Twitter deviates from its own policy by allowing death wishes for Rush Limbaugh

I’m sure someone will come up with excuses for this Twitter behavior.

Twitter deviates from its own policy by allowing death wishes for Rush Limbaugh

The social media platform forbids ‘wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people,’ yet it bans accounts questioning gender ideology.

Fri Feb 7, 2020 - 12:19 pm EST

February 7, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As left-wing voices continue to wish death and suffering upon conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh after the announcement of his lung cancer diagnosis, Twitter’s tolerance for such comments stands in stark contrast to the company’s zero-tolerance policy on “misgendering.”

“Twitter is showing extreme bias in permitting tweets rejoicing at the severe cancer diagnosis of Rush Limbaugh yet blocking our account based on a tweet identifying a person by his biological sex rather than his preferred self representation,” LifeSiteNews co-founder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen said.

The veteran talk radio host shocked the conservative world Monday by announcing that he has been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. . . .

. . . All these tweets and more remain live as of February 6, despite the fact that Twitter’s own rules forbid “wishing, hoping or calling for serious harm on a person or group of people,” with “Hoping that someone dies as a result of a serious disease, e.g., ‘I hope you get cancer and die,’” as one of its own examples of “hateful conduct.” While most of its Hateful Conduct Policy is framed in terms of racial, sexual, or religious discrimination, they also state that “individuals do not need to be a member of a specific protected category for us to take action.”

By contrast, Twitter has censored numerous accounts for respectfully disputing left-wing orthodoxy. Last December, Twitter locked LifeSiteNews’ account for tweeting a link to the story, “Trans activist Jonathan ‘Jessica’ Yaniv ‘shocked … confused’ gynecologist won’t see him Twitter called it a “violation” of its rules but didn’t specify which one. LifeSite appealed the decision, but its main Twitter account remains locked to this day.

The Yaniv incident was just one of many examples of Twitter cracking down on conservative and pro-family voices on the grounds that referring to someone by his actual sex rather than his “gender identity” is automatically “hateful” and therefore forbidden.

Twitter has a long record of bans and suspensions affecting non-violent, non-hateful, non-obscene tweets from right-of-center perspectives, while Twitter insiders have admitted to intentionally targeting conservative . . .

Of course they do.


Can’t say that I’m surprised. They routinely deny their platform if you critique leftist views, but if you celebrate or threaten the death of someone who disagrees with them, nothing is done.


To wish and hope for someone’s pain and suffering from cancer, or any other illness or injury, is pretty sick, hateful, and sinful. Twitter is apparently using a double standard by its targeting conservatives and exonerating liberals and leftists. It’s of course not fair, morally right, or the proper thing to do in a free society.


Has any one tried reporting the Tweets? Last year Twitter stated that 38% of tweets they found abusive were from their own means of detection. They still rely on users reporting abuse.


The president calls citizens and public servants," HUMAN SCUM."
I guess the difference is the fact they didn’t have cancer.

Twitter applies a different set of rules to world leaders. Looking at how Twitter responds to a head of state isn’t indicative of how they may respond to everyone else.

I’m sure there are many criticisms that can be made for it. But while such a policy is in place looking at responses to world leaders isn’t a good comparison.

Right now there are some tweets that may violate policy. Before being confidante that Twitter is fine leaving the tweets there I think it is necessary to know that Twitter is aware that they exists and possibly violate a policy.

1 Like

I’ve tried this quite a bit, and nothing has ever been done

I think what Twitter intended was to forbid anything that might encourage anyone to take harmful action against another. “Serious harm” is then “intentional harm”. Although it is a despicable thing to do, wishing that someone with cancer would die from it is not encouraging intentional harm. Twitter would likely have reacted quite differently if someone had written “I hope Rush gets shot”. That is encouraging intentional harm, and that would have been banned immediately. And who knows? Perhaps these recent “I hope he dies of cancer” tweets will also get banned. But I can see how Twitter might defend leaving them up in the name of free speech, which is often offensive.


They should monitor policy.
But in truth, Trump’s tweet has a national effect. These others dont

So people writing death wishes for Rush Limbaugh is Trump’s fault?

My coffee wasn’t quite right this morning, can you make that Trump’s fault too?


It’s not a partisan argument as far as I’m concerned. I’m neither Democrat nor Republican. I abjure both parties. But this is typical left wing filth.


Where is your empathy and love towards Rush, Maximus? Are you saying he is unworthy of love, too?

So far the only person you seem to think are worthy of love and forgiveness is Nancy. I guess Bernie, too. Weird how only democrats are worthy of your love and forgiveness, and the rest can receive death messages for all you care.

And all this time I thought you were merciful from your posts.

On a side note, why did you bring up Trump again? Nothing in the OP has to do with him, it’s about Rush and Twitter.


Ok, but how does this excuse your lack of empathy, mercy, and compassion for Rush?

Also, I seem to remember you quoting Jesus about forgiving your enemies, yet it seems to me you haven’t forgiven Trump. I wish I would see you bless him more than bash him, but I guess that since you are sinless and all, you sure can cast that stone. :slight_smile:


I occasionally report tweets. Sometimes I see a response. Sometimes I don’t. Unfortunately while there is a lot of speech that is ugly it doesn’t necessarily violate policy.

There are some other complicated issued behind moderation though. I recently finished the book “Behind the Screen” by Sarah T. Roberts. While the focus of her book was the lives of content moderators (some of them end up with P.T.S.D. and other psychological issues from the work) she does discuss some of the other issues with making a content decision and the difficulties intrinsic to it.

Twitter is a cesspool.

1 Like

It was a criticism of Twitter and their policy.
I do not condone those tweets at all and would never tweet something like that. Being Rush would not make a difference.
I can criticize the president for giving Rush that medal in the middle of an already decisive SOTU. RUSH is as responsible for the decisive politics in America as any human that has lived.
I think he damaged the nation. That is not a ground for the Medal of Freedom. Sick or not.

Interesting then that Trump chooses to spend so much time there. I guess he is comfortable there


Like a pig in the mud.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit