This is why Twitter suspended several journalists yesterday.

7 min readDec 17, 2022


You may have seen headlines such as Twitter condemned by UN and EU over reporters’ ban or Twitter suspends journalists who have been covering Elon Musk and the company.

The headlines say it all: Elon Musk is banning journalists on Twitter for doing their jobs.

However, this is not the case. For you to be fully informed, we need to go back to the beginning.

The beginning…

It all started when Jack Sweeney began publishing the exact location of Elon Musk’s private jet. Sweeney does this for several CEOs and politicians. However, he wanted Elon to pay him money to stop publishing his personal information. In most cases, this would be, I would imagine, extortion. However, I’m no legal expert.

There’s some debate as to whether or not this is public information that the FAA allows anyone with the skills to access. However, Elon Musk has said several times that he has made this information private.

Sweeney claimed that the information can be changed monthly but that it was easy to identify it and that he was “confident I can write the software to identify it actually.”

As Tim Pool explained, Sweeny used public information to find Elon’s PIA, which is private, and then post it.

What led to the journalists being suspended on Twitter.

On December 14, Elon Musk tweeted that any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended since it is a physical safety violation.

“This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info.” And then the news of Sweeny’s account tracking Elon’s private plane was suspended. Immediately, the mainstream media hailed Sweeney as a victim.

However, what was overlooked and vastly. underreported was something that would strike any good parent’s heart with terror.

A car carrying his toddler son, Lil X, in LA was followed by a stalker who thought it was Elon Musk. The stalker blocked the car from moving and climbed on the hood.

Elon Musk said that legal action “is being taken against Sweeny & organizations who supported harm to my family.”

Elon Musk then tweeted a video of the assailant, who actually got away. Immediately, journalists and critics began accusing him of violating his own policy — never mind that his child was just attacked by someone who gained access to his real-time location.

So, why suspend journalists for reporting on this?

Well…. he didn’t. The claims that Elon Musk is banning journalists who write about him are simply false. If this were true, Elon would ban me from Twitter.

Twitter suspended accounts — not just journalists —but accounts that were posting direct links to Sweeney’s website that provided real-time locations of Elon Musk’s private plane.

And he warned everyone that accounts posting links to his real-time location would be suspended for seven days. There is no Twitter ban on journalists.

Those journalists were suspended because they posted his exact real-time location. Elon Musk said, “basically assassination coordinates, in (obvious) direct violation of Twitter terms of service. For the record, doxxing was always a violation of Twitter’s terms of service even before Elon bought the platform.”

However, many journalists either downplayed the attack on his child and risk to his personal safety or completely ignored it to push a false narrative.

Even Bari Weiss, who was one of the journalists invited to help expose the Twitter files, pushed a false narrative.

And in The Free Press’ most recent article (written by another journalist), Elon Musk was painted as a villain for the suspension of those journalists and Sweeney.

However, there was no mention of the attack on his son.

The article claimed that Elon Musk was “being driven by some of the same whims” that Twitter’s previous leadership had, except “just with new targets.”

Elon Musk asked Bari:

“What should the consequence of doxxing someone’s real-time exact location be? Assume your child is at that location, as mine was.”

He followed the question up with:

“Bari, this is a real question, not rhetorical. What is your opinion?”

When she didn’t respond, Elon Musk added:

“Rather than rigorously pursuing truth, you are virtue-signaling to show that you are “good” in the eyes of media elite to keep one foot in both worlds.”

This is what these journalists do. They push narratives. They cherry-pick. Then they play the victim. I’ve seen it so many times on Twitter.


Weiss responded to Elon’s questions just after this article was published, and for fairness and accuracy, I am including her comments:

“If someone messed with my baby or my family, I’m sure I’d change the rules and ban the jet account, too. But last month, you said you were leaving it up to show your commitment to free speech. So doesn’t it make sense that people would be confused?”

“Given the mixed messaging, I would have given more notice on the new rule before punishing anyone for a violation. And if they violated it again? Totally fair game to take action against those accounts. But I think people object to the lack of clear process and communication.”

“I don’t envy any of these decisions. But the problem with Old Twitter was that the rules were vague, unevenly applied, and often backfilled to suit the political prejudices of mgmt. New Twitter has an opportunity to be different: open, transparent, and above the partisan fray.”

This was a flawlessly executed media-hit job.

It was first brought to my attention by Gail Alfar, who said that it was strange that all of these journalists were suddenly posting links to Sweeny’s website, and NBC’s Ben Collins was tweeting each account as they got suspended. She and I were on the phone while I was packing jewelry orders.

In our call, Gail said, “Johnna! This was a setup. What if they intentionally try to get suspended so they can write hit pieces tomorrow?”

So I responded to one of Elon’s tweets pointing this out. And then someone sent me a tweet by @R3ap3r, who had a few screenshots to share. In one of those screenshots, Steve Herman tweeted,

“Wonder what would happen if a bunch of journalists cut & paste the tweet language that apparently got @drewharwell booted.”

“Twitter just suspended a competitor’s account @joinmastodon because it posted a link to its own website version REDACTED public, legally acquired data that Twitter decided to days REDACTED the rules. Loving the free speech.”

In another screenshot, journalist Keith Olbermann tweeted something similar. Preceding that, he mocked Elon Musk after Elon tweeted about what happened to his son.

Olbermann said, “So, wait, the way this is phrased..they thought the crazy stalker was @elonmusk?”

In the screenshot shared by @R3ap3r, Olbermann said:

“So here’s a plan.

“A) EVERYBODY RT the screenshot of the tweet that apparently got the account of Drew Harrel of @washingtonpost suspended.”

“B) AND recreate the tweet word for word with the link.”

“C) AND link to Aaron Rupar’s piece that got HIM PERMANENTLY SUSPENDED:”

And many journalists did exactly this before getting suspended.

My Take.

Was Elon Musk right to take whatever actions he deemed necessary to protect himself and his family? Absolutely. However, it won’t come without consequences.

Sweeney has taken his stalking of Elon Musk to other platforms, such as Instagram, and the media has only amplified the false sense of victimhood.

I have several friends and family who do not use Twitter, but they watch the news and what they see on TV is completely opposite of what I have witnessed with my own eyes on Twitter.

The common response from critics about this entire thing is that it’s fine if Elon and his family get attacked and harmed. He’s this evil billionaire and deserves to be hurt.

It many not be worded exactly that way, but it is the common theme that I’ve seen.

And to me, it seems that the media agrees with this. They are completely joyful over the fact that the person they hate the most is put at risk. These people, in my opinion, are soulless monsters who use their platforms to spread hate. Seeing how journalists mock Elon Musk for worrying about his child is disgusting.

I know not all journalists are like this, but many are, and it’s disheartening to see.

One example is Kara Swisher, who I used to respect. She’s met and interviewed Elon Musk several times. The day after I cohosted the Spaces interview with Eliza Blue and Elon Musk, Elon tweeted that Twitter was a crime scene. Kara mocked him.

I pointed out that it was clear she didn’t tune into the Spaces interview and that I thought Elon was referring to the child sexual exploitation on the platform that the previous owners didn’t really do much about. I advised her to, instead of attacking Elon, use her platform to be supportive. And she promptly blocked me.

It’s her right to do so, but it just validated my opinion that most of these journalists, including her, are vile. And many, in my opinion, don’t care about children. I mean, child porn received 10,000,000 views on Twitter, but the Washington Post insinuated that Eliza Blue and Elon Musk were QAnon for addressing the issue.

I realize now that Elon could have been referring to the batch of Twitter Files that were also released, however, child porn is illegal, and the fact that Twitter was rife with the material when Elon purchased it makes it very much a crime scene — to me, at least.

Whether you love Elon or hate him, he is human, and he reacted emotionally and swiftly to the danger his toddler son was in.

And if you’re of the notion that it’s perfectly fine for someone to attack his toddler son — or him and his family — then you shouldn’t be around children, animals, or people.

Update: I am including my thoughts on Weiss's comments that were made after this article was published.

To me, it seemed that she was trying to empathize with the situation, however, she redirected the focus from what spurred Elon to make his decision to ban those publishing his personal information back to what I felt wasn’t important.

To me, it seemed as if she was downplaying what happened to his child. I do agree with her last statement: “New Twitter has an opportunity to be different: open, transparent, and above the partisan fray.”

However, new Twitter has already done this and is continuing to do so. The statement implies that it’s not — at least to me.