Last week, I urged everybody to join me in a call to #BanTheADL. The response has been greater than I expected, to put it mildly. Everybody–and I do mean everybody–shared the hashtag.

The timing of this was not incidental. Days prior, Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL announced a productive conversation with new X/Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino. After a somewhat hit-and-miss start to Elon’s reign censorship-wise, it appeared things were going back in the direction the ADL desired. X users were exasperated. Many big accounts began to post information exposing the nefarious workings of the ADL which caught Musk’s attention, including their defence of Julius Malema’s singing of the “Kill the Boer” anthem in South Africa.

I am firmly of the belief that most social media users want a free speech environment, as evidenced by Musk’s own poll on a total amnesty of banned accounts winning a popular vote. The problem is that a multitude of civil rights groups and other NGO’s exist to drive a censorship agenda. There has never appeared to be a clear way to fight back against this.

Mark Zuckerberg tried to retain some principles on free speech, until an ADL led boycott in the summer of 2020 took 8% off Facebook’s stock price and forced him to give in to Jonathan Greenblatt’s demands. Donald Trump could have passed legislation to protect against deplatforming from the modern public square, but by the end of his presidency the ADL successfully petitioned to have Trump banned from all major social media platforms with its participation in another boycott.

And then they came for Twitter. As soon as Elon Musk announced his purchase of the platform, the ADL announced another advertiser boycott in November 2022 as part of their “Stop Hate for Profit” coalition of civil rights groups, due to their concern over the apparent imminent threat to Jews created by Elon promising to “free the bird.”

One fascinating discovery to come out of the past week is Elon’s revelation that this boycott cost Twitter 60% of its advertiser revenue. With Twitter’s business model there isn’t really a way to achieve profitability with a loss that severe, and with Greenblatt again in talks with X management about cleaning up the platform of “hate”, it appeared Elon had finally caved to Greenblatt’s threats. That was, until, the enormous outpouring of anger at the ADL and its agenda, generating over 250 thousand tweets in 4 days under the #BanTheADL tag.

The case was rather simple, the ADL used its official Twitter account to promote a boycott against the company, threatening its financial viability. This was not a free speech issue, but a simple breach of Terms of Service, and it was about time the main culprits of censorship got a taste of their own medicine. As #BanTheADL grew though, it became a more general expression of people’s outrage at the organisation and what it had done to the internet, as well as its sordid history.

Predictably, when the ADL finally released a statement, they blamed white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and trolls, apparently including early adopters like Indian Bronson, Dinesh D’Souza and Jewish activist Laura Loomer. Greenblatt would have you believe that this outpouring of outrage at the Anti-Defamation League is an outburst of antisemitism, the world’s first digital pogrom. Of course, everything is an outburst of antisemitism when you’re Jonathan Greenblatt.

But #BanTheADL isn’t really about “the Jews.” It’s about who’s allowed to participate in the public square of modern political discussion and debate. Set aside its dark origins, the debate over whether it actually speaks for the Jewish people, its track record of confirmed defamation, and even its track record of fabricating “hate” when it can’t find enough to frame.

The ADL's modus operandi explained in under two minutes.

Watch, like, and share this.#BanTheADL pic.twitter.com/NYQoXql4Cv

— Lucas Gage (@Lucas_Gage_) September 3, 2023

Social media companies are, for better or worse, the new public square where elections, policies, and popular movements sink or swim. Even if you grant that Trump’s election wasn’t directly rigged, there’s no argument that the ADL leveraged its chokehold on advertising dollars to keep conservative influencers throttled by algorithms, shadow banned, and very often deplatformed. Given how close the presidential election was and how severe the censorship had become, it’s clear to me that the ADL’s illegal interference decided America’s 2020 general election and severely tilted the 2022 mid-term election.

Even a little bit of censorship goes a long way, as the deplatforming of one voice has a “pour encourager les autres” muffling effect on the rest of the voices. The conservative influencers who weren’t outright deplatformed had to resort to carefully crafting each post to be less conservative for fear of the ADL.

Elon’s purchase of Twitter, which he promptly rebranded as X with ambitions to a more general platform and protocol for free speech, was alarming for the ADL. It was so alarming, in fact, that the ADL didn’t even wait for him to take control of the company before instigating a crippling advertiser boycott to bankrupt the business.

This was inevitable

As much as I would like to take credit for the #BanTheADL campaign, this showdown was inevitable. Elon Musk’s plan is to deliver a free and fair platform for not only political speech but entertainment, culture, and groupware-style communication and planning. His vision is fundamentally incompatible with ADL’s mission to define, direct, and dictate the nature, tone, and boundaries of the political conversation in a specific direction.

But don’t take my word for it. Borat explains why the unelected and unaccountable ADL should dictate who’s allowed to speak rather than the owners of the corporations. Sacha Baron Cohen made his fame and fortune by peddling hateful and vulgar stereotypes of impoverished ethnic groups, implying that they’re illiterate, incestuous, and sex-crazed rubes. But he would like you to know that his ethnic group will not tolerate equal treatment.

X Safety introduced 'Freedom of Speech, Not Reach' this comes straight from the ADL. Here's Sacha Baron Cohen 4 years ago at the ADL's 'Never Is Now' event.

Censorship is about "protecting democracy"#BanTheADL pic.twitter.com/CAH23j8Cjr

— No Chance (@MrNChance) September 5, 2023

When Sacha Baron Cohen launched his scathing attack on silicon valley at an ADL conference in 2019, he was actually going after Facebook primarily, which the ADL still routinely attacks for not meeting its impossible standards for controlling public discourse. It’s not that long ago that Greenblatt himself claimed to be a near free speech absolutist as it concerned social media, insisting his only concern as head of the ADL was direct threats of violence. Looking back at that interview now, it’s hard to believe how taken for granted free speech on the internet was until at recently as 2016, and how much organisations like the ADL have normalised the idea of deplatforming anyone they find problematic.

Wow! As recently as 2016 Jonathan Greenblatt sounded like @elonmusk on free speech.

He claimed his only concern was violent threats, but as soon as the ADL got an in to the big tech companies they disregarded free speech and began pushing the most extreme censorship.#BanTheADL pic.twitter.com/Eyb2sVutmi

— Keith Woods (@KeithWoodsYT) September 4, 2023

Predictably, the ADL is now defaming me as (you guessed it) a “raging antisemite”. They dredged up an ancient tweet where I joked that Ben Shapiro had made me a “raging antisemite” to mock liberal claims that Ben (an Orthodox Jew) is promoting fascism. The joke was obvious in context, but the ADL isn’t big on either jokes or context.

Now, Jonathan Greenblatt’s hitting the media circuit to insist that Elon’s resistance to the ADL’s hostile takeover through tortious interference with its advertising budget is fueled by antisemitism. This would be comical if the ADL wasn’t well-funded and well-connected enough to suck all of the comedy out of the room (and deplatform your favourite comedians).

Greenblatt began to sound like his old self on his damage control tour, insisting the ADL is not an enemy of free speech, and his only job as its leader of a “small non-profit” is to protect Jews from violence. Unfortunately, none of the interviewers asked him what promoting LGBT to children has to do with protecting Jews, or how his demand that President Trump’s social media bans be permanent is not in conflict with his apparent love of free speech and opposition to cancel culture.

It was demonstrated what a liability Greenblatt’s arrogance has become when he accused his Jewish interviewer of antisemitism for merely asking if the ADL had solicited donations from Twitter (something Musk later confirmed they had).

Because the answer is “Yes!” regarding seeking donations, hence JG’s refusal to answer the question.

JG instead went on the attack, implying that Sorkin, despite being Jewish, is somehow an anti-Semite just for asking a basic conflict-of-interest question!