{"id":204054,"date":"2019-06-07T09:08:46","date_gmt":"2019-06-07T14:08:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=204054"},"modified":"2019-06-07T01:32:02","modified_gmt":"2019-06-07T06:32:02","slug":"twitter-says-yes-no-ads-live-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/twitter-says-yes-no-ads-live-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Twitter says yes, then says no to ads from Live Action and Lila Rose"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Twitter has doubled down on its decision not to allow pro-life group Live Action or its president Lila Rose to run ads on the platform. The social media giant has refused to lift its ban unless specific content is deleted — including from Live Action’s own website. The censorship from the left-leaning social site has been in place for some time, prompting\u00a0Live Action to\u00a0release<\/a>\u00a0its\u00a0emails exchanges with Twitter<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a02017.<\/a>\u00a0But recently,\u00a0Rose\u00a0told<\/a> her Twitter followers, “4 years ago, @<\/s>Twitter<\/b><\/a> banned Live Action & me from all ads. @<\/s>PPFA<\/b><\/a> & pro-abort orgs freely run ads. Occasionally, we reapply to see what happens. Last week, some kind underling at Twitter said I was eligible again.” Sounds like a move in the right direction, right? Wrong!”<\/p>\n

Rose noted that after Twitter’s surprising ad approval, “We started enrolling, & the Twitter gods flew into action…”<\/p>\n

Twitter’s response<\/a>\u00a0read in part:<\/p>\n

… Upon further review, the guidance that Twitter issued last week regarding the account of @LilaGraceRose was made in error. Please be advised that the accounts of @LiveAction and\u00a0@LilaGraceRose remain ineligible to advertise on the Twitter Ads platform due to repeated violations of our Twitter Ads Policies….<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Image:

Twitter responds to Lila Rose of Live Action Twitter’s censorship June 2019<\/p><\/div>\n

To explain those alleged violations, Rose later\u00a0published<\/a> this to her Twitter account: “Twitter banned @<\/s>LiveAction<\/b><\/a> & my account from all ads. When we asked why, @<\/s>Twitter<\/b><\/a> said we could resume ads, only if we deleted the following content from our Twitter AND website-Anything about abortion procedures-Investigations of Planned Parenthood-All ultrasound images”<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Lila Rose of pro-life group Live Action on Twitter’s censorship June 2019<\/p><\/div>\n

Breitbart read Rose’s Tweet and reported<\/a>, “In June 2017, Live Action\u00a0noted<\/a>\u00a0Twitter called its pro-life messages ‘offensive and inflammatory.'”<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat exactly is Twitter calling so offensive and inflammatory?\u201d the group asked. \u201cTweeting a picture of a child developing in the womb and saying that we believe in the right to life. Or tweeting ultrasound images, like the ones that most expectant moms hang on their refrigerator doors.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Twitter<\/p>\n

\"\"

Twitter censors Live Action example of inflammatory tweet<\/p><\/div>\n

Twitchy also weighed in,\u00a0claiming<\/a> Twitter was insisting “basically, any content that tells the truth about the horrors of abortion must be removed from their site and Twitter feeds for the ban to be lifted. What a crock.”<\/p>\n

On April 3, 2019, Live Action News documented<\/a> that while Twitter continued its refusal to permit Live Action to purchase ads, the company was happy to take thousands of ad dollars from abortion corporation Planned Parenthood, abortion supporters Alyssa Milano, and ReproAction.\u00a0At that time,\u00a0when Live Action News reviewed Twitter\u2019s\u00a0Ad Transparency<\/a>\u00a0page, it revealed:<\/p>\n