Not Today, Devil

by Phil Johnson

any readers will remember a blogpost I wrote in August of 2011 analyzing Mark Driscoll's claim that he had a bizarre spiritual gift: an uncanny psychic ability enabling him to function as a kind of supernatural peeping Tom. He claimed to be able to watch vivid, full-color replays of his counselees' sexual sins on some sort of cosmic big screen. It was a tasteless claim—

No, it was worse. It was a rank blasphemy to claim such a freakishly prurient peculiarity had been given to him by the Holy Spirit.

A few weeks ago he filed a copyright claim to have YouTube remove that video. It was an ironic stance for him to take, given his own reputation as an unbridled plagiarist.

Anyway, I never received any notice of the takedown, and since I rarely look at my own YouTube channel, I didn't notice until YouTube's referees had already judged Driscoll's claim as legitimate. I nevertheless wrote three appeals pointing out that my use of the video clearly falls well within the 1976 Copyright Law's definition of "Fair Use," because I posted it in order to make critical commentary for a purpose that was both newsworthy and (in the proper sense) educational.

YouTube's judges held their ground, however—apparently because my actual criticisms of Driscoll's remarks were posted in the accompanying blogpost, and not in the video itself.

So I have corrected that problem by incorporating the gist of my critical remarks into the video and reposting it, together with a quotation from the relevant legal statute demonstrating why the Fair Use doctrine protects my posting of these excerpts.

If you'd like to see the revised video (unaltered except for the addition of my commentary), you can observe it where it is now imbedded in that 2011 blogpost, or at my Youtube channel. I won't imbed it here, because frankly it gives me nausea every time I see it. But I wanted to keep the matter well documented, because I hear that Driscoll has gained a sizeable new following of naive young people, and frankly, I think he is more dangerous and more unorthodox than he was at the peak of his original popularity.

 

---

Current Status

Still no response from Twitter:

19 December update: People keep writing to tell me they don't think I'm banned from Twitter because if they go to my Twitter account, they can see my Tweets. Here's the deal: Anyone with Twitter access can see my old Tweets, up to the day I was banned (October 14, 2022). But I can't sign on, post, or read any Tweets using my own account. They are holding me hostage, insistent that I must first confess that I committed a crime of "hate speech." What did I say? Well, I linked to a news story about a drag-queen crossing guard hired to work at a public elementary school. Then on that same day I linked to a TikTok video posted by an elementary-school teacher who insists it ought to be a very high priority for all public schools to indoctrinate kindergartners to embrace and celebrate gender fluidity, regardless of their parents' opinions. And then I said this is tantamount to government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded grooming. Twitter demands that I delete the offending Tweet[s], and they say I can have my account back whenever I do that. However, they also add: "By clicking delete you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter [hate speech] rules." I refuse to kowtow to such a worldview. Hence it seems I'm off Twitter permanently or until they acknowledge my right to have moral convictions that are shaped by Scripture rather than the opinions of humanistic elitists. It's not an insignificant fine point, in my judgment.

5 December update: Last week's promised "general amnesty" didn't materialize. Also, Twitter support has not replied to any of my queries. Apparently the old policy is still in place—namely if you want to be reinstated, you must plead guilty to the charge of "hate speech."

Twitter's staff are just as unresponsive as ever to emails and other queries from people they have arbitrarily banned.

Elon Musk needs to assign a cohort of capable employees to answering people's appeals, or (better yet) go ahead and implement the general amnesty he promised.

---

About my Twitter "Hiatus"

by Phil Johnson

witter banned me a month ago today because I said that local school boards' efforts to normalize sexual perversion in the minds of elementary school children is taxpayer-funded, state-driven grooming.

Twitter says I can have my account back if I will delete the Tweet that offended their censors' notion of civil propriety. For the record, I would be happy to do that. I have even written them and offered to to that.

However—

They also expressly stated that by deleting the Tweet I would be formally admitting I broke Twitter's rules against "hate speech," and that is something I cannot conscientiously do.

This is a classic example of how social media moguls are attempting to overrule and reshape the consciences of their users. My Tweet was not an expression of "hate" aimed at anyone—not even the drag-queen crossing guard into whose custody kindergartners have been placed (contrary to many parents' wishes)—not even the teacher who boasted on Instagram how she was inculcating LGBTQRSTU ideology into the minds of her elementary students while keeping her moral agenda secret from parents. My Tweet (like this blog entry) was a simple statement of my own moral convictions, without malice or ill-will.

Several have urged me to go ahead and delete the offending Tweet rather than be silenced. I will be happy to do that if Twitter will state in writing that they understand my compliance with their wishes is not a guilty plea.

I'm not asking for anyone to start a campaign about this. I'm simply explaining (for the sake of many who keep asking) why I'm off Twitter and why I haven't done what Twitter is asking me to in order to get my account restored.

---