Why the Devin Nunes Controversy Matters
This week, Republican Representative Devin Nunes filed a defamation lawsuit against Twitter and two Twitter accounts called—and I kid you not—Devin Nunes’ Mom (@DevinNunesMom) and Devin Nunes’ Cow (@Devincow). As basis for the lawsuit, he claims that the accounts have “attacked and defamed him,” and Twitter is responsible for managing such clearly dangerous and hateful accounts.
Nunes says that the accounts called him things like “treasonous cowpoke” and tweeted comments like “@DevinNunes your district is looking for you? Are you trying to obstruct a federal investigation again? You come home right this instant or no more Minecraft!” This is obviously satirical. SNL does this on live TV, and the actors get paid for it.
However, Nunes’ response is troubling not only due to the fact that he is calling for Twitter to hold the accounts accountable, but also that he is calling on the government to force Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, to release the names of the people who run those accounts so Nunes can further punish them, despite their rhetoric being protected under the First Amendment. These clear signs of disregard for the Constitution are problematic. Many news outlets have already touched on them, saying that the case is not likely to get far in the courts.
Fox News reported that Nunes’ legal team filed a complaint stating that “a presence on Twitter is essential for an individual to run for office or engage in any level of political organizing in modern America.” Nunes has a point when he says this, because Twitter—and all social media, really—gives you a way to speak directly to your constituents, and to the people who might be voting for you. Although Trump usually uses Twitter to speak to his followers about events that he deems unfair to his image, he has also used Twitter as a platform to speak to ordinary people since the early days of his candidacy. Due to media platforms like Twitter and Instagram, candidates can reach a very broad audience, and it’s much easier to read what they post on social media than to buy tickets to and attend one of the candidate’s speeches.
The problem with this simpler speechmaking, however, comes when people like Trump use that platform to enhance a message of hate. Trump has repeatedly attacked people who insult him, most recently Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway III, who tweeted that Trump’s mental state was worsening. (Trump tweeted that Mr. Conway was a “husband from hell” in response.) If Trump was a private citizen, this would be slightly disconcerting. But he's the president of the US, and to be reckless like Trump while holding that station has far-reaching consequences.
The president is someone who is looked up to as a leader. Thus, when he attacks someone for slandering him, others believe that those actions are acceptable. It sets a dangerous precedent. In addition, Trump’s blatant disregard for the First Amendment (we need look no further than the staple of his vocabulary: “fake news”) perpetuates the idea that if someone is attacking you by saying mean things about you, you have the right to silence them, regardless of what the Constitution says. As a result, he is inadvertently responsible for Nunes’ lawsuit. Trump’s actions allow others to follow in his path. It’s extremely ironic, too, because Nunes is suing Twitter as a result of Trump’s always-fire-back personality.
It’s during times like this that the American people should understand, that although Trump’s actions can be funny, or honestly quite bizarre, they also have dangerous consequences.