Today’s link revolves around the Twitter Files, which continue to be a Rorschach Test for political observers. Those who believed the company did nothing wrong in 2020 look at the reports and still say, “So what?” Those who believed the company did something wrong look at them and say, “Told you.” There is, somehow, very little middle ground on this. David French staked out some of it in a terrific column on freedom of speech and its limits. While today’s link, written by Jonathan Turley, doesn’t compete with French’s, it does highlight an item well worth noting.

Turley centers his column on James Baker, a former FBI General Counsel and former Deputy Counsel at Twitter who wanted flag an innocuous Trump tweet on COVID. What caught my eye, however, was the mention of former Global Head of Twitter Trust and Safety Yoel Roth. Roth’s internal communications regarding censorship have fueled the ire of some of Twitter’s strongest critics. Their harassment reached such a point he and his family had to leave their home for a time. Yet it was Roth who, in Turley’s column, stands as the voice of reason. He talks Baker down from blocking a tweet, laying out the company’s protocols. What to make of this?

While Turley’s article is intended as something of a dig at Baker, it should be examined for its portrayal of Roth. That examination should lead us to reconsider his previous portrayals. Is he really the sinister, censor-mad bogeyman certain squeaky wheels would have us believe? I don’t know Roth, but recent evidence paints him in a different light. That doesn’t mean he’s lily white, but it does shade in some areas. The sooner we see figures like Roth and Baker and Elon Musk and all their ilk in shades of gray rather than black and white, the sooner we can achieve a more productive discourse.