She also on multiple occasions got visibly emotional if anyone held her in any sort of positive regard. A really tragic individual.

She does if I bring her into the discussion.

Really? The only thing you can think of re: her achievements are the number of followers on twitter? :joker:

Come on Alf, you're letting us down.

I can bring Bob the Builder into the discussion, doesn't make it relevant. :thumbs:

If the BBC got a lot of viewers listening to them or if a newspaper sold loads to people who wanted to listen to them, they'd see that as a success.

So yes, I stand by what I said.

That's it. The epilepsy comment shows how she says things for effect, considering she's talking about herself. A very disingenuous attention seeker.

At least the likes of Trump convince you he genuinely believes what he's saying.

...yeah, I doubt she really is a hate filled person but more that she’s believing in her own hype...which is the definition of a keyboard warrior/troll type personality....’I am the witch with the heart of stone’ is her own self definition...and she relies on that definition to keep itself sharp and cutting to earn her income...

Viewers/listeners/readers to a programme/newspaper which cost money/time and was created by teams of people doing their jobs reaping the rewards of success versus a woman posting a tweet for a reaction. Your comparisons are faulty today Alf lad.

...she wears her ‘I don’t cry or show emotion’ as a ‘Badge of honour’ as if it shows a strength...?...when it actually shows a weakness of having no balance to her character...

Most people in those industries are attention seekers, They need to create attention to sell themselves, to make a living. Just treat them as entertainment, but let them be free.

You can both disagree with what she has to say and defend her when she's being stripped of her voice, they're two different things.

She's not been stripped of her voice. She's been banned from a platform for breaking its rules. Even a child would not struggle to understand that. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you think it does then you don't actually understand what freedom of speech actually is.

Also, there's a difference between selling yourself to promote your career as an actor, singer, the president etc what is Katie's actual job? Just a gob? How sad.

But then those rules are oppressive, which is surely illegal and in that case, Twitter should be closed down. Certainly in America, where they have the first amendment?

I'd say it comes from a place of self loathing, why be so anti epileptic if you have been/ are a sufferer? Did you see yourself as defective or worthless due to that brain injury?

The distinct lack of empathy and fear of emotional outpourings like crying could be considered an autistic trait.

It makes sense if she despises in others what she dislikes in herself.

No. Not oppressive. Not illegal. As I said you don't understand how free speech works.

Free speech is what it says on the tin, "Free speech." If there's another meaning, then that ain't free speech, it's something else.

Yeah, Katie has freedom of speech. The TV programmes are ignoring her hate filled rants and now twitter is, exercising their own freedom. That's kind of how it works.

You are free to speak ... platforms with guidelines are not beholden to aid you if you breech those guidelines.

She still has free speech.

I understand how it all is, I'm just saying, it's not right, I don't agree with it. And people like her are the ones voicing their opinions against it, and it just so happens that they're the ones that always seem to get silenced.

Unless she made a serious threat to physically harm somebody, I can't see what else she should be silenced for. And even then, she shouldn't be silenced, she should be charged with an offence instead. Did she seriously threaten to physically harm somebody?

So you think it's an infringement on her rights for twitter to ban her?

Would you think the same of a bar or restaurant who refused to serve a customer?

It seems you want "free speech" for people you like/agree with and not for those who you don't like/disagree with. Free speech is a two way street.

Katie has the right to say whatever she pleases. Other people have the right to not have to host her views.

Dorsey is American, his company is American, it's based in America.

He his breaking the rules of the first amandent, just the same way Hopkins is accused of breaking the rule of Twitter. So the USA are in their rights to shut down Twitter?

Hopkins has not lost her right to free speech. She doesn't have a right to use every possible media outlet to air her views, no-one does. Take a look at fox news and how they polarise their output if an example is needed.

In what way is he breaking the first amendment?

:joker: 0/10

She's not being silenced, she's just banned from a privately owned platform. They can ban whoever they like, they own the platform.

Oh she is a daft cow isn’t she!

Because it protects political speech, and if someone is being silenced for their political speech, let's say Alex Jones, then it should protect him. Dorsey should be getting questioned on why he's taking away Jones, freedoms. So that means Dorsy's company isn't compatible with the freedoms on the American people, it's anti American.