-YC4FmMKm5d79EUMA" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="80">Stamos tweeted</a> about Weiss&#8217;s photos. &#8220;If those two have been provisioned DM access, I expect that&#8217;s, at a minimum, an FTC reportable security incident.&#8221;  Weiss also shared photos of computer screens showing the internal-company view of conservative accounts like Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk, who she claims were targeted by Twitter&#8217;s blacklisting and &#8220;shadow banning&#8221; — the practice of limiting a tweet&#8217;s visibility.  But Ella Irwin, the new head of trust and safety at Twitter, <a href="https://twitter.com/ellagirwin/status/1601084794288640000?s=20&amp;t=CMmLMbBfpVpnaf02lSrXwA" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="80">clarified in a reply</a> to senior IT and cybersecurity reporter Tom McKay that the screenshots were hers.  &#8220;For security purposes, the screenshots requested came from me so we could ensure no PII was exposed,&#8221; Irwin tweeted. &#8220;We did not give this access to reporters and no, reporters were not accessing user DMs.&#8221;  Musk responded that Weiss&#8217;s thread &#8220;clearly describes, the rules were enforced against the right, but not against the left.&#8221; Stamos replied that Musk should &#8220;provide the transparency necessary for external groups to verify that statement.&#8221;  &#8220;You operate a propaganda platform,&#8221; Musk <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601062745079619584?s=20&amp;t=-QKiO22AVXl9te0m-9476A" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="100">tweeted back</a> at Stamos.   Stamos tweeted that <a href="https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1601075692787027969?s=20&amp;t=ptWkQtNrUll8dSajd3wJRg" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="100">he was the target</a> of &#8220;a wave of really poorly targeted racist and antisemitic slurs from&#8221; Musk&#8217;s &#8220;posse,&#8221; after Musk&#8217;s reply.   The <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-urges-elon-musk-release-twitter-files-without-filter-2022-12" rel="" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="100">first release by Taibbi showed</a> that employees had debated censoring the <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/" rel=" nofollow" data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="100">New York Post&#8217;s story</a> about Hunter Biden&#8217;s laptop during Joe Biden&#8217;s 2020 presidential campaign. Twitter has a policy that it doesn&#8217;t publish information involved in a hack. When the files were released, some Twitter employees had their personal information shared.</p>
</div>
<div>
<hr />
</div>
<h1>Elon Musk Retweets &#8220;Twitter Files Part 2&#8221;, Reveals Secret Suppression Of Right-Wing Commentators</h1>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3 class="sp-descp">Bari Weiss published second instalment of the Twitter Files, a series of tweets exposing the microblogging platform&#8217;s efforts to suppress free speech.</h3>
<p>The second installment of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” dropped Thursday night and reveals how the social media giant was secretly “blacklisting” conservative tweets and users.</p>
<p>Independent journalist Bari Weiss <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601008766861815808?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">detailed</a> in a series of posts how Twitter used so-called “shadow banning” to limit the visibility of tweets coming from far-right users.</p>
<p>Conservative talk show host Dan Bongino, Stanford University’s anti-COVID lockdown advocate Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and right-wing activist Charlie Kirk were among the users targeted for suppression by Twitter, according to Weiss.</p>
<p>The former New York Times and Wall Street Journal writer said the blacklists were built “in secret” and “without informing users.”</p>
<p>“A new [Twitter Files] investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics — all in secret, without informing users,” Weiss wrote in a tweet Thursday.</p>
<p>She notes that the company strayed from its original mission of giving “everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers” by developing the methods to suppress specific individuals.</p>
<p>Bhattacharya’s account, for example, was flagged as being on a “trends blacklist,” according to Weiss, who shared an image of his account from Twitter’s point of view with the yellow tag indicating the restriction.</p>
<p>“Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a ‘Trends Blacklist,’ which prevented his tweets from trending,” <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601011428579717121?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA">Weiss wrote</a>.</p>
<p>An image of Bongino’s account showed a similar yellow notice that read “Search Blacklist.”</p>
<p>“Or consider the popular right-wing talk show host, Dan Bongino who at one point was slapped with a ‘Search Blacklist,’” <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601012181138407425?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA">Weiss wrote</a>.</p>
<p>witter has vehemently denied that it “shadow bans” users.</p>
<p>Weiss notes that top Twitter executives, including former head of legal policy and trust Vijaya Gadde and head of product  Kayvon Beykpour, have denied in the past that the company “shadow bans” users.</p>
<p>“We do not shadow ban,” Gadde and Beykpour said in 2018, per Weiss. “And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”</p>
<p>“People are asking us if we shadow ban. We don’t. Read more to get all the facts,” the company also said in a 2018 tweet.</p>
<p>That same year, Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey also claimed that the company didn’t restrict accounts with certain “political viewpoints.”</p>
<p>“We don’t shadow ban, and we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints,” Dorsey wrote in a tweet.</p>
<p>“We do rank tweets by default to make Twitter more immediately relevant (which can be flipped off). More on ranking signals,” he added, linking to a company blog post co-authored by Gadde, known as the company’s “censorship chief.”</p>
<p>Weiss reports that the practice of suppressing conservative voices is known internally as “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.”</p>
<p>“Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool,” a senior Twitter employee told Weiss.</p>
<p>“Visibility Filtering” allows the company to “block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; to block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the ‘trending’ page; and from inclusion in hashtag searches,” according to Weiss.</p>
<p>“We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do,” a Twitter engineer told Weiss.</p>
<p>Weiss found that the group responsible for deciding which accounts to blacklist was known as the Strategic Response Team – Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET.</p>
<p>“It often handled up to 200 ‘cases’ a day,” according to Weiss.</p>
<p>But beyond SRT-GET, the secretive Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support team, or SIP-PES, was responsible for the most “politically sensitive decisions.”</p>
<p>“This secret group included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust &amp; Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others,” according to Weiss.</p>
<p>“This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made,” she added.</p>
<p>The popular Libs of TikTok Twitter account is one conservative profile that Weiss says fell under the purview of the SIP-PES team.</p>
<p>In an image shared by Weiss, the Libs of TikTok account <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601018810495995904?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA">appeared</a> to have a “Trends Blacklist” and had a red banner warning, “Do Not Take Action on User Without Consulting With SIP-PES.”</p>
<p>“Think high follower account, controversial,” a Twitter employee told Weiss of the types of accounts SIP-PES would handle. “There would be no ticket or anything” for these accounts, according to the employee.</p>
<p>Libs of TikTok , run by Chaya Raichik since November 2020, has over 1.4 million followers and is marked as “high profile” internally by Twitter.</p>
<p>According to Weiss, Raichik says Libs of TikTok was suspended six times in 2022, with the bans lasting as long as a week, for purportedly violating the company’s policy against “hateful conduct.”</p>
<p>However, an internal SIP-PES missive from October 2022, discovered by Weiss, notes that Libs of TikTok “has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy” since the account’s seventh suspension.</p>
<p>“The committee justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of ‘hospitals and medical providers’ by insinuating ‘that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming,’” <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601022887556571136?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA">Weiss found</a>, noting that “No action was taken” on a November 2022 tweet that revealed Raichik’s home address.</p>
<p>An internal Slack message <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601023504916172800?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA">obtained by Weiss</a> from Twitter’s former global head of trust and safety revealed that the company uses technicalities to restrict the visibility of tweets and subjects when a direct violation can’t be found.</p>
<p>Weiss also <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601023770717626368?s=20&amp;t=-e4ic59DaLSa3Q0eE9ZPIA">found</a> that Roth sought to expand “non-removal policy interventions like disabling engagements and deamplification/visibility filtering.”</p>
<p>“The hypothesis underlying much of what we’ve implemented is that if exposure to, e.g., misinformation directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure, and limiting the spread/virality of content is a good way to do that,” Roth wrote.</p>
<p>“We got Jack on board with implementing this for civic integrity in the near term, but we’re going to need to make a more robust case to get this into our repertoire of policy remediations — especially for other policy domains,” added Roth.</p>
<p>Weiss’s tweets<a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/02/elon-musk-releases-twitters-files-on-censorship-of-post/"> followed Friday’s bombshell revelations</a> by fellow independent journalist Matt Taibbi, whose Twitter posts were <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/02/elon-musk-to-drop-twitters-hunter-biden-censorship-file-today/">promoted by new company owner Elon Musk</a> as “what really happened with the Hunter Biden suppression story by Twitter.”</p>
<p>Taibbi said his reporting uncovered the “extraordinary steps” Twitter took in response to The Post’s blockbuster <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/">scoop about Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop</a> in October 2020, including “removing links and posting warnings that it may be ‘unsafe.’”</p>
<p>“They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography,” he wrote.</p>
<p>Taibbi said the decision was made behind the back of Dorsey, with former general counsel Gadde — who was reportedly fired by Musk when he took over in October — “playing a key role.”</p>
<p>Undated internal company messages showed Gadde and others discussing how the company would cite concern that the story was based on “hacked materials,” even though it had no evidence to support that notion.</p>
<p>A former employee reportedly told Taibbi that “everyone knew this was f–ked.”</p>
<p>But the company’s “response was to essentially to err on the side of … continuing to err,” Taibbi said.</p>
<p>In addition to suppressing the story, Twitter locked out The Post from its main Twitter account after demanding the removal of six tweets — which The Post refused.</p>
<p>After a two-week stalemate sparked outrage at Twitter, the social media giant <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/30/twitter-backs-down-agrees-to-unlock-posts-account/">caved and unlocked the account</a>, saying it was revising its “Hacked Materials Policy” and “updating our practice of not retroactively overturning prior enforcement.”</p>
<p>Last week, former Twitter head of trust and safety Roth <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/11/30/twitters-ex-safety-chief-admits-censoring-posts-hunter-biden-scoop-was-a-mistake/">admitted during a interview</a> that it was wrong to suppress The Post’s reporting, saying that “for me, it didn’t reach a place where I was comfortable removing this content from Twitter.”</p>
<p>And on Tuesday, Musk announced that he’d <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/06/elon-musk-fires-twitter-lawyer-james-baker-over-hunter-biden/">fired Twitter deputy general counsel Jim Baker</a>, a controversial former top FBI lawyer, over his “possible role in suppression of information important to the public dialogue.”</p>
<p>Musk said he’d questioned Baker about Twitter’s response to the laptop story and found his answers “unconvincing.”</p>
<p>Taibbi also tweeted Tuesday that Baker was behind the delay Friday in releasing his “Twitter Files” tweets because he’d been “vetting” the underlying material “without knowledge of new management.”</p>
<p>Taibbi said Weiss uncovered Baker’s involvement when she learned “that the person in charge of releasing the files was someone named Jim.”</p>
<p>“When she called to ask ‘Jim’s’ last name, the answer came back: ‘Jim Baker,’” Taibbi wrote.</p>
<p>“‘My jaw hit the floor,’ says Weiss.”</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<figure id="attachment_4742" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-4742" style="width: 675px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4742" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2A.webp" alt="The installment of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” revealed how Twitter was secretly “blacklisting” conservative tweets and users." width="675" height="450" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2A.webp 1535w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2A-300x200.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2A-1024x682.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2A-768x512.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 675px) 100vw, 675px" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-4742" class="wp-caption-text"><em style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="color: #ff6600;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4743" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2B-1.webp" alt="Bari Weiss unveiled how Twitter blacklisted conservative users to limit the visibility of their tweets. REUTERS" width="670" height="446" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2B-1.webp 1535w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2B-1-300x200.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2B-1-1024x682.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/TwitterFiles2B-1-768x512.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 670px) 100vw, 670px" /></span></em></figcaption></figure>
<div>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4747" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1.webp" alt="Twitter-Files-2" width="670" height="227" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1.webp 1756w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1-300x101.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1-1024x346.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1-768x260.webp 768w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1-1536x520.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 670px) 100vw, 670px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4748" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2.webp" alt="Twitter-Files-2" width="673" height="203" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2.webp 1756w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2-300x91.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2-1024x309.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2-768x232.webp 768w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2-1536x464.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 673px) 100vw, 673px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4749" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/3.webp" alt="Twitter-Files-2" width="673" height="776" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/3.webp 1020w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/3-260x300.webp 260w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/3-887x1024.webp 887w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/3-768x886.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 673px) 100vw, 673px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4744" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/4a.webp" alt="Twitter-Files-2" width="678" height="733" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/4a.webp 1090w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/4a-278x300.webp 278w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/4a-948x1024.webp 948w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/4a-768x829.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 678px) 100vw, 678px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4745" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/5.webp" alt="Twitter-Files-2" width="670" height="727" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/5.webp 1084w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/5-276x300.webp 276w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/5-943x1024.webp 943w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/5-768x834.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 670px) 100vw, 670px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4746" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6.webp" alt="Twitter-Files-2" width="677" height="171" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6.webp 1756w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6-300x76.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6-1024x259.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6-768x194.webp 768w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/6-1536x388.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 677px) 100vw, 677px" /></p>
<p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-4750" style="font-size: 16px;" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/7.webp" alt="" width="671" height="158" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/7.webp 1756w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/7-300x71.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/7-1024x241.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/7-768x181.webp 768w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/7-1536x361.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 671px) 100vw, 671px" /></p>
<p>The &#8216;Part 2&#8217; of the internal &#8220;Twitter Files,&#8221; which discuss &#8220;free speech restriction&#8221; by the social media company, was made public by Twitter CEO Elon Musk on Friday morning. Mr Musk retweeted the story, which was originally posted by independent journalist Bari Weiss, and revealed more &#8220;dark&#8221; secrets about the social media platform.  Journalist Bari Weiss started her thread with a tweet that read, &#8220;A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics-all in secret, without informing users.&#8221; &#8220;Twitter once had a mission &#8220;to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.&#8221; Along the way, nevertheless, barriers were erected,&#8221; she wrote.</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-0&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601009744575025152&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%2Fworld-news%2Felon-musk-retweets-twitter-files-part-2-reveals-secret-suppression-of-right-wing-commentators-3591582&amp;sessionId=7aee9d7e7cf2432dac1808128acc94cab224a660&amp;siteScreenName=ndtv&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601009744575025152" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<p>In a series of posts, Ms. Weiss described how Twitter used &#8220;shadow banning&#8221; to limit the visibility of tweets from far-right users.  She wrote, with screenshots, that many right-wing thinkers were put on the &#8220;Search Blacklist&#8221; and the &#8220;Trends Blacklist,&#8221; preventing their tweets from trending on the microblogging website.</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-1" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-1&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601012976894373888&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%2Fworld-news%2Felon-musk-retweets-twitter-files-part-2-reveals-secret-suppression-of-right-wing-commentators-3591582&amp;sessionId=7aee9d7e7cf2432dac1808128acc94cab224a660&amp;siteScreenName=ndtv&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601012976894373888" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<p>Ms. Weiss wrote that &#8220;Twitter denied that it does such things. In 2018, Twitter&#8217;s Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: &#8220;We do not shadow ban.&#8221; They added: &#8220;And we certainly don&#8217;t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.&#8221; According to Weiss, the practise of suppressing conservative voices is known as &#8220;Visibility Filtering&#8221; or &#8220;VF&#8221; internally.</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"><iframe id="twitter-widget-2" class="" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&amp;embedId=twitter-widget-2&amp;features=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%3D%3D&amp;frame=false&amp;hideCard=false&amp;hideThread=false&amp;id=1601014524227645440&amp;lang=en&amp;origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%2Fworld-news%2Felon-musk-retweets-twitter-files-part-2-reveals-secret-suppression-of-right-wing-commentators-3591582&amp;sessionId=7aee9d7e7cf2432dac1808128acc94cab224a660&amp;siteScreenName=ndtv&amp;theme=light&amp;widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&amp;width=550px" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-tweet-id="1601014524227645440" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div>
<div>&#8220;What many people call “shadow banning,” Twitter executives and employees call “Visibility Filtering” or “VF.” Multiple high-level sources confirmed its meaning,&#8221; she tweeted.</div>
<div>
<hr />
</div>
</div>
<div>
<h2 dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">What is Twitter shadowbanning?</h2>
<p dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">In a series of posts, Weiss said that Twitter used &#8220;shadow banning&#8221;. Shadowbanning is a set of restrictions that Twitter used to limit the visibility of tweets posted by far-right users. She posted a number of screenshots explaining how tweets by various right-wing thinkers were put on the &#8220;Search Blacklist&#8221;, &#8220;Trends Blacklist&#8221; and &#8220;Do not Amplify&#8221; categories which prevented their posts from trending on Twitter.</p>
<h2 dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">Twitter calls shadowbanning &#8220;Visibility Filtering&#8221;</h2>
<p dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">While people refer to this &#8220;blacklisting&#8221; as shadowbanning, Twitter executives call it “Visibility Filtering” or “VF,” Weiss said, citing &#8220;multiple high-level sources.&#8221; “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool,” one senior Twitter employee was quoted as saying. &#8220;VF refers to Twitter’s control over user visibility. It used VF to block searches of individual users; limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the &#8216;trending&#8217; page, and from inclusion in hashtag searches. All without users&#8217; knowledge,&#8221; Weiss tweeted.</p>
<h2 dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">Twitter denied Shadowbanning in 2018</h2>
<p dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">In 2018, Twitter denied that it does such things, Weiss noted. She again targeted Vijaya Gadde, then Head of Legal Policy and Trust, and Kayvon Beykpour, Head of Product, saying that both executives denied shadowbanning. “And we certainly don’t ‘shadow ban’ based on political viewpoints or ideology,” they said.</p>
<h2 dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">Twitter &#8220;SIP-PES&#8221;</h2>
<p dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2">Apart from moderators who used to handle &#8220;200 cases&#8221; each day, there was another &#8220;secret group&#8221; called “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” known as “SIP-PES”, Weiss noted. &#8220;This secret group included the Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust &amp; Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others. This is where the biggest, most politically sensitive decisions got made,&#8221; Weiss said. “Twitter Files Part 3” will be released by Matt Taibbi, Weiss noted.</p>
</div>
<p>Twitter users who were secretly “shadow-banned” by the social media giant under previous management praised new CEO Elon Musk for releasing records that show <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/suppression-of-right-wing-users-exposed-in-latest-twitter-files/">how their speech was suppressed on the platform</a>.   <em><strong>Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya offered his thanks to Musk</strong></em> and independent journalist Bari Weiss for revealing Thursday night that he’d been put on Twitter’s “Trends Blacklist” after arguing against COVID-19 lockdowns.  “Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1601037985566244865" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bhattacharya tweeted</a>.    The health policy expert also said that “censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures” and harmed “a generation of children.”  “I’m curious about what role the government played in Twitter’s suppression of covid policy discussion,” Bhattacharya added. “We will see with time, I suppose.”</p>
<div>
<hr />
<h2 dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2"></h2>
<h2 class="css-4rbku5 css-901oao css-1hf3ou5 r-18jsvk2 r-37j5jr r-adyw6z r-b88u0q r-135wba7 r-bcqeeo r-1vvnge1 r-qvutc0" dir="ltr" role="heading" aria-level="2"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click Here</a> to Visit The Reporter Close To Elon&#8217;s Twitter Feed </span> <a href="https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">@bariweiss</span></a></h2>
</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>sources <a href="https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/december/the-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/december/the-twitter-files-part-2-soviet-style-secret-blacklists-and-shadow-bans-of-conservatives-exposed</a></div>
<div>sources <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-former-facebook-security-officer-got-into-it-twitter-2022-12" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-former-facebook-security-officer-got-into-it-twitter-2022-12</a></div>
<div>sources <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-retweets-twitter-files-part-2-reveals-secret-suppression-of-right-wing-commentators-3591582" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/elon-musk-retweets-twitter-files-part-2-reveals-secret-suppression-of-right-wing-commentators-3591582</a><br />
sources <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/twitter-files-part-2-blacklists-disfavoured-tweets-and-more/articleshow/96110886.cms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/twitter-files-part-2-blacklists-disfavoured-tweets-and-more/articleshow/96110886.cms</a></div>
<div>sources <a href="https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-twitter-files-bari-weiss-part-two-shadow-ban-1849876635" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-twitter-files-bari-weiss-part-two-shadow-ban-1849876635</a></div>
<div>sources <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/09/twitter-blacklist-victims-praise-elon-musk-for-revealing-censorship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://nypost.com/2022/12/09/twitter-blacklist-victims-praise-elon-musk-for-revealing-censorship/</a></div>
<div>sources <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/suppression-of-right-wing-users-exposed-in-latest-twitter-files/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://nypost.com/2022/12/08/suppression-of-right-wing-users-exposed-in-latest-twitter-files/</a></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Twitter_Files_2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download PDF Twitter Files Part 2</a> </span>Summary PDF and here is the PDF <a href="https://unga.substack.com/p/twitter-files-1-11-downloads-pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></h3>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct</title>
		<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/secret-canons-of-judicial-conduct/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Truth News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2022 09:49:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Corruption Over the Years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidelines and help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal News The Motivation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self Help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret Canons]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=3305</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct SECRET CANON 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PUBLIC DEFENDER 1  Prosecutorial Discretion 1(A)  We hold the prudent practice of &#8220;see, hear and speak no evil&#8221; essential as related to the office of the Attorney General [secretly called the &#8220;power structure&#8217;s Mafia&#8221;]. Therefore: 1(A)(i)  We hold the latitude we give the Public [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1 style="text-align: center;">Secret Canons of Judicial Conduct</h1>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3 align="Left"><i>SECRET CANON 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PUBLIC DEFENDER</i></h3>
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="wp-image-3307 alignright" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1.webp" alt="" width="751" height="567" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1.webp 1200w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-300x227.webp 300w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-1024x773.webp 1024w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-768x580.webp 768w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/1-600x453.webp 600w" sizes="(max-width: 751px) 100vw, 751px" /></h1>
<dl>
<dt><strong>1  Prosecutorial Discretion</strong></dt>
<dd>1(A)  We hold the prudent practice of &#8220;see, hear and speak no evil&#8221; essential as related to the office of the Attorney General [secretly called the &#8220;power structure&#8217;s Mafia&#8221;]. Therefore:</p>
<ul>
<li>1(A)(i)  We hold the latitude we give the Public Defender&#8217;s office compensates for any inequality of justice or prosecutorial misconduct and</li>
<li>1(A)(ii)  We ignore the practice of overcharging by the Attorney General regardless of how many are forced into false admissions or plea bargains.</li>
<li>1(A)(iii)  We hold overcharging can assist bar members with revenue enhancement and improves efficiency by reducing demands for jury trials and we shall <u>not</u> consider
<ul>
<li>any guidelines stating otherwise or</li>
<li>the devastation in the lives of those so affected.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>1(A)(iv)  Since it is the job of the Attorney General to &#8220;get&#8221; people, any means they use to do so is acceptable since they are the will and voice of the people.</li>
<li>1(A)(v)  If the Attorney General&#8217;s Office violates laws, rules or ethics while &#8220;getting&#8221; people then let the trial process sort it out.  To hell with the following:
<ul>
<li>those who can&#8217;t afford effective counsel, a trial or those having a Public Defender and</li>
<li>those who get a Judge skilled in the use of judicial discretion who covers up or ignores prosecutorial misconduct citing &#8220;judicial efficiency&#8221; and the &#8220;duty of the state.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>1(A)(vi)  Having a bold aggressive Attorney General is of greater benefit to Society than any possible damage to individual life and liberty.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt>1<strong>(B) Public Defender</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>1(B)(i)  The importance we place on justice can always be measured by the amount of resources given the Public Defender in proportion to the amount of resources given the Attorney General.</li>
<li>1(B)(ii)  Under staffing and under funding of the Public Defender:
<ul>
<li>enhances Judicial efficiency and eases the court calendar by promoting plea bargains, suicides, breakdowns, despair, fleeing etc. and</li>
<li>can give us more bang for our buck by turning the Public Defender into an extension of the Attorney General&#8217;s office and</li>
<li>can demonstrate effective use of the &#8220;good cop (Public Defender)&#8221; &#8220;bad cop (Attorney General)&#8221; scenario and</li>
<li>can assist members of the bar with property acquisition and other revenue enhancements.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>1(B)(iii)  Any uncooperative Public Defender making an issue of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct or ethics violations shall be removed as quickly as possible.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 2 JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR TOWARDS LITIGANTS</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>2(A)  Confident Litigants</strong></dt>
<dd>Any litigant appearing confident can be baffled by minutia or Judicially enhanced procedural criteria.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(B)  Judicial Dominance</strong></dt>
<dd>Occasionally we encounter a litigant who doesn&#8217;t know we are king.  We hold the following tools effective in forcing a resistant litigant into submission:</p>
<ul>
<li>intimidation by any means</li>
<li>condescending looks, gestures or comments</li>
<li>expressing or instigating anger, outrage or shock</li>
<li>obvious impatience</li>
<li>rushing the proceedings</li>
<li>frequent checks of the time</li>
<li>cautionary glances toward the Bailiff</li>
<li>appearing distressed or uncomfortable like one needing to go to the bathroom</li>
<li>yelling the magic word &#8220;NEXT!&#8221;</li>
<li>raising unrelated, irrelevant or confusing issues and</li>
<li>loud bangs using the gavel.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>2(C)  The Need For Attorneys</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall continue to stress the need to have an Attorney without addressing the fact the overwhelming majority of Americans can not afford them. This is effective in keeping the unresourceful and ineffective at bay.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(D)  The Ultimate Authority</strong></dt>
<dd>Citizens must be continually led to believe that the Judiciary is the final or ultimate authority in our system of Government.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(E)  Practice Of Law Forbidden</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall try as best we can to confuse clarifying issues with our inability to give advice. This makes us less apt to stick our foot in our mouth.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(F)  Sincerity Of The Judiciary</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall never appear insincere when stating absurdities, untruths, mistruths or nonsense. We shall always act like the hearer is unknowledgeable, naive or unseasoned.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(G)  Judicial Fairness</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall always remember when deciding the significance of an individual to consider money, connections, power, politics and the ability to get media attention in deciding how fair we need to be.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(H)  Judicial Response To Criticism</strong></dt>
<dd>We forever hold the response to valid or invalid criticism should be indignance.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(I)  Judicial Efficiency</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold instigating outrage, frustration, anger or other emotions in litigants can be an effective tool to rid ourselves of the unwanted litigant.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(J)  Judicial Handling Of The Ignorant</strong></dt>
<dd>The client demanding Justice and the full respect of their rights shall be treated with pity and patience.</dd>
<dt><strong>2(K)  Judicial Authority</strong></dt>
<dd>Due to the authoritative nature of black robes, we shall continue to resist their removal.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 3 EXPERTS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>3(A)  Efficiency Of Experts</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold one of the greatest innovations for eliminating ineffective and unresourceful litigants is the ever expanding use of expert testimony.</dd>
<dt><strong>3(B)  Evolution Of Experts</strong></dt>
<dd>This innovation will reach maturity when we routinely use levels of experts on experts to testify on the validity and expertise of each expert.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 4 JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>4(A)  Discretion Defined</strong></dt>
<dd>We maintain judicial and prosecutorial discretion is doing whatever we damn well please within the judicially prudent guidelines we happen to be following at the time.</dd>
<dt><strong>4(B)  Review Of Discretionary Acts</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall never promulgate awareness of the real legal issue regarding the use and review of judicial and prosecutorial discretion which is the process of reasoning used in the discretionary act&#8217;s decision making process. We shall convert the process of reasoning argument into an argument regarding the validity of doing or not doing the discretionary act.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 5 JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>5(A)  Oversight Immunity</strong></dt>
<dd>The immunity of everyone overseeing the Judiciary must be maintained to prevent witch hunts and the overzealous from affecting the independence of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not require the vulnerable or corrective oversight of the masses.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(B)  Judicial Objectivity</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall always remember the real symbolic reason behind the woman with the blindfold and scale. Objectivity and independence means remaining as blind as possible to wrong doing committed by the Judiciary, members of the bar, and the resourceful and effective.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(C)  Judicial Self-Evaluation</strong></dt>
<dd>To maintain the independence of the Judiciary, we hold each others rulings to be legally and factually correct regardless of the injustice that results, the facts or the law.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(D)  Judicial Opinions Of Judges</strong></dt>
<dd>To insure effective oversight of the Judiciary, we shall never criticize each other regardless of the severity of the wrong or the injustice.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(E)  Trust Us, We&#8217;re Judges</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold self monitoring and absolute immunity as foolhardy, ineffective and unworkable for everyone <u>except</u> the Judiciary and judicial oversight committees.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(F)  Judicial Job Performance</strong></dt>
<dd>To allows us to remain unconcerned about upsetting the status quo, we shall keep the public convinced their interference will negatively affect the independence of the Judiciary making Judges afraid to do their jobs.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(G)  The Judicial Mosaic Tablet</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall forever speak of centuries of Judicial immunities as proof of Judicial immunities&#8217; necessity and effectiveness without ever mentioning Judicial wrongdoing has been around as long as Judges.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(H)  Delay = Denied</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold admission of any Judicial wrongdoing delayed is admission of Judicial wrongdoing denied.</dd>
<dt><strong>5(I)  Complete And Through Review</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold there is no judicial wrongdoing which can <u>not</u> be diminished by time, levels of hearings and precise dissection , categorization and delegation of related facts and responsibilities.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-3308 alignright" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/203329_600.webp" alt="" width="600" height="529" srcset="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/203329_600.webp 600w, https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/203329_600-300x265.webp 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" /></h1>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 6 JUDICIAL THOUGHT AND LEGAL REASONING</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>6(A)  Judicial Zen</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>6(A)(i)  We hold the logic for our legal reasoning is embodied in the following statement which is understood only by the enlightened: &#8220;<i>Because we open a window to the outside of this room does not mean we order, allow, permission or induce any air, dust, molecules, light waves, solar radiation, atoms, or any known or unknown wave or particulate matter from outside to enter this room and are not responsible if said events occur due to the contextual basis of our decisions</i>.&#8221;</li>
<li>6(A)(ii)  We believe in the existence of the metaphysical &#8220;third eye.&#8221;  This enables us to selectively avoid looking out our other two eyes.</li>
<li>6(A)(iii)  In the beginning was our word. Our word was with God, our word IS God.</li>
<li>6(A)(iv)  To think is to be right.</li>
<li>6(A)(v)  There is no issue that cannot be split into parts, and there is no part that can&#8217;t be considered as the whole issue.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dt><strong>6(B)  The Dangers Of Common Sense And Factual Integration</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>6(B)(i) The consideration of the end result our decision has when integrated with the &#8220;outside world&#8221; can lead to decisions based on &#8220;common sense&#8221; and must be avoided.</li>
<li>6(B)(ii)  &#8220;Common Sense&#8221; lessens the highly specialized analytical and intelligent nature of the Judiciary creating the undesirable illusion we think like the masses.</li>
<li>6(B)(iii)  &#8220;Common sense&#8221; must not be part of legal proceedings because it cannot be objectively verified.</li>
<li>6(B)(iv)  Large scale factual integration with realities of the outside world can negatively affect the perfection of our written word.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>6(C)  Judicial Self Esteem</strong></dt>
<dd>We endeavor to remain forever impressed with each other, our performance and our status irregardless of the availability or affordability of Justice.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(D)  Lip Service</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the consideration and realities of the quality or delivery of Justice should be given lip service faithfully.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(E)  The Third Person</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the &#8220;system&#8221; shall always be spoken of in the third person as if it operates independently from individuals.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(F)  Judicial Secret Mantra</strong></dt>
<dd>We may think but not say, &#8220;I am the closest thing to God you will ever know.&#8221;</dd>
<dt><strong>6(G)  Protection Of Status Quo</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall remember &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; was around for 100 years.  If we hadn&#8217;t listened to the masses it might still be good law. Therefore we shall keep the shades drawn so reality won&#8217;t affect or disturb the independence of our decision making process or the Status Quo.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(H)  The Written Word</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold what looks good on paper must be good.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(I) The Primary Concern</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall never consider the end result of our decisions unless it could result in professional embarrassment, loss of status or media attention.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(J) Public Ignorance</strong></dt>
<dd>Arrogance is how Citizens define us when they are not fully aware of the nature or scope of our position.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(K) Judicial Discretion</strong></dt>
<dd>Judicial Discretion means we can do what we damn well please and is a great tool for denying appeals and judicial wrongdoing.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(L) The Ultimate Truth</strong></dt>
<dd>We irreversibly hold reality must conform to our decisions.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(M)  Judicial Precision</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall forever work on perfecting the art of the polite, dignified, respectful, orderly administered and well twisted screw.</dd>
<dt><strong>6(N) The Judicial Last Laugh</strong></dt>
<dd>As related to the Judiciary, the term &#8220;over my dead body&#8221; is not a cliche but factually correct.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 7 JURIES AND JURY TRIALS</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>7(A)  Constitution Typo</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the right in the Constitution to jury trials in civil matters is a typo.</dd>
<dt><strong>7(B)  Evidence Seen By Jury</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the illusion of justice can be created by thoughtful selection of the evidence seen by the Jury.</dd>
<dt><strong>7(C)  Evolution Of Jury Trials</strong></dt>
<dd>Except for criminal matters for the wealthy, we secretly maintain the elimination of jury trials and continue searching for ways to get that goddamn Constitution out of our way.</dd>
<dt><strong>7(D)  Jury Nullification</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall remember to act outraged at any mention of the vulgar practice called Jury Nullification.</dd>
<dt><strong>7(D)(i)  Judicial View On Jury Nullification And Instruction</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the public does not have the intellectual sophistication to handle the power that comes with jury nullification. This power should only be in the hands of the Judiciary.</dd>
<dt><strong>7(D)(ii)  Jury Instruction</strong></dt>
<dd>In our continuing efforts to protect the public we must continue to &#8220;persuade&#8221; juries, via involuntary neurological suppression, into believing:</p>
<ul>
<li>7(D)(ii)(1)  they can only do what we say and</li>
<li>7(D)(ii)(2)  they are not allowed to vote their conscience and</li>
<li>7(D)(ii)(3)  they should only vote regarding facts and judicially selected evidence, not facts and the law.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>7(E)  Jury Selection</strong></dt>
<dd>We must continue to use the word &#8220;random selection&#8221; when describing the jury selection pool since &#8220;random selection&#8221; can mean a non specific selection of any group.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 8 JUSTICE</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>8(A)  The Value Of Justice</strong></dt>
<dd>We forever hold Justice as the precious and proper administration of laws filtered by legal analysis and unaffected by the end result, even when the end result is the improper administration of laws.</dd>
<dt><strong>8(B)  The Privilege Of Justice</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold Justice to be more of a privilege than a right. As a result, Justice should never be dispensed casually, freely or indiscriminately.</dd>
<dt><strong>8(C)  Appeals Insure Justice</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold a denial of justice is an impossibility due to everyone&#8217;s right of appeal. We hold this to be true irregardless of a litigant&#8217;s time, money or resources.</dd>
<dt><strong>8(D)  Justice For All</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold Justice is for all , but only after first deciding which standard of law we will apply, the &#8220;spirit of the law&#8221; or the &#8220;letter of the law&#8221; and after;</p>
<ul>
<li>8(D)(i)  the exact terminology and the exact questions are used to describe the injustice in the exact manner we require at the time and</li>
<li>8(D)(ii)  said terminology is precisely used with other precise terminology in the exact manner we happen to be requiring at the time and</li>
<li>8(D)(iii)  the exact form is used in the exact manner we happen to be requiring at the time and</li>
<li>8(D)(iv)  said form is exactly prepared with other exactly prepared forms which we are requiring at the time and</li>
<li>8(D)(v)  time requirements are exactly followed with respect to a host of issues that we happen to be requiring at the time and</li>
<li>8(D)(vi)  all tools of eliminating litigants have been judiciously attempted such as overcharging, plea bargain, premature dismissals, expert testimony, res judicata,etc. and</li>
<li>8(D)(vii)  we can&#8217;t possibly find a way to use the great catch all &#8220;judicial discretion&#8221; to eliminate a litigant and</li>
<li>8D(viii)  we have made litigants go through as many possible steps as we can conjure up irregardless of the litigant&#8217;s time or financial resources and</li>
<li>8(D)(ix)  any other judicially prudent, meticulous and painstaking attempt at finding a reason to avoid granting Justice unnecessarily.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>8(E)  Due Process Defined</strong></dt>
<dd>First, decide how we want the case to go.  Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision.  Third, manipulate, dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision.  Then the rubber stamp doctrine of &#8220;judicial discretion&#8221; will prevent most decisions from being overturned</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 9 LAW</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>9(A)  The Nature Of Law</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the nature of the law similar to &#8220;silly putty&#8221;. We may bend, stretch or reshape the law to say what fits our purpose.</dd>
<dt><strong>9(B)  The Flexibility Of Law</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the law is like the Bible, it can be made to say anything we want with enough quotes, viewpoints and cross references.</dd>
<dt><strong>9(C)  The Standards Of Law</strong></dt>
<dd>The &#8220;letter of the law&#8221; and the &#8220;spirit of the law&#8221; are two different legal standards of Justice and the Law. We may choose the standard that suits our fancy.</dd>
<dt><strong>9(D)  The Equal Application Of Law</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the law must always be equally applied, depending on the circumstances and the litigant.</dd>
<dt><strong>9(E)  No One Above The Law</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold no one is above the law.  [Tee hee hee, wink wink]</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 10 ON AND OFF THE RECORD</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>10(A)  Purpose Of Back Room Meetings</strong></dt>
<dd>We will make ample use of back room meetings to keep litigants in the dark. They can not and should not see or understand the process of litigation.</dd>
<dt><strong>10(B)  Back Room Meetings Enhance Justice</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>10(B)(i) We hold injustice can not result from back room meetings because if wrongdoing occurs, clients can sue their Lawyers for malpractice.</li>
<li>10(B)(ii)  To avoid complications, we avoid mentioning or considering the resources required for or the near impossibility of finding a lawyer to sue another lawyer.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>10(C)  Health Benefits Of Back Room Meetings</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the practice of moving to and from back room meetings can assist with circulation, constipation, rectal itch, gaseous emissions, breathing and caloric consumption.</dd>
<dt><strong>10(D)  Back Room Meetings Are Open Court</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall go off the record as much as possible being careful to maintain the illusion of &#8220;open court.&#8221;</dd>
<dt><strong>10(E)  The Unmentionable Contract</strong></dt>
<dd>We prefer clients not be present in back room meetings while never mentioning we hold the client to whatever their lawyer agrees to in these meetings.</dd>
<dt><strong>10(F)  Accuracy Of Record</strong></dt>
<dd>We resist new equipment that transcribes immediately. We prefer to have the option of making corrections to insure accuracy before the record is transcribed.</dd>
<dt><strong>10(G)  Consequences Of Clients At Back Room Meetings</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold a client&#8217;s presence at back room meetings can result in inappropriate evaluations of Judicial and Attorney conduct and expertise.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 11 PRO SE&#8217;S, THE POOR AND INDIGENTS</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>11(A)  The Protection Of The Public</strong></dt>
<dd>11(A)(i) We hold the need to protect the public from the dangers of self representation far outweighs the fair impartial administration of Justice. To protect the public from the dangers of self representation we shall:</p>
<ul>
<li>11(A)(i)(1)  approach the Pro Se, poor or indigent&#8217;s complaint from this objectively protective and compassionate position, &#8220;Is there anyway I can deny this petition?&#8221;</li>
<li>11(A)(i)(2)  use Judicially prudent unbiased techniques to intimidate, frustrate, anger, nit pick, postpone, play with or in any other way rid ourselves of a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.</li>
<li>11(A)(i)(3)  assist the Pro Se, poor or indigent in a resolution by bending or ignoring the rules on ex parte communications.</li>
<li>11(A)(i)(4)  nurture an unfriendly environment in a dignified and polite manner.</li>
<li>11(A)(i)(5)  minimize or ignore Judicial, Court or Attorney errors while magnifying any errors of the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.</li>
<li>11(A)(i)(6)  politely move on to the next case before the Pro Se, poor or indigent is finished. This will assist eliminating them later with arguments such as Res Judicata.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>11(B)  Disposition Before Written Decisions</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>11(B)(i)  It is best to be rid of a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant before having to render a decision requiring written legal analysis.</li>
<li>11(B)(ii)  If forced to render a written opinion on a Pro Se , poor or indigent case, we will stick to or switch to the arguments that validate our desired position.</li>
<li>11(B)(iii)  In Pro Se poor or indigent cases, we prefer unpublished opinions. This makes it easier to perpetuate non sequiturs and pseudo-justice while maintaining the illusion of due process.</li>
<li>11(C)(iv)  We hold &#8220;giving the dog a bone&#8221; occasionally is good practice and gives us some ammunition when our integrity is questioned.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>11(C)  The Superiority Of Bar Members</strong></dt>
<dd>When dealing with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant, we shall always give credence to members of the Bar&#8217;s arguments, regardless of how absurd or off point they are.</dd>
<dt><strong>11(D)  The Superiority Of The Status Quo</strong></dt>
<dd>In cases involving the system, member of the bar or the status quo versus the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant make sure the system, member of the bar or the status quo prevail regardless of how you must ignore or pervert the issues .</dd>
<dt><strong>11(E)  Irrebuttable Presumption Of Pro Se Ignorance</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant does not or can not understand the complex issues of litigation.</dd>
<dt><strong>11(F)  Methods For Smart Alec Pro Se, Poor Or Indigent Litigants</strong></dt>
<dd>If a Pro Se, poor or indigent does understand the issues we shall:</p>
<ul>
<li>11(F)(i)  repeatedly bait them to go off point or</li>
<li>11(F)(ii)  convince them they don&#8217;t understand or</li>
<li>11(F)(iii)  diligently look for and focus on a point they don&#8217;t understand clearly or</li>
<li>11(F)(iv)  continue until they err, running with the error to make a touchdown.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>11(G)  Attitude Toward Naive Pro Se, poor or indigent Litigant</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall always take a patient but condescending attitude with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant that is so naive as to demand and expect fair, impartial Justice and the law applied as written.</dd>
<dt><strong>11(H)  The Inability To Practice Law</strong></dt>
<dd>Our inability to give legal advice or advocate is restricted to Pro Se, poor or indigent litigants, not members of the bar, the fictitious corporate person or the State.</dd>
<dt><strong>11(I)  The In Forma Pauparis Hearing</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold when questioning a litigant attempting to file In Forma Pauparis regarding what they own to never reveal the legal definition of &#8220;own&#8221; is to have and hold title. This effectively eliminates the unresourceful and ineffective and our ass is covered.</dd>
<dt><strong>11(J)  The Judicial Nightmare</strong></dt>
<dd>The nightmare of having the public believe they have a chance of receiving justice without a lawyer must be avoided at all costs. The Courts are best operated as a &#8220;members only&#8221; organization.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 12 PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>12(A)  Appeasing The Public</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>12(A)(i)  Exemplifying one case where the system worked can cover a multitude of sins.</li>
<li>12(A)(ii)  Occasional written opinions regarding concern about justice for the poor are effective in perpetuating the myth that we are continually and aggressively working on this issue.</li>
<li>12(A)(iii)  When all else fails, schedule future hearings.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>12(B)  Handling Of Liability</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold where liability of the privileged, the system or the status quo is involved, admission of wrong doing or error causes more harm than good. However, occasionally throwing the dog a bone can cover a multitude of sins.</dd>
<dt><strong>12(C)  Objective Public Image Maintained</strong></dt>
<dd>We will continue to resist equipment in legal proceedings that can record emotion, attitude or personality traits which can affect the course of proceedings.</dd>
<dt><strong>12(D)  High Profile Trials</strong></dt>
<dd>High profile trials are an opportunity to show Americans the way the system should work. This is advantageous to the overwhelming majority of Americans who would never see it otherwise. This also minimizes complaints of the non-existence of an effective judicial system.</dd>
<dt><strong>12(E)  The Priority Of The Public Trust</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the public trust must be maintained regardless of how we have to lie, cheat or steal to maintain it.</dd>
<dt><strong>12(F)  Media Focus and Public Attention</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold hearings on any judicial wrongdoing should never be conducted when media attention or public awareness is high.</dd>
<dt><strong>12(G)  Judicial Verbal Equivalents To The Finger</strong></dt>
<dd>When dealing with the public and the media, we shall never forget the power of the statements,</p>
<ul>
<li>&#8220;You don&#8217;t understand the intricacies and operations of law&#8221; and</li>
<li>&#8220;It would be inappropriate for me to comment&#8221; and</li>
<li>&#8220;Many times Judges have knowledge of details not known by the public.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 13 RULES AND PROCEDURES</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>13(A)  Value Of Justice</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold Justice should always be fought for, never freely handed out.</dd>
<dt><strong>13(B)  The True Essence Of Procedure</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall strive to find the breaking point in each individual.</dd>
<dt><strong>13(C)  Productivity</strong></dt>
<dd>To create the illusion of productivity we shall forever hold Justice in front of litigants like a carrot on a stick.</dd>
<dt><strong>13(D)  Administration Of Justice</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the selective and selectively meticulous application and adherence to rules and procedure can be used to override the administration of Justice if the administration of Justice requires it.</dd>
<dt><strong>13(E)  The Obstacle Course Objective</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall always remember the amount of Citizens we have to deal with is contingent on the number of hoops we require they go through.</dd>
<dt><strong>13(F)  Time Of The Essence</strong></dt>
<dd>We shall remember time is on our side and the passage of time can create the illusion of thoroughness.</dd>
<dt><strong>13(G)  Due Process</strong></dt>
<dd>We hold the term &#8220;due process&#8221; can imply the payment of money.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3><i>SECRET CANON 14 THE SUPREMACY OF THE CORPORATE PERSON</i></h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>14(A)  The Corporate Person v. The Individual</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>14(A)(i) The fictitious Corporate person shall be held in higher esteem than the individual.</li>
<li>14(B)(ii)  We hold individuals are better represented by a corporate entity. This is more efficient and results in fewer demands for Rights or Justice.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<h3>SECRET CANON 15 LYING AND TRUTH TELLING</h3>
<dl>
<dt><strong>15(A) The Ethics Of Lying</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>15(A)(i) To maintain the ethical nature of legal proceedings, the word &#8220;lie&#8221; is considered vulgar as related to statements from the Judiciary or members of the bar.</li>
<li>15(A)(ii)  We shall use terms like misspoke, spoken in error, inadvertent utterance, involuntary neurological transmission, spontaneous somnambulistic manifestation or some terminology denoting non deliberate intent when describing the statements in question.</li>
<li>15(A)(iii)  We hold the near impossibility of the existence of the lie because objective reality can have countless varied creative interpretations and constructive descriptions. Calling another&#8217;s view of objective reality a lie shows a lack of intelligence, creative viewpoints and critical thinking skills.</li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt><strong>15(B) The Ethics Of Truth</strong></dt>
<dd>15(B)(i) We hold truth is that which is least damaging to the status quo.</dd>
</dl>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://caught.net/nwsltr/candef.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cited</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<ul>
<li> <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/overview-of-police-discretion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police Discretion</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/the-police-violated-my-rights/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The police violated my rights</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/deprivation-of-rights-under-color-of-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/how-to-file-a-complaint-of-police-misconduct/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/misconduct-know-more-of-your-rights/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/new-supreme-court-ruling-makes-it-easier-to-sue-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Supreme Court Ruling makes it easier to sue police</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/prosecutorial-misconduct-what-is-it/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Prosecutorial Misconduct, What is it?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/frivolous-meritless-or-malicious-prosecution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/malicious-prosecution-prosecutorial-misconduct/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/possible-courses-of-action-prosecutorial-misconduct/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Prosecutorial Misconduct</a></li>
<li> <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/vindictive-prosecution-georgetown-university/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University</a></li>
<li> <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/vindictive-and-selective-prosecution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION</a></li>
<li> <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/misconduct-by-judges-prosecutor/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Misconduct by Judges &amp; Prosecutor</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-attorney-misconduct-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT LAW</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-mental-health/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination and mental health</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/motion-to-reconsider/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Motion to reconsider – Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Section 1008</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/fighting-a-judgment-without-filing-an-appeal-settlement-or-mediation-options-to-appealing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation – Options to Appealing</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/right-to-truth-victims-bill-of-rights-prop-8-1982/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Right to Truth – Victims’ Bill of Rights – Prop 8 1982</a></li>
<li><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/118-1-pc-police-officers-filing-false-reports/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports</a></li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Truth Wins, Finally! (PEOPLE V. GUZMAN)</title>
		<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/the-truth-wins-finally-people-v-guzman/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Truth News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[14th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[5th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self Help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court - SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CONVERSATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People v. Guzman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHONE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHONE CONVERSATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 1982]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RECORDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right To Truth Prop 1982]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SECRET RECORDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TRUTH]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=5649</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[FINALLY! TRUTH WINS OUT! (PEOPLE V. GUZMAN) California Penal Code section 1044 explains that the duty of a trial judge is to limit the introduction of evidence with a view to the “expeditious and effective ascertainment of the truth.”  However, as we know, judges often exclude evidence that is vital to the ascertainment of the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1 style="text-align: center;">FINALLY! TRUTH WINS OUT! (PEOPLE V. GUZMAN)</h1>
<p>California Penal Code section 1044 explains that the duty of a trial judge is to limit the introduction of evidence with a view to the “expeditious and effective ascertainment of the truth.”  However, as we know, judges often exclude evidence that is vital to the ascertainment of the truth.  The California Supreme Court has brought us one step closer to finding the truth with its decision in <strong><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/people-v-guzman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Guzman</em> (2019) Cal.5<sup>th</sup> 673</a></strong>.</p>
<p>Law enforcement sometimes runs into the sticky situation while investigating a crime when the witness approaches them and tells them they have evidence in the form of a phone conversation that the witness has secretly recorded.  California Penal Code section 632(a) makes it a misdemeanor for a person to record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication.  Exceptions are codified for surreptitiously recording communications evidencing the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, and any felony involving violence, such as domestic violence.  Otherwise, Penal Code section 632(d) says that the recording is inadmissible in any judicial proceeding.  Really? So, the victim records the defendant telling her that he stole her car, and that is inadmissible?!  What happened to the search for the truth?</p>
<p>Defendant Guzman was convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14.  Defendant had inappropriately touched two girls, aged 10 and 12, who were friends with Defendant’s niece, Lorena, an adult.  Both girls confided in Lorena, who told the girls to stay away from Defendant Guzman.  One victim reported the molest to her mother, Esperanza, and told Esperanza that Lorena had warned her about the defendant.  Esperanza then called Lorena to inquire.  Without Lorena’s knowledge or permission, Esperanza tape recorded her phone call with Lorena.  On the first day of jury selection, Esperanza alerted law enforcement of the recording.  Lorena was expected to be called as a witness for the defense.  Upon learning of the recording, the People informed the court that it intended to use the recording during cross-examination of Lorena.  The trial court allowed the recording, holding that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8 abrogated the statutory provision of Penal Code section 632(d).</p>
<p>The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.  Penal Code section 632 was enacted in 1967 as part of the Invasion of Privacy Act.  In 1982, California voters acted to limit the various grounds for excluding evidence at criminal trials by amending the California Constitution with the passage of Proposition 8.  The Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8 prevents the exclusion of evidence in criminal proceedings except by statutes enacted after Proposition 8 by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, with some exceptions expressly listed in Proposition 8.  The voters wanted the law to allow for most relevant evidence to be admitted in criminal cases.  Here, the Right to Truth prevailed over the Invasion of Privacy.</p>
<p><em>What does this mean for you?  </em>Yes, Esperanza still committed a misdemeanor; however, I don’t know any District Attorney that is going to charge a mother of a molest victim under these circumstances…  keep in mind, had law enforcement directed Esperanza to make and record that phone call, her actions would have been perfectly legal pursuant to California Penal Code section 633.<a href="https://www.tdcorg.com/article/finally-truth-wins-out-people-v-guzman/#:~:text=of%20Proposition%208.-,The%20Right%20to%20Truth%2Din%2DEvidence%20provision%20of%20Proposition%208,expressly%20listed%20in%20Proposition%208.">source</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12">
<header class="entry-header main-title">
<h1 class="entry-title">CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT A SECRET RECORDING OF A PHONE CONVERSATION WAS NOT BARRED BY A PRIVACY PROVISION BECAUSE THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN REPEALED BY THE “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE” PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION</h1>
</header>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content">
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12">
<p>Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones &amp; Mayer</p>
<p>In the case of <em>People v. Guzman</em>,<a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> the Supreme Court of California found that a surreptitious recording was properly admitted into evidence in a defendant’s trial for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child.  The Court concluded that the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision in the state constitution enacted as a result of the passage of Proposition 8 abrogated a Penal Code provision prohibiting the admission of evidence obtained from recording a confidential communication.</p>
<p><strong><u>Background</u></strong></p>
<p>10-year-old E.F. confided to her adult neighbor Lorena that Lorena’s uncle, defendant Alejandro Guzman, had inappropriately touched E.F.  In a separate later incident, 12-year-old M.M. told her mother Esperanza that, during a sleepover with Guzman’s daughter, Guzman had touched her and made M.M. touch him.  M.M. also told Esperanza that Lorena, who was M.M.’s cousin, had warned M.M. about Guzman.  Esperanza spoke with Lorena by phone, but did not tell Lorena that the call was being recorded.</p>
<p>Esperanza did not inform law enforcement of the recording’s existence until the day jury selection in Guzman’s trial was to begin.  Upon learning of the recording, the prosecution informed the court that it intended to use the recording to cross-examine Lorena, who was expected to testify for the defense.  Defense counsel objected, arguing that the recording was categorically inadmissible under Penal Code Section 632(d), which prohibits the admission of “evidence obtained … in violation of this section … in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.”  The trial court determined instead that Section 632(d) had been repealed by the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision of the California Constitution, which was enacted as part of Proposition 8 in 1982.</p>
<p>A transcript of the recording was subsequently admitted into evidence.  The jury thus heard Lorena making various statements that were unfavorable to Guzman.  After hearing from the various witnesses, the jury convicted Guzman of two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child.</p>
<p>Guzman appealed, arguing that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting the recording because the admission “contravened the exclusionary rule stated in Penal Code Section 632, subdivision (d).”  The Court of Appeal rejected the argument, finding that within the criminal context, Section 632(d) had been rendered inoperative by Proposition 8.  The appellate court thus concluded the recording was properly admitted and affirmed Guzman’s convictions.  Guzman sought review of the decision by the California Supreme Court.</p>
<p><strong><u>Discussion</u></strong></p>
<p>The California Supreme Court granted review to determine the continued viability of Section 632(d) in light of the limits placed on the exclusion of evidence by the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision of the Constitution.</p>
<p>The Court noted that the Legislature enacted Section 632 in 1967 as part of the Invasion of Privacy Act.<a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>  “The purpose of the act was to protect the right of privacy by, among other things,” “replacing prior laws that permitted the recording of telephone conversations with the consent of [only] one party to the conversation.”  (<em>Flanagan v. Flanagan</em> (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768–769.) Subdivision (d) of Section 632, the exclusionary remedy of the section, provides:  “Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.”  (Section 632(d).)</p>
<p>In 1982, the voters approved Proposition 8, thereby amending the state Constitution.  Proposition 8 contained a provision known as the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence,” now codified at article I, section 28(f)(2).  In relevant part, the provision states:  “Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court.  Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code Sections 352, 782 or 1103.”  (Cal Const., Art. I, section 28(f)(2) (hereafter, “Section 28(f)(2)”).)</p>
<p>The Court explained that it would pursue two separate inquiries to determine whether the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated the exclusionary remedy of Section 632(d) as that remedy applies to criminal proceedings.  First, the Court considered whether the constitutional provision repealed Section 632(d) at the moment of its passage in 1982.  If so, the second inquiry would examine whether the Legislature revived Section 632(d) by a two-thirds vote any time thereafter, thus restoring the section’s prohibition against admission of secret recordings.</p>
<p><u>Did the Exclusionary Remedy of Section 632(d) Survive the Passage of the Truth-in-evidence Provision in 1982?</u></p>
<p>The Court reminded that the “the express, unambiguous language of [S]ection 28[(f)(2)]” (<em>In re Lance W</em>. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 886) states that “[e]xcept as provided … , relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding.”  (Section 28(f)(2).)  The Court determined that “[t]his clearly stated command has only one apparent meaning”—to prohibit the exclusion of evidence at criminal proceedings except on those grounds expressly contemplated by the constitutional provision.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 886.)  Section 632(d), the Court found, was not exempt from the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision because Section 632(d) did not fit within any of those grounds:  Section 632(d) was neither an “existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay,” nor “Evidence Code Sections 352, 782 or 1103.” (Section 28(f)(2).)</p>
<p>From the express language of Section 28(f)(2), the Court determined that to the extent that Section 632(d) demanded the suppression of relevant evidence at criminal proceedings, it was superseded when the voters approved the constitutional amendment in 1982.  (See <em>People v. Wheeler</em> (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 291 [“[S]ection 28[(f)(2)] supersedes all California restrictions on the admission of relevant evidence except those preserved or permitted by the express words of [S]ection 28[(f)(2)] itself”].)</p>
<p>Moreover, the history of the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision supported the Court’s view of the finding that Section 632(d) was abrogated by the Section 28(f)(2).  The Court noted that the ballot materials<a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> related to Proposition 8 included this statement from the Legislative Analyst:  “Under current law, certain evidence is not permitted to be presented in a criminal trial or hearing.  For example, evidence obtained through unlawful eavesdropping or wiretapping, or through unlawful searches of persons or property, cannot be used in court.  This measure generally would allow most relevant evidence to be presented in criminal cases, subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may in the future enact by a two-thirds vote.” <a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>  (Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 8, 1982) analysis of Prop. 8 by Legis. Analyst, p. 32.)  The Court explained that because the ballot material specifically singled out “evidence obtained through unlawful eavesdropping,” which was then “not permitted to be presented in a criminal trial or hearing,” and told voters that Proposition 8 would change the law so as to “allow most relevant evidence to be presented in criminal cases,” the natural inference was that Proposition 8 would permit “evidence obtained through unlawful eavesdropping” to be admitted in criminal cases.  “In essence,” the Supreme Court explained, “voters were informed that Proposition 8 would abrogate [S]ection 632(d)—and they approved.”</p>
<p>The Court thus concluded that the clear language and history of the constitutional amendment meant that the passage of the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision in 1982 repealed Section 632(d) to the extent the section applied to criminal proceedings.</p>
<p>The Court rejected Guzman’s various arguments contrary to the Court’s conclusion.</p>
<p>In analyzing a constitutionally protected right and an associated exclusionary rule requiring suppression in violation of the right, the Court pointed to concordant reasoning in <em>Lance W.  </em> The Court observed that Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution protects the people’s right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches.”  (California Constitution, article I section 13.) In <em>Lance W.</em>, the Supreme Court distinguished between the right protected by article I, section 13 and the associated exclusionary rule requiring suppression of evidence seized in violation of that right.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 886–887.) There, the Court explained, “the substantive scope of [article I, section 13] remains unaffected by Proposition 8” and “[w]hat would have been an unlawful search or seizure in this state before the passage of that initiative would be unlawful today.”  (<em>Id.</em> at p. 886.) However, the same could not be said of the exclusionary rule, which was “eliminate[d]” by Proposition 8.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 886.) <em>Lance W. </em>explained that because the exclusionary rule is simply a “<em>remedy</em> for violations of the search and seizure provision[],” Proposition 8 could eliminate the exclusionary remedy without affecting the “substantive scope” of article I, section 13.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 886–887.)</p>
<p>Similarly, the Court here reasoned that Proposition 8 could eliminate the exclusionary remedy of Section 632(d) without affecting the substantive scope of privacy of article I, section 1, or even more narrowly, the privacy of telephone conversations.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 886–887.) The Court noted that even after the passage of Proposition 8, secret recording of telephone conversations is still prohibited and is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment up to a year, or both.  Moreover, those injured by secret recordings may bring civil actions against the perpetrators to recover damages.  Thus, the Court determined that Proposition 8’s repeal of the Section 632(d)’s exclusionary remedy as it applied to criminal proceedings did not vanquish the right to private phone conversations itself; the right and the exclusionary remedy were not equivalent.</p>
<p>In sum, the Supreme Court found that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated Section 632(d) when Proposition 8 passed in 1982, and the Court’s first inquiry was resolved.  Because Section 28(f)(2) provides that exclusionary remedies may be created, or recreated, “by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature,” the Court reached its second inquiry:  whether the Legislature revived Section 632(d) by a two-thirds vote any time thereafter.</p>
<p><u>Did Subsequent Amendments of Section 632 Revive the Exclusionary Remedy?</u></p>
<p>The California Supreme Court noted that in 1985, 1990, 1992, and 1994, the Legislature—by at least a two-thirds vote of the membership of both the Assembly and Senate—amended one or more subdivisions of Section 632 and reenacted the section in its entirety.  However, the Court determined that each time, the exclusionary remedy of subdivision (d) of Section 632 was reenacted only as an incident to other provisions of Section 632 being amended.  The Court therefore found the exclusionary remedy was not revived by the section amendments.</p>
<p>The Court noted that Article IV, section 9 of the California Constitution requires an amended statute to be reenacted, but a reenacted statute may be amended in only some parts and not others.  Government Code section 9605 provides that “[i]f a section or part of a statute is amended, it is not to be considered as having been repealed and reenacted in the amended form.  The portions that are not altered are to be considered as having been the law from the time when those provisions were enacted.”  (Government Code section 9605(a).) The Court clarified that “[n]either article IV, section 9, nor Government Code section 9605, contemplates reenactment of the unchanged portions of an amended statute in the form of its original enactment if there have been intervening amendments of those portions.”  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 895, fn. 18.) Instead, “[t]he clear intent of [][S]ection 9605 is to codify the rule that the unchanged portions of the newly amended statute be ‘reenacted’ <em>as they existed immediately prior to the amendment</em>.”  (<em>Id.</em>, at p. 895, fn. 18, italics added.)</p>
<p>Thus, the Supreme Court determined that mere reenactment of Section 632 did not necessarily revive the exclusionary rule of Section 632(d).  To find that a subsequent amendment of Section 632 effected the revival of its exclusionary provision, the Court stated that there must be something in the “language, history, or context of the amendment[]” to support the conclusion that the Legislature intended such a result.  (<em>In re Christian S</em>. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771.) Absent evidence of such an intent, the Court continued, the reenactment of Section 632 simply reinstated the statute as it existed at the time of reenactment—i.e., the statute, as limited by the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision to include no exclusionary remedy.</p>
<p><strong><u>HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY</u></strong></p>
<p>Agencies should be cognizant of the fact that surreptitious recording of telephone conversations is still prohibited by Penal Code Section 632.  Those who violate Section 632 are subject to fines, imprisonment, or both.  Moreover, those injured by such recordings made in violation of Section 632 may bring a civil action to recover damages.  Recordings made in violation of Section 632, however, are, pursuant to the <em>Guzman</em> decision, admissible in criminal proceedings pursuant to Section 28(f)(2) of the California Constitution.</p>
<p>As always, if you wish to discuss this matter in greater detail, please feel free to contact James R. Touchstone at (714) 446–1400 or via email at <a href="mailto:jrt@jones-mayer.com">jrt@jones-mayer.com</a>.</p>
<p><em>Information on </em><a href="http://www.jones-mayer.com/"><em>www.jones-mayer.com</em></a><em> is for general use and is not legal advice.  The mailing of this Client Alert Memorandum is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client-relationship</em><em>.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> <em>People v. Guzman</em>, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 8937 (Dec. 5, 2019).</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Penal Code section 630 et seq.</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> See <em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 888, fn. 8: “Ballot summaries and arguments are accepted sources from which to ascertain the voters’ intent and understanding of initiative measures”.</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> The Court noted that the Legislative Analyst also advised the voters that Proposition 8 “could not affect <em>federal</em> restrictions on the use of evidence.” (Ballot Pamp., <em>supra</em>, at p. 32.), and the Court commented that federal law imposed no restriction on the admission of the recording in this case.</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr />
<h2><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: 24pt;">Exceptions:</span></h2>
<h2><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: 24pt;"><strong>allow anyone to recording any criminal </strong><b>civilians harming them </b></span></h2>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/the-truth-wins-finally-people-v-guzman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Truth Wins, Finally!</a></span></h3>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-supreme-court-concludes-over-secret-recording-not-barred/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California Supreme Court Concludes Over Secret Recording: Not Barred!</a></span></h3>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a class="row-title" style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/people-v-guzman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" aria-label="“People v. Guzman – Secret Recordings – Right To Truth Prop 1982” (Edit)">People v. Guzman – Secret Recordings – Right To Truth Prop 1982</a></span></h3>
<h3><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/right-to-truth-victims-bill-of-rights-prop-8-1982/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Right to Truth &#8211; Victims&#8217; Bill of Rights &#8211; Prop 8 1982</a></h3>
<h3><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART</a></h3>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em><strong>Page 2135 Calcrim  </strong>defines</em> <em>confidential communication as such:</em><br />
[A <em>confidential communication </em>does not include a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.]</p>
<table width="619">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="141">State</td>
<td width="118">Public places allowed</td>
<td width="118">Private places allowed</td>
<td width="118">Hidden cameras allowed</td>
<td width="124"><strong>Consent required</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Alabama</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Alabama</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>In private places</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>California*</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td><strong><em>No</em></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Delaware</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Florida</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Georgia<sup>†</sup></strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Hawaii</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Kansas</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Maine</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Michigan</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Minnesota</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>New Hampshire</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>South Dakota</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Tennessee</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Utah</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>People v. Guzman &#8211; Secret Recordings &#8211; Right To Truth Prop 1982</title>
		<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/people-v-guzman/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Truth News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2022 00:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[5th Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption Over the Years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self Help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court - SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CONVERSATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guzman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHONE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHONE CONVERSATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 1982]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RECORDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right To Truth Prop 1982]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SECRET RECORDING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=1752</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[People v. Guzman, 45 Cal.3d 915, 248 Cal. Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917 (Cal. 1988) People v. Guzman &#8211; Secret Recordings &#8211; Right To Truth Prop 1982 SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES SECRET RECORDING OF PHONE CONVERSATION NOT BARRED BY “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE” &#160; Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones &#38; Mayer In the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><strong><em> <i>People v. Guzman</i>, 45 Cal.3d 915, 248 Cal. Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917 (Cal. 1988)</em></strong></h1>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">People v. Guzman &#8211; Secret Recordings &#8211; Right To Truth Prop 1982</h2>
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES SECRET RECORDING OF PHONE CONVERSATION NOT BARRED BY “RIGHT TO TRUTH-IN-EVIDENCE”</em></strong></h3>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-12">
<p>Provided by CPOA Legal Counsel, James R. Touchstone, Jones &amp; Mayer</p>
<p>In the case of<a href="https://casetext.com/case/people-v-guzman-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> <em>People v. Guzman</em></a>,<a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> the Supreme Court of California found that a surreptitious recording was properly admitted into evidence in a defendant’s trial for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child.  The Court concluded that the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision in the state constitution enacted as a result of the passage of Proposition 8 abrogated a Penal Code provision prohibiting the admission of evidence obtained from recording a confidential communication.</p>
<p><strong><u>Background</u></strong></p>
<p>10-year-old E.F. confided to her adult neighbor Lorena that Lorena’s uncle, defendant Alejandro Guzman, had inappropriately touched E.F.  In a separate later incident, 12-year-old M.M. told her mother Esperanza that, during a sleepover with Guzman’s daughter, Guzman had touched her and made M.M. touch him.  M.M. also told Esperanza that Lorena, who was M.M.’s cousin, had warned M.M. about Guzman.  Esperanza spoke with Lorena by phone, but did not tell Lorena that the call was being recorded.</p>
<p>Esperanza did not inform law enforcement of the recording’s existence until the day jury selection in Guzman’s trial was to begin.  Upon learning of the recording, the prosecution informed the court that it intended to use the recording to cross-examine Lorena, who was expected to testify for the defense.  Defense counsel objected, arguing that the recording was categorically inadmissible under Penal Code Section 632(d), which prohibits the admission of “evidence obtained … in violation of this section … in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.”  The trial court determined instead that Section 632(d) had been repealed by the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision of the California Constitution, which was enacted as part of Proposition 8 in 1982.</p>
<p>A transcript of the recording was subsequently admitted into evidence.  The jury thus heard Lorena making various statements that were unfavorable to Guzman.  After hearing from the various witnesses, the jury convicted Guzman of two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child.</p>
<p>Guzman appealed, arguing that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting the recording because the admission “contravened the exclusionary rule stated in Penal Code Section 632, subdivision (d).”  The Court of Appeal rejected the argument, finding that within the criminal context, Section 632(d) had been rendered inoperative by Proposition 8.  The appellate court thus concluded the recording was properly admitted and affirmed Guzman’s convictions.  Guzman sought review of the decision by the California Supreme Court.</p>
<p><strong><u>Discussion</u></strong></p>
<p>The California Supreme Court granted review to determine the continued viability of Section 632(d) in light of the limits placed on the exclusion of evidence by the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence” provision of the Constitution.</p>
<p>The Court noted that the Legislature enacted Section 632 in 1967 as part of the Invasion of Privacy Act.<a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>  “The purpose of the act was to protect the right of privacy by, among other things,” “replacing prior laws that permitted the recording of telephone conversations with the consent of [only] one party to the conversation.”  (<em>Flanagan v. Flanagan</em> (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768–769.) Subdivision (d) of Section 632, the exclusionary remedy of the section, provides:  “Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.”  (Section 632(d).)</p>
<p>In 1982, the voters approved Proposition 8, thereby amending the state Constitution.  Proposition 8 contained a provision known as the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence,” now codified at article I, section 28(f)(2).  In relevant part, the provision states:  “Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding, including pretrial and post conviction motions and hearings, or in any trial or hearing of a juvenile for a criminal offense, whether heard in juvenile or adult court.  Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code Sections 352, 782 or 1103.”  (Cal Const., Art. I, section 28(f)(2) (hereafter, “Section 28(f)(2)”).)</p>
<p>The Court explained that it would pursue two separate inquiries to determine whether the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated the exclusionary remedy of Section 632(d) as that remedy applies to criminal proceedings.  First, the Court considered whether the constitutional provision repealed Section 632(d) at the moment of its passage in 1982.  If so, the second inquiry would examine whether the Legislature revived Section 632(d) by a two-thirds vote any time thereafter, thus restoring the section’s prohibition against admission of secret recordings.</p>
<p><u>Did the Exclusionary Remedy of Section 632(d) Survive the Passage of the Truth-in-evidence Provision in 1982?</u></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The Court reminded that the “the express, unambiguous language of [S]ection 28[(f)(2)]” (<em>In re Lance W</em>. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 886) states that “[e]xcept as provided … , relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding.”  (Section 28(f)(2).)  The Court determined that “[t]his clearly stated command has only one apparent meaning”—to prohibit the exclusion of evidence at criminal proceedings except on those grounds expressly contemplated by the constitutional provision.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 886.)  Section 632(d), the Court found, was not exempt from the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision because Section 632(d) did not fit within any of those grounds:  Section 632(d) was neither an “existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay,” nor “Evidence Code Sections 352, 782 or 1103.” (Section 28(f)(2).)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">From the express language of Section 28(f)(2), the Court determined that to the extent that Section 632(d) demanded the suppression of relevant evidence at criminal proceedings, it was superseded when the voters approved the <em><strong>constitutional amendment in 1982.</strong></em>  (See <em>People v. Wheeler</em> (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 291 [“[S]ection 28[(f)(2)] supersedes all California restrictions on the admission of relevant evidence except those preserved or permitted by the express words of [S]ection 28[(f)(2)] itself”].)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Moreover, the history of the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision supported the Court’s view of the finding that Section 632(d) was abrogated by the Section 28(f)(2).  The Court noted that the ballot materials<a style="color: #000000;" href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> related to Proposition 8 included this statement from the Legislative Analyst:  “Under current law, certain evidence is not permitted to be presented in a criminal trial or hearing.  For example, evidence obtained through unlawful eavesdropping or wiretapping, or through unlawful searches of persons or property, cannot be used in court.  This measure generally would allow most relevant evidence to be presented in criminal cases, subject to such exceptions as the Legislature may in the future enact by a two-thirds vote.” <a style="color: #000000;" href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>  (Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 8, 1982) analysis of Prop. 8 by Legis. Analyst, p. 32.)  The Court explained that because the ballot material specifically singled out “evidence obtained through unlawful eavesdropping,” which was then “not permitted to be presented in a criminal trial or hearing,” and told voters that Proposition 8 would change the law so as to “allow most relevant evidence to be presented in criminal cases,” the natural inference was that Proposition 8 would permit “evidence obtained through unlawful eavesdropping” to be admitted in criminal cases.  “In essence,” the Supreme Court explained, “voters were informed that Proposition 8 would abrogate [S]ection 632(d)—and they approved.”</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The Court thus concluded that the clear language and history of the constitutional amendment meant that the passage of the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision in 1982 repealed Section 632(d) to the extent the section applied to criminal proceedings.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The Court rejected Guzman’s various arguments contrary to the Court’s conclusion.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In analyzing a constitutionally protected right and an associated exclusionary rule requiring suppression in violation of the right, the Court pointed to concordant reasoning in <em>Lance W.  </em> The Court observed that Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution protects the people’s right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches.”  (California Constitution, article I section 13.) In <em>Lance W.</em>, the Supreme Court distinguished between the right protected by article I, section 13 and the associated exclusionary rule requiring suppression of evidence seized in violation of that right.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 886–887.) There, the Court explained, “the substantive scope of [article I, section 13] remains unaffected by Proposition 8” and “[w]hat would have been an unlawful search or seizure in this state before the passage of that initiative would be unlawful today.”  (<em>Id.</em> at p. 886.) However, the same could not be said of the exclusionary rule, which was “eliminate[d]” by Proposition 8.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 886.) <em>Lance W. </em>explained that because the exclusionary rule is simply a “<em>remedy</em> for violations of the search and seizure provision[],” Proposition 8 could eliminate the exclusionary remedy without affecting the “substantive scope” of article I, section 13.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 886–887.)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Similarly, the Court here reasoned that Proposition 8 could eliminate the exclusionary remedy of Section 632(d) without affecting the substantive scope of privacy of article I, section 1, or even more narrowly, the privacy of telephone conversations.  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 886–887.) The Court noted that even after the passage of Proposition 8, secret recording of telephone conversations is still prohibited and is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment up to a year, or both.  Moreover, those injured by secret recordings may bring civil actions against the perpetrators to recover damages.  Thus, the Court determined that Proposition 8’s repeal of the Section 632(d)’s exclusionary remedy as it applied to criminal proceedings did not vanquish the right to private phone conversations itself; the right and the exclusionary remedy were not equivalent.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In sum, the Supreme Court found that the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision abrogated Section 632(d) when Proposition 8 passed in 1982, and the Court’s first inquiry was resolved.  Because Section 28(f)(2) provides that exclusionary remedies may be created, or recreated, “by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature,” the Court reached its second inquiry:  whether the Legislature revived Section 632(d) by a two-thirds vote any time thereafter.</span></p>
<p><u>Did Subsequent Amendments of Section 632 Revive the Exclusionary Remedy?</u></p>
<p>The California Supreme Court noted that in 1985, 1990, 1992, and 1994, the Legislature—by at least a two-thirds vote of the membership of both the Assembly and Senate—amended one or more subdivisions of Section 632 and reenacted the section in its entirety.  However, the Court determined that each time, the exclusionary remedy of subdivision (d) of Section 632 was reenacted only as an incident to other provisions of Section 632 being amended.  The Court therefore found the exclusionary remedy was not revived by the section amendments.</p>
<p>The Court noted that Article IV, section 9 of the California Constitution requires an amended statute to be reenacted, but a reenacted statute may be amended in only some parts and not others.  Government Code section 9605 provides that “[i]f a section or part of a statute is amended, it is not to be considered as having been repealed and reenacted in the amended form.  The portions that are not altered are to be considered as having been the law from the time when those provisions were enacted.”  (Government Code section 9605(a).) The Court clarified that “[n]either article IV, section 9, nor Government Code section 9605, contemplates reenactment of the unchanged portions of an amended statute in the form of its original enactment if there have been intervening amendments of those portions.”  (<em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 895, fn. 18.) Instead, “[t]he clear intent of [][S]ection 9605 is to codify the rule that the unchanged portions of the newly amended statute be ‘reenacted’ <em>as they existed immediately prior to the amendment</em>.”  (<em>Id.</em>, at p. 895, fn. 18, italics added.)</p>
<p>Thus, the Supreme Court determined that mere reenactment of Section 632 did not necessarily revive the exclusionary rule of Section 632(d).  To find that a subsequent amendment of Section 632 effected the revival of its exclusionary provision, the Court stated that there must be something in the “language, history, or context of the amendment[]” to support the conclusion that the Legislature intended such a result.  (<em>In re Christian S</em>. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771.) Absent evidence of such an intent, the Court continued, the reenactment of Section 632 simply reinstated the statute as it existed at the time of reenactment—i.e., the statute, as limited by the Right to Truth-in-Evidence provision to include no exclusionary remedy.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> <em>People v. Guzman</em>, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 8937 (Dec. 5, 2019).</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Penal Code section 630 et seq.</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> See <em>Lance W., supra</em>, 37 Cal.3d at p. 888, fn. 8: “Ballot summaries and arguments are accepted sources from which to ascertain the voters’ intent and understanding of initiative measures”.</p>
<p><a href="https://cpoa.org/california-supreme-court-concludes-that-a-secret-recording-of-a-phone-conversation-was-not-barred-by-a-privacy-provision-because-that-provision-had-been-repealed-by-the-right-to-truth-in-evid/#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> The Court noted that the Legislative Analyst also advised the voters that Proposition 8 “could not affect <em>federal</em> restrictions on the use of evidence.” (Ballot Pamp., <em>supra</em>, at p. 32.), and the Court commented that federal law imposed no restriction on the admission of the recording in this case.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Case Law Cited here:  <em><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong><a style="color: #ff0000;" href="https://casetext.com/case/people-v-guzman-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://casetext.com/case/people-v-guzman-2</a></strong></span></em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>and California Amen 1. to our state constitution made legit prop 8 in 1982 right to truth can be found <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=2232&amp;preview=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr />
<h2><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: 24pt;">Exceptions:</span></h2>
<h2><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: 24pt;"><strong>allow anyone to recording any criminal </strong><b>civilians harming them </b></span></h2>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/the-truth-wins-finally-people-v-guzman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Truth Wins, Finally!</a></span></h3>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-supreme-court-concludes-over-secret-recording-not-barred/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California Supreme Court Concludes Over Secret Recording: Not Barred!</a></span></h3>
<h3><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a class="row-title" style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/people-v-guzman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" aria-label="“People v. Guzman – Secret Recordings – Right To Truth Prop 1982” (Edit)">People v. Guzman – Secret Recordings – Right To Truth Prop 1982</a></span></h3>
<h3><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/right-to-truth-victims-bill-of-rights-prop-8-1982/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Right to Truth &#8211; Victims&#8217; Bill of Rights &#8211; Prop 8 1982</a></h3>
<h3><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART</a></h3>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em><strong>Page 2135 Calcrim  </strong>defines</em> <em>confidential communication as such:</em><br />
[A <em>confidential communication </em>does not include a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.]</p>
<table width="619">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="141">State</td>
<td width="118">Public places allowed</td>
<td width="118">Private places allowed</td>
<td width="118">Hidden cameras allowed</td>
<td width="124"><strong>Consent required</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Alabama</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong> </strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Alabama</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>In private places</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>California*</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td><strong><em>No</em></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Delaware</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Florida</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Georgia<sup>†</sup></strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Hawaii</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Kansas</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Maine</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Michigan</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Minnesota</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>New Hampshire</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>South Dakota</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Tennessee</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Utah</strong></td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>With consent</td>
<td>Yes</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div></div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
