DA Rosen Quits Twitter, Says Musk Is Spreading ‘Hatred and Bigotry’

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen deactivated his office and campaign Twitter accounts today, saying in a letter “the level of hate speech has significantly proliferated on Twitter.”

He said Elon Musk “has used Twitter to spread hatred and bigotry…Bigotry has no home in the land of the free and the home of the brave."

He said the Twitter CEO’s actions “erode our democracy and destroy our country by dividing Americans against each other.”

Rosen said his decision to remove Northern California's largest prosecutor's office from Twitter is in response to increasing hatred, bigotry and antisemitism on the platform and Twitter owner Elon Musk's own statements and posts, such as a meme used by racists and antisemites.

The district attorney also is asking all elected district attorneys throughout the U.S. to take their offices off Twitter.

"As Americans, we have the freedom to loudly express our political opinions and strongly disagree with each other,” he said in a statement today. “However, when that speech crosses the line into hatred, racism and antisemitism, all of our precious and hard fought freedoms are undermined and our democracy is weakened. Every American has a moral obligation to fight against hate speech. There are many ways to do that, large and small. Here’s one way: Quit Twitter. My Office – the largest prosecutor's office in Northern California – is quitting Twitter.”

“Some think that allowing hatred, encouraging it, and standing beside it equates with free speech and constitutional liberty,” Rosen wrote. “That is not a principled stand. That is complicity. That is what many Germans did in the 1930s and what many South Africans did in the 1980s. It is what Elon Musk is doing in the 2020s.”

“Anyone who uses Twitter has noticed the proliferation of extremist posts in their daily feed,” he said. “Many of these handles were previously banned by Twitter because they spread hatred and bigotry.”

The district attorney criticized Musk’s “cynical marketing strategy.”

“Mr. Musk is hiding behind the curtain of being a defender of balanced public dialogue. Yet he himself has used Twitter to spread hatred and bigotry. In a now-deleted Tweet, Mr. Musk used the antisemitic meme Pepe the Frog. If antisemitism is okay, then so is homophobia, misogyny, and racism. That may help Mr. Musk make money. But it can erode our democracy and destroy our country by dividing Americans against each other.”

Rosen said district attorneys, “As American prosecutors, we speak with one voice – against crime, violence, greed, and hatred. We don’t need 280 characters or a billionaire’s app to say, “Bigotry has no home in the land of the free and the home of the brave."

He said anyone who wishes to follow communications from his office may follow it on Facebook or its website

In an introduction to his official statement, the district attorney shared some personal family history:

“My father was a holocaust survivor, and many of his family were murdered by the Nazi regime. In as much, I grew up with stories about the subtle antisemitic tropes that spread across Europe before WWII–all Jews are wealthy, Jews control the banks, and Jews killed Christ. All tropes that instigated hatred for my people. This experience has made me particularly sensitive to injustice and hatred toward any people. It's the main reason I became a prosecutor.”

In an open letter to Santa Clara residents, he wrote:

“No doubt, every one of you has some knowledge about the controversy surrounding Elon Musk's leadership at the social media site Twitter. Mr. Musk has pledged to increase public dialogue by allowing previously banned Twitter account holders back on the site. I believe Mr. Musk's strategy has been an abject failure as the level of hate speech has significantly proliferated on Twitter.”

“So, I will deactivate my Office and campaign Twitter accounts. I have not made this decision frivolously or as a stunt. I do so because–if not me, then who, and if not now, then when?”


  1. Just an Observation,

    Now that Meta, Alphabet, and Twitter are on their way to closure, it might not matter.

    In any event, the fact that ALL MODERATORS are fired will kill any Section 230 protections, that is why these attorneys are getting ready. The facts are they lost their immunity from lawsuits and the sharks are ready, they smell blood.

    You might just not be aware that this is a problem and the courts will address it. Sorry if you invested in any of them.

  2. This seems vastly overblown to me – the Pepe the Frog meme is not inherently racist – some people tried to co-opt it to their group but they have not achieved that – and there is nothing about the context in which Musk used it which suggests any approval of the haters.
    For me personally, knowing Rosen’s history with Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber, his moralizing about people misusing Twitter is rather absurd. Professor Dauber put out Tweets which to me strongly implied vigilantes should go to Brock Turner’s house and kill him. Since she lives in Santa Clara it is reasonable to suspect they were sent from Santa Clara County – Rosen’s jurisdiction – it is important to understand the context – people were at Turner’s house with guns on many occasions carrying signs expressing that he ought to be killed – Dauber was in my view egging them on – but as far as I ever saw, there was not a peep out of Rosen and she was not banned from Twitter – now he is saying a meme, ambiguous at worst, is a reason for a nationwide boycott?
    Even more personal, Rosen is aware Dauber got me banned from Twitter by getting a friend of her husband Ken to do it as a personal favor – in other words, banned despite violating no rules whatever – so he knows first hand some people were wrongly banned- his statement implies all bans were based on abuse of some sort, but he knows better.
    But even as to anti-semitism, which I am sure he is against – he has not made any case that going forward Musk will condone or encourage it, or has in the past. Musk has been in charge about a month and is experimenting and Rosen knows that. I do not believe Rosen is being candid about his true motives.

  3. I also would be more inclined to take Rosen seriously if he made a very specific case for what Musk did wrong and why inaction on Twitter’s part in the short term – people do not get instantly banned seems to be the complaint – means Twitter is so bad it needs to be shunned. Obviously, there were forbidden Tweets before Musk which lead to the bans – Musk has fired a huge part of the Twitter staff – and now, at least in the short term, apparently some people who ought to be banned are not – is this surprising when there are only half as many people to police the site?
    Mr. Rosen, a prosecutor who controls a huge office of prosecutors, has essentially called for a death sentence for Twitter, but he has not made the case for why it is guilty of any crime, let alone one calling for a death sentence – Rosen’s people – remember there are hundreds of them living locally – read San Jose Inside – let him or his representative make a very specific case against Musk and Twitter – prove the Pepe meme is antisemitic and Musk knew that and endorsed it when he used it – prove Twitter has reviewed and condoned racist tweets, and so on. If the case against Musk/Twitter is truly so strong, he ought to be able to easily do that – and he frankly, according to his own standard, as stated in the message he sent, is MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DO SO, SO THAT ANY REMAINING SKEPTICS WILL JOIN THE BOYCOTT, WHICH IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE. Please Mr. Rosen, make your case as you would a criminal case in your office. Use objective evidence, not generalities or subjective interpretations of memes. Removal all reasonable doubt your boycott is the correct action. Make it a very strong case. It is your duty to do so.

  4. Big money trumps section 230,but then you might not be aware.
    With the correct algorithm you can argue moderators are not needed.
    Any second year law student with a little programming knowledge could argue this.

  5. Just an Observation,

    JD, no algorithm can do that. Even Watson couldn’t do that. Because peoples writing is not standardized. In fact even SIR or any other assistant cannot do that.

    I am an IT Expert, I know what I am talking about. No 2nd year law student could even understand what programming needs to be done.

    In any event, look at the Trump conviction today. And the $250M case. The facts are a good lawyer with the law on their side will get what they want.

    Twitter Stock is delisted, and so the public has no idea how bad that company is in, but to have thousands of layoffs, that is clearly not a good sign.

    Moderators simply cannot be replaced by AI at least not yet

  6. Just an Observation,

    JD, I am an EXPERT WITNESS regarding IT security and legal regulations compliance. I have done so in multiple state and federal courts. As well as approved or terminated the use of Classified and Top Secret data systems for the U.S. Government.

    So you might as well stop attacking me and stick to the subject, you never addressed my point.

    JD, no algorithm can do that. Even Watson couldn’t do that. Because peoples writing is not standardized. In fact even SIRI, ALEXA, BIXBY, or any other assistant cannot do that.

    Twitter Stock is delisted, and so the public has no idea how bad that company is in, but to have thousands of layoffs, that is clearly not a good sign.

    Moderators simply cannot be replaced by AI at least not yet.

    You haven’t provided ANY example of an Algorithm or a 2nd year law student being able to perform this task.

    This Whataboutism has to stop it is defined as:

    “Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.

    The communication intent here is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism, the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy.”

    We need a better level of conversation here.

  7. Where is the respect?
    SJI readers are lucky to have one of the foremost IT EXPERTS, claiming at least 2 business degrees, a master of Human Resources, an authority on risk analysis, statistics and forecasting,
    weighing in with his observations on these weighty issues.

    Who else could have guided the SJI readers through over 2 years of Covid “advice” with dire ICU bed forecasts, providing the daily Covid waste water report with such accuracy and detail?
    Only an EXPERT!

    You readers and commenters need to show the proper RESPECT!

  8. Just an Observation,

    Wait, when are you people going to discuss the topic?

    This is rediculous, trying to attack a person rather than discuss the subject.

    Does anyone have anything to discuss regarding the fact that all social media has done has destroyed the value of the internet? Proof of which is the collapsing of stocks involved with it?

    Again time to hold people accountable, if you make money off of disinformation, then it is time to have the courts determine whether it is and properly sanction anyone involved.

    That is called Accountability, part of the Other Information Security Triad?
    The first installment hit on visibility – now, we’re diving into the importance of accountability


    Policy plays a critical part in accountability. Make sure the company sanction policy is well distributed (in every policy, say), well known, and understood. Enforce it consistently – but try not to be too draconian about it. Make sure the actions taken as part of the sanctioned policy are proportional.

    But with all the damages that has occurred, like with Alex Jones, Jan 6, Covid infections and damages, it looks like we need to start ramping up the consequences of peoples actions.

    Time for the law to prevent intentional injuries cause by disinformation, like defamation.

  9. Just an observation,

    Any comments designed for a constructive conversation, or is it just personal attacks. This is the kind of content that can eventually make the website responsible for cyber stalking, or defamation. Again remember InfoWars and Alex Jones. That case should be a wake up call and encourage website providers more incentive to moderate comments and discussions

  10. The best argument against bad speech is better speech. Rosen has demonstrated his cowardice, and inability to prove his point.

  11. This is the guy who lied when he said that Cindy Chavez did not state that she “did not recall” 75 TIMES when in front of the Grand Jury testifying in the Gonzales/Chavez garbage contract scandal. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out of Twitter, Rosen.

  12. Just an Observation,

    You can’t have a constructive discussion when one party personally attacks, spreads disinformation, and tries to change the subject.

    Making baseless accusations as well dealing Rose is insane, even this publication pointed out the attorneys questioning Chavez was NOT Rosen but Finkelstein and Shapiro in 2006.

    In fact Rose was working in LA at the time til 2011.

    Rosen is not responsible for the 2006 case at all.

    You all know better

  13. Another liberal and Dem politician (who has politicized his office already) joins other Democrat public office holders engaging in the current liberal childish show with Musk.

    While Musk was a liberal darling, and acted as another liberal overgrown child, and Twitter was like tech and college campus PC enforcement sites elsewhere, all was well. Musk gets wealthier, mouths some conservative utterings possibly to be controversial and gain attention as well as because he’s a flake, and reduces the PC enforcement at Twitter, all is traitorous.

    Would liberals, Dem office holders, melt down if Musk reformed MSNBC?

  14. Just an Observation,

    Local, yes we all know you are a extreme conservative, and that you want to politicize this story.

    But understand if the law like Section 230 clearly states a content provider can only be immune for cyberstalking, hate speech, conspiracy to commit crimes and defamation REQUIRES adequate content moderation. And in fact there is in effect no moderation. Then Twitter and ANY OTHER content provider, even this one, can be held accountable. Aren’t you a law and order advocate?

    Maybe just not laws that you BELIEVE are unfair to you? That’s what Alex Jones and InfoWars thought. That looks like a fantasy. If InfoWars could not defend itself, imagine how weak a publication like San Jose Inside would be?

    Stop distracting and stick to the subject.

  15. Just an Observation,

    There are NO CASES involving PRIVATE publishers being controlled by the First Amendment you should read this website (https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-first-amendment-where-it-is-3482126/) “The First Amendment: Where it is Implicated, and Where it is Not


    The First Amendment DOES NOT PROHIBIT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, COMPANIES AND EMPLOYERS FROM RESTRICTING SPEECH. The social media platforms responsible for suspending President Trump’s accounts are privately owned and operated, AND THEY ARE FREE TO LIMIT THE CONTENT ON THEIR SITES WITHOUT IMPLICATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Thus, the First Amendment is not implicated in the decisions made by private social media platforms to suspend President Trump’s accounts.

  16. Jus an Observation,

    Interesting that current news is indicating that Elon Musk might be in fact hurting twitter WORSE than thought.


    In that report Musk also said “Replying to a tweet Sunday, in which MIT artificial intelligence researcher Lex Fridman said he would take the CEO job, Musk hinted he hasn’t been completely happy with his new gig.

    “You must like pain a lot,” Musk tweeted, noting the company “has been in the fast lane to bankruptcy since May.”

    Then why didn’t he just pay $1B to get out of the deal, this was an option, he is losing so much because of this.

    In reality Twitter is on the way to dying, and the same will happen to all SOCIAL MEDIA investments, they were nothing but ponzi schemes and redecorated “ADVERTISING” platforms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *