Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2016, 03:50 PM
Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
Good for them, and in case you're thinking of arguing for freedom of speech I got that covered below.

SAN FRANCISCO — "Twitter suspended high-profile accounts associated with the alt-right movement, the same day the social media service said it would crack down on hate speech."

"As a private company, Twitter has no obligation to provide a forum for white nationalist views and "can do what it wants," said James Grimmelmann, a law professor who studies social networks at Cornell University."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/.../93943194/

[Image: free_speech.png]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 26 users Like Full Circle's post
17-11-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(17-11-2016 03:50 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Good for them, and in case you're thinking of arguing for freedom of speech I got that covered below.

SAN FRANCISCO — "Twitter suspended high-profile accounts associated with the alt-right movement, the same day the social media service said it would crack down on hate speech."

"As a private company, Twitter has no obligation to provide a forum for white nationalist views and "can do what it wants," said James Grimmelmann, a law professor who studies social networks at Cornell University."

I'm not so sure of that. Is Twitter discriminating against them because they believe marriage is only between one man and one woman? Consider

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 04:00 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(17-11-2016 03:58 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 03:50 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Good for them, and in case you're thinking of arguing for freedom of speech I got that covered below.

SAN FRANCISCO — "Twitter suspended high-profile accounts associated with the alt-right movement, the same day the social media service said it would crack down on hate speech."

"As a private company, Twitter has no obligation to provide a forum for white nationalist views and "can do what it wants," said James Grimmelmann, a law professor who studies social networks at Cornell University."

I'm not so sure of that. Is Twitter discriminating against them because they believe marriage is only between one man and one woman? Consider

Hate speech.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 04:03 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
I prefer a place where people can speak their minds ... even if it means that assholes can do that too. How else are we to figure out who they are?

The nail that sticks up gets hammered. Been that nail myself, and don't have a problem swinging a hammer either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
17-11-2016, 04:03 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
It's their business. They can refuse service to whomever they want. They disagree with certain peoples views and beliefs and they don't want to support those views and beliefs. Makes sense to me.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
17-11-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
From the American Bar Association some examples and laws concerning hate speech.

"In this country (US) there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public..._hate.html

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(17-11-2016 04:03 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I prefer a place where people can speak their minds ... even if it means that assholes can do that too. How else are we to figure out who they are?

The nail that sticks up gets hammered. Been that nail myself, and don't have a problem swinging a hammer either.

Problematic and emotionally charged subject for sure. I suppose if a person wants to go out in the middle of the street and denigrate others for fill in the blank the government won't take action, it is their right.

If, however, that same person walks into my home or in this case a private forum neither I or the private forum are breaking any laws when they are shown the door.

I can understand why you would want to know who these people are and I suspect they will find an outlet for their views, but you and I and in this case twitter do not have to provide them with a soapbox.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(17-11-2016 04:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  From the American Bar Association some examples and laws concerning hate speech.

"In this country (US) there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public..._hate.html

I would like to know who wrote this article. It says "students in action" at the top. Whoever wrote it needs to study a little harder. It sounds like it was written by a social justice warrior, not a lawyer. The very paragraph you quoted doesn't even come close to legal reality. The writer actually quotes supreme court decisions (burning a cross on someones lawn, which is hate speech, is still protected by the constitution) but still comes to the conclusion that "a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently." It just isn't true. I've arrested people and had them prosecuted for reacting to hate speech. I had to take a guy to jail for punching another dude who called him the N word. And I've arrested a gay man for attacking a woman that called him a faggot.

I am not defending hate speech or racism in any way, only pointing out the conclusion is flawed. When I was a cop, I saw my black partner called every racist thing imaginable. No arrests were made for hate speech.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
17-11-2016, 05:05 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(17-11-2016 04:44 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 04:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  From the American Bar Association some examples and laws concerning hate speech.

"In this country (US) there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public..._hate.html

I would like to know who wrote this article. It says "students in action" at the top. Whoever wrote it needs to study a little harder. It sounds like it was written by a social justice warrior, not a lawyer. The very paragraph you quoted doesn't even come close to legal reality. The writer actually quotes supreme court decisions (burning a cross on someones lawn, which is hate speech, is still protected by the constitution) but still comes to the conclusion that "a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently." It just isn't true. I've arrested people and had them prosecuted for reacting to hate speech. I had to take a guy to jail for punching another dude who called him the N word. And I've arrested a gay man for attacking a woman that called him a faggot.

I am not defending hate speech or racism in any way, only pointing out the conclusion is flawed. When I was a cop, I saw my black partner called every racist thing imaginable. No arrests were made for hate speech.

If you look at the link is comes from the American Bar Association, if you remove from the url all but the main part of the link you get this http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html, I had no reason to consider it to be erroneous.

As for 'fighting words" there is this http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/ "The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cause a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence."

We seem to have opposing information, can you cite support for yours?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
17-11-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(17-11-2016 05:05 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 04:44 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I would like to know who wrote this article. It says "students in action" at the top. Whoever wrote it needs to study a little harder. It sounds like it was written by a social justice warrior, not a lawyer. The very paragraph you quoted doesn't even come close to legal reality. The writer actually quotes supreme court decisions (burning a cross on someones lawn, which is hate speech, is still protected by the constitution) but still comes to the conclusion that "a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently." It just isn't true. I've arrested people and had them prosecuted for reacting to hate speech. I had to take a guy to jail for punching another dude who called him the N word. And I've arrested a gay man for attacking a woman that called him a faggot.

I am not defending hate speech or racism in any way, only pointing out the conclusion is flawed. When I was a cop, I saw my black partner called every racist thing imaginable. No arrests were made for hate speech.

If you look at the link is comes from the American Bar Association, if you remove from the url all but the main part of the link you get this http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html, I had no reason to consider it to be erroneous.

As for 'fighting words" there is this http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/ "The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cause a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence."

We seem to have opposing information, can you cite support for yours?

From your own link "Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery." It mentions something about lawsuits. I guess you can sue someone for hurting your feelings i.e. harrassment. But its not a crime to use hate speech. The government can't order people not to say things unless it's a threat or puts people in danger, like yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: