Martin Shkreli Suspended From Twitter Following Allegations Of Harassment 

Martin Shkreli has been suspended from Twitter. The penalty comes after Shkreli continually harassed the journalist Lauren Duca using the social media platform.

Shkreli's escalating creepiness began in a direct message to Duca. She tweeted this screenshot of the DM she received from him:

As you can see, his advances were unwanted. And lets face it, Shkreli's presence has to be one of the only ways that the upcoming inauguration could be any more unbearable.

Shkreli — who is most famous for trying to bleed HIV patients dry with a price increase of a drug he owns — then proceeded to change his Twitter bio to read that he has "a small crush on @laurenduca." He also tweeted that he had purchased the domain name "marrymelauren.com."

He took things to another level when he changed his banner image to be a collage of photos of Duca. He also changed his profile image to a photo of Duca with her husband but he'd replaced the husband's face with his own repulsive mug.

This inspired other trolls to tweet Photoshop-ed images of the pair at Duca. Shkreli also continued to leave trollish comments on Duca's posts.

The journalist took her case straight to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey at 10:55 am EST:

Around 1 pm this afternoon, Shkreli's account was suspended. Unfortunately, that means there's an army of arseholes out there now shouting that Shkreli's First Amendment rights are being violated.

Gizmodo spoke to Shkreli on the phone and he confirmed the suspension and is unapologetic. He said that he would stop if Duca directly asked him to. Her statement that she would rather eat her own organs than go to the inauguration with him was apparently not enough of a no for him. He attempted to call Duca via Periscope shortly after we talked. The fact that a Twitter-owned service is still being utilised to harass Duca even further is a problem that @jack should look into.

A Twitter source confirmed to Gizmodo that the suspension was indeed related to Duca. If Shkreli wants the account reinstated unspecified changes would have to be made. Meanwhile, a Twitter spokesperson said "The Twitter Rules prohibit targeted harassment, and we will take action on accounts violating those policies."

Buzzfeed's David Mack received a statement from Duca that reads: "He's an entitled creep and absolutely deserves to have his account suspended-perhaps indefinitely."

WATCH MORE: Tech News


Comments

    Should do the very same to Trump, Suspend him

      as much as i think trump is a mongoloid. Id rather he stay on twitter. How else will we get his daily updates of him showing the world how much of a moron he is?

        The news around the world will cover him and everything he says/do

    The guy has issues.

    (and his first amendment rights being impinged isn't one of them)

    Last edited 09/01/17 1:54 pm

    Her career is harassing politicians.

    Asphyxiating on the hypocrisy.

      Because what martin did to her is totally equivalent.

      On one hand we have what is classed as stalking
      On the other we have a journalist doing her job.

      Last edited 09/01/17 2:39 pm

        Piss-taking harassment yes, but not even remotely classed as stalking, charges would undoubtedly have been filed if it were. The guy is a P.o.S. his history demonstrates that, but lets not start fabricating offences.

          I didnt mean the criminal charge of stalking, I mean the act of it.

            What's the difference? He's just tweeting her and buying a URL.

              And using a collage of pictures of her and photoshopping himself into pictures with her? How the frig is that not stalking? That would terrify me

                It's not stalking, because it's not stalking. If it were, then millions of teenage girls would be 'stalking' Bieber and other teenage heartthrobs. Is it creepy, yes. Is he a dick, yes. Is it stalking, no, it's not even cyber stalking.

                  Fair enough, although the context does make it different (she's not a celebrity like Bieber, he's an adult).

                Photoshopping someone's head into a photo would terrify you? How are you even on the internet with such a phobia?

        You have an extremely weak definition of stalking.

      Her career is being a journalist, she's doing her job. Believe it or not, but not all journalism is of the News Corp variety.

      I assume you think Leigh Sales' interviews with Turnbull and Abbott were harassment as well?

        Of course, In bringerofmuffins eyes, Journalists arent allowed to ask right wing politicians tough questions that make them look stupid. They should only ask them easy questions that make them look good like on the Bolt Report.

          Please, read her articles, and let me know if you still classify them as 'asking politicians hard questions'.

          Last edited 10/01/17 9:07 am

            Yep, still do.

            Looking at your comment history I can willingly bet you would never apply the same expectations on someone like Andrew Bolt or Miranda Devine, which makes you the rubbish hypocrite. ;)

              1: Please nominate the piece of journalism in which you feel Leigh Sales best "asks a politician hard questions."

              2: My post history indicates that I'd defend two people (I've never heard of) if they made similar efforts to silence speech? Well your claim should be easy to support. Just quote the most egregious example of me advocating speech silencing (of anyone).

                1: How about when she quizzed Tony Abbott about the economy and he responded with "but we stopped the boats". Or when he said the ABC should support the government, and she asked him if he'd believe the same thing if Labor was in power. Or when then-Minister Turnbull appeared on 7.30 and didn't like when Sales didn't stick 100% to what he wanted to talk about. Or...

                2: No, but your posting history indicates you're pretty pro-conservative/libertarian and dislike "SJWs", so it's not exactly much of a stretch to say you're against dirty, dirty lefty journalists is it? Besides, I never said you're blocking free speech. I said you wouldn't post the same "they're just harassing politicians" expectations on someone like Bolt or Devine going after a Labor politician.

                  1: Sorry Hotcakes.

                  I meant to ask for a citation of journalism in which you feel Lauren Duca best "asks a politician hard questions."

                  I didn't intend to a leap to Leigh Sales, who is orthogonal to this article (but sounds from your description like a fine interviewer).

                  2: You saw:
                  A: My numerous posts explicitly advocating the ideal of free speech
                  B: My posts which you describe as conservative / liberterian
                  C: My posts which are anti-SJW.

                  And somehow you decided I'd hypocritically abandon A should it conflict with B.
                  But this makes no sense on several levels:
                  1: SJWs routinely seek to undermine free speech.
                  2: Liberterians routinely advocate free speech.
                  3: Conservatism is (in my estimation) orthogonal to free speech.
                  4: My posts are explicitly, enthusiastically free speech, and my other posts are understated by comparison.

                  In fact, I think Liberterians are loony, and I've voted left as often as right.

                  The bigger issue is;
                  One of your reasoning tools failed you utterly, and needs to be ditched.
                  I posit the possibility that you fell to a hasty generalization (specifically, political stereotyping).

                  1. Those are examples of bad journalism.

                  If you catch your guest off guard and shut them down, you are not doing your job, which is to get your guests to disclose information.

                  A good journalist would have gotten the answer to the question of the economy. Abbott's response indicates that he was already shut down to her.

                  Yes, news is entertaining for people like you to see people you personally dislike be mocked or chastised. But for someone like me it's terrible because I'd rather be informed than entertained by news... information is its purpose after all.

                  @jaded, no, catching your guest off guard is half the point. You don't give them your questions in advance, that's Journalism 101. I've worked on both sides of the journalism/PR divide, and it's basically a PR minder's job to steer the conversation towards their preferred topic, while it's the journalist's job to steer the questioning towards what they/their readers want to know the answers to.

                  Abbott's response didn't show that Sales' did a poor job of getting an answer from him, it showed he didn't want to be questioned about something other than his preferred topic of "we stopped the boats".

                  Good job with the "I'm more objective than you" last paragraph though. So rational. So unbiased. By the way, if information is it's purpose then that's exactly why people like Sales ask questions on important topics like the economy, that the guests would rather not talk about.

                  Last edited 12/01/17 4:55 pm

                  Hey @hotcakes @jaded and anyone else tempted to reply here, please keep it on topic. The article has very little to do with the fact that Duca is a journalist at all, so this has gone way, wayy off the tracks.

                  Also remember that personal attacks are against our community guidelines (though honestly the whole "no YOU'RE biased" discussion is more irritating than anything else)

        Journalists should;
        1: have thick skin
        2: have a high bar for seeking to block speech privileges
        because these are traits society allows them to demand from their journalistic targets.
        A journalist who lacks these traits, is a rubbish hypocrite.

        Last edited 10/01/17 9:09 am

          So just because they are expected to ruthlessly question those who may have dirty laundry that needs to be exposed, they need to accept being harassed by creeps? Even if that logic checked out, what encouragement would be then in following such career?

            1: Yes. Their job is harassing people, and if they can't take it in return, they're hyporcrites. Seriously this is like a surgeon complaining about the sight of blood.

            2: If the quest to expose the truth isn't sufficient incentive, they have no place in journalism.

            Last edited 12/01/17 5:56 pm

              Your analogy is terrible. If we are going to use a surgeon, the corresponding analogy would be "complaining to be performed surgery on by an unlicensed practitioner with an agenda."

                Fine:
                Like a prankster complaining about being pranked.
                Like a lawyer complaining about being sued.
                Like a judge complaining about being judged.
                Like a troll complaining about being trolled.
                Like a commercial fisherman complaining about some dude with a rod and dinghy.

                The point is that her journalism leverages the right to be a pushy jerk.
                Then she silenced someone for being a pushy jerk.
                It's beyond pathetic.

                I'm not ready to see the ideal of free speech undermined just to inconvenience a jerk.
                Are you?

                Last edited 13/01/17 2:59 pm

                  Prankster: Relevant analogy, except that the first one is not doing a service to the community.
                  Lawyer: Irrelevant. being sued is a legal proceeding. If warranted, there's no reason to complain.
                  Judge: Same as lawyer.
                  Troll: Same as prankster. Yeah, you'll name exceptions of some heroic trolls, but in general, society doesn't need either the former or the latter.
                  Fisherman: Irrelevant. The latter is not harming the former.

                  Here's another analogy using your next paragraph: A cop has a job that leverages the use or fire arms in some situations. Does it mean that is right for random people to use a fire arm on him? I know it is a risk inherent to the occupation, but do you condone it as you do with harassment?

                  I am not ready to see the /rights/ of private people trampled to defend a despicable person's free speech. If you believe that free speech gives anybody the right to say whatever harmful things to another individual you don't understand what a right is. Unsurprisingly, fierce advocates of an mythical, unalienable, sacred right to free speech, are those who don't want to be curtailed when being horrible to people, such as racists, sexists, etc.

                Pointing out differences in similes is unnecessary special pleading (and misses the function of similies).

                It's unnecessary because you accurately summarised the essence of our differing positions when you posited that those who use hurtful words ought be denied speech.

                Note that I didn't feel any need to exaggerate your position when summarising it.

                I didn't claim that your stance involved myths.
                I didn't claim that you claimed inalienable rights.
                I didn't compare tweeting to shooting someone.

                I'd be happy to discuss why I believe the ideal of free speech is more important than preventing hurtful speech, if you'll to agree to quit arguing dishonestly.

                  I apologise if it seemed as though my last paragraph was aimed at you. I was merely pointing that free speech cannot be set up as an unconditional ideal precisely because some of the people who spouse it are those interested in abusing it. And if it can be abused to the detriment of private individuals (regardless of your subjective opinion of "deserving" it due to their career choices) then it means that free speech needs to be reined. Like all other rights, its scope ends precisely at the point where other individuals' rights start.

                  Free speech must be defended when the target are governmental, corporate or similar bodies or structured groups, I'll agree with you on that. but individual to individual? Do you condone bullying, for example?

                  Last edited 15/01/17 2:20 am

    I don't know who this woman is. But Shkreli sent her an invitation via pm and she posts it to her feed and insults him as a reply.

    I kind of get his point that she should just speak to him. Instead she's created a public spectacle and in response Shkreli's made his account look like a fanboy's or something.

    She she goes to the CEO to get him banned. What a mole.

    Three quick queries for the Giz management.
    Hayley wisely mentioned personal attacks being against community guidelines.
    Presumably that applies posters to attacks on other posters and on authors (in the interest of decorous discussion).
    1: Is it also intended to apply to poster's attacks on the subjects of articles?
    2: Is anything akin to this supposed to apply to articles? ('repulsive mug')
    3: Is anything akin to this supposed to apply to quotes? ('entitled creep')

    Not trying to start anything here, just trying to understand the guidelines so I can comply.

      Careful matey you're going off topic again ;)

      Feel free to refresh yourself on our community guidelines here if you're feeling unsure: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/guidelines/

      And if you ever have any doubts or questions about why a particular comment was deleted, feel free to use the contact form to get in touch so we can clear it up for you.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now