UPDATE: Chris Loesch is back on Twitter — again. Check the bottom of the post for the original reply to Daniel Barber.
ORIGINAL POST: Last night, the Twitter-verse erupted over Twitter’s suspension of the account of conservative commentator Dana Loesch’s husband, Chris Loesch. Now conservatives are targeting their culprits: “progressives” or “liberals” that reported his account. And they’re even throwing out charges of Internet censorship by these groups.
Loesch took to the conservative website Breitbart.com, where she is the editor in chief of Big Journalism, to explain what happened. Things started, apparently, with this vile tweet aimed at Dana Loesch:
[credit provider=”Twitter/Screenshot” url=”https://twitter.com/#!/DBarberHotnuke/status/196745931079680001″]
Loesch writes that her husband got involved in defending her. She posted a screenshot of the message they received from the Twitter staff, which details that the account was suspended for sending “multiple unsolicited mentions” to other users through the @ reply feature.
“I can only assume that either someone suspended it, or (and more likely) progressives targeted Chris’s account, reported him, and got him suspended,” Loesch wrote.
This sparked all-out Twitter rebellion. Here’s an example:
It worked — momentarily. Chris Loesch came back on Twitter just more than an hour after Dana Loesch’s original tweet that sparked the outrage, she wrote on Breitbart.com.
Then she wrote an update at 11:23 p.m. — this time when “The Clippers” were trending on Twitter instead of “The Grizzlies” — and announced that her husband had been suspended again.
She wrote: “Talking with Twitter, waiting for engineers to respond. Appears to be orchestrated abuse of spam/block by progressives.”
So the questions that remain: First, why? Why report Chris Loesch for spam and not the more prominent Dana Loesch? Why has this not happened to other more prominent, highly partisan voters on Twitter? One theory, as advanced by conservative Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy site, asserts that Chris Loesch was targeted because he had fewer followers.
That doesn’t explain, however, why the Kill Zimmerman account, which stayed active for more than a week, was not shut down — unless it wasn’t reported for spam, which is doubtful. Or why the account that tweeted the original vile attack on Dana Loesch, which has 274 followers, hasn’t been taken down yet.
We’ve put in a request for comment from Twitter, but don’t hold your breath.
Either way, Twitter has an issue on its hands. On its surface, the disparity — in the apparent censorship of one side — is troubling, especially when you consider that the person who tweeted the original attack on Dana Loesch is still up and tweeting really baseless, awful attacks (just look at his timeline).
UPDATE: Here’s Chris Loesch’s original reply to Daniel Barber:
Now check out: The Obama Campaign Now Has The Same Slogan As MSNBC >>