(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
After
his
own
hubris
and
Delaware
law
conspired
to
foist
Twitter
upon
Elon
Musk,
the
new
“Chief
Twit”
ran
headfirst
into
a
new
problem:
cash
flow.
Hence,
the
bumbling
billionaire
pitched
a
$20/month
fee
for
verified
accounts
—
the
“Blue
Checkmark”
badge
Twitter
affixes
to
celebrities
and
known
journalists.
This
strategy
crumbled
as
soon
as
it
got
the
slightest
pushback
from
a
famous
person:
Crackerjack
executive
leadership!
But
there’s
one
voice
out
there
desperate
—
very,
very
desperate
—
to
get
in
on
Twitter’s
new
price
gouging
effort:
Jonathan
Turley.
As
a
regular
MSNBC
pundit
is
calling
for Elon
Musk
to
be
stripped
of
his
citizenship for
trying
to
reintroduce
free
speech
protections
to
Twitter,
the
new
owner
is
outraging
blue
checkers
by
suggesting
a
monthly
charge
for
verified
users. Figures
like
CNBC’s
Jim
Cramer declared:
“I’m
not
paying
them
anything.
They
should
pay
me.”
Some
of
us
would
be
willing
to
pay
an
added
monthly
fee
to
support
a
true
free
speech
alternative
on
social
media
if
Musk
keeps
his
word.
But
Turley
has
one
thing
right:
Musk
does
promise
a
“true
free
speech
alternative.”
At
least
to
the
extent
that
it’s
an
alternative
to
free
speech.
Because
Twitter’s
future
appears
to
be
the
logical
end
of
a
process
that
contorts
one’s
freedom
to
say
vile
things
to
an
obligation
upon
everyone
else
to
listen.
This
“alternative
free
speech”
demands
that
private
actors
be
compelled
to
platform
and
amplify
speech
they
don’t
want.
Where
once
upon
a
time
free
speech
meant
that
the
government
cannot
silence
even
the
most
vile
speech
because
it’s
a
necessary
evil
in
an
open
society,
Musk
pledges
a
forum
where
deplorable
speech
is
celebrated
as
an
end
unto
itself.
This
is
the
sort
of
perversion
of
the
public’s
understanding
of
basic
freedom
that
a
serious
constitutional
law
scholar
should
fervently
denounce.
Jonathan
Turley
is
not
a
serious
constitutional
law
scholar.
He
is,
however,
a
desperado
for
attention
who
really,
really
wants
that
checkmark!!!
Of
course,
for
full
disclosure,
I
would
first
have
to
get
a
blue
check
to
get
charged
for
a
blue
check.
I
have
been
barred
from
being
verified
for
years
by
Twitter despite
being
a
columnist
for
newspapers
like
USA
Today
and
the
Hill
as
well
as
a
legal
analyst for
CBS,
NBC,
BBC,
and
now
Fox
over
the
last
two
decades.
I
have
been ranked
in
the
top
five
law
professors
on
Twitter,
but
I
was
still
turned
me
down
over
a
dozen
times
under
multiple
categories.
This
paragraph
is
more
cringe
than
when
Mikey
called
Nikki.
That
he
cites
Above
the
Law
for
his
ranking
in
the
top
five
law
professors
on
Twitter
is
just
fabulous.
I
have previously
joked
about
the
bar
on
verification and
I
am
not
sure
how
much
the
blue
check
honestly
does
for
individuals.
Oh.
Just
a
joke.
He
probably
doesn’t
even
need
it.
BUT
HE
REALLY
WANTS
TO
KNOW
WHY
NO
ONE
VERIFIED
HIM
BEFORE!
For
my
part,
I
am
less
concerned
about
the
blue
check
or
charges
for
blue
checkers
as
seeing
greater
openness
on
how
made
such
decisions
in
the
past
(as
well
as any
alleged
backchannels
with
government
officials
or
agencies).
That
would
be
more
than
worth
an
added
monthly
charge.So
here
is
a
proposal
from
the
great
unwashed
and
unverified.
Open
up
the
digital
files
on
both
the
censorship
and
verification
decisions
under
the
prior
management.
What
these
pundits
most
fear
is
exposure
of
how
was
used
as
a
Clausewitzian
corporation
for
the
continuation
of
politics
with
other
means.
Open
the
files
and
customers
will
open
their
wallets.
“Open
the
files
and
customers
will
open
their
wallets”
is
a
fascinating
proposal.
Revenge
as
revenue
play
really
sums
up
the
American
moment.
Whatever
the
$8/month
subscription
buys
—
be
it
a
checkmark
or
a
Truth
and
Reconciliation
Commission
for
the
unpopular
kids
—
Turley
thinks
Musk
is
on
the
cusp
of
really
transforming
Twitter’s
whole
financial
model.
That’s
because
Turley
is
an
idiot.
However,
Musk
is
looking
for
ways
to
reduce
the
dependency
on
advertisers
and
many
of
us
would
support
that
effort.
Recently,
General
Motors
suspended
advertising
on
until
it
can
evaluate
the
implications
of
Musk’s
new
policies.
Some
of
us
immediately
criticized
the
action
by
GM
over
the
move.
For
what
it’s
worth,
Jim
Cramer
was
absolutely
correct
in
the
earlier
quoted
passage.
Twitter
makes
its
money
—
the
REAL
money
because
ad
revenue
positively
swamps
the
drop
in
the
bucket
Musk
could
generate
from
subscriptions
—
off
the
fact
that
people
like
Cramer
provide
free
content
to
the
app.
Yglesias
is
wrong
that
verified
accounts
don’t
provide
any
benefits
to
the
users,
but
it’s
a
mutual
exchange
where
Twitter
benefits
by
promoting
the
best
free
content
it’s
getting.
When
everyone
can
get
verified,
whatever
benefit
the
user
gets
evaporates
and
the
benefit
to
Twitter
is
replaced
by
$8/month.
That’s
a
hill
of
beans
unless
everyone
joins
in,
which
won’t
happen
because
there’s
no
longer
a
tangible
benefit
to
any
but
the
most
gullible
user.
And
if
Musk
thinks
a
subscription
fee
will
result
in
a
100
percent
user
conversion,
he
might
want
to
check
out
what
happened
to
the
audience
numbers
(and,
consequently,
the
ad
revenue)
of
all
the
publications
that
slipped
behind
paywalls
over
the
years.
Musk
can’t
make
nearly
the
money
off
subscriptions
that
he
can
off
of
ads,
but
he
can
generate
quick
cash
flow.
That
this
move
could
permanently
fracture
Twitter’s
long-term
relationship
with
advertisers
should
scare
him
if
he
understood
how
to
run
anything
but
a
fire
hazard
on
rails.
And
Jonathan
Turley
is
ready
to
ride
this
Tesla
right
off
the
road.
Earlier:
Twitter
Complaint
Demonstrates
That
Every
Lawyer,
Everywhere,
Always
Is
Smarter
Than
Elon
Musk
Elon
Musk
Will
Beat
Twitter!
WSJ
Says
It’s
Obvious…
Assuming
You
Change
Every
Single
Fact
And
Law.
Law
Professor
Pinpoints
Elon
Musk’s
Latest
Problem:
Cash
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.