[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

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.

Except... he hasn't silenced anyone.

It's no different to the preacher not being permitted to book certain venues around the country. He's not being silenced, those venues are privately owned and they're free to choose who and what they want to be a platform for.

It's basic common sense.

Your suggestion, to force platform owners to host anyone and everyone is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

You literally want it when it suits you and not any other time.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

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.

Twitter is a private company, not a public service. There's literally nothing more to say about it than that. Freedom of speech laws simply don't apply, any more than they apply in someone else's house?

Do you think that freedom of speech laws in America mean that you can go into someone's living room, say whatever you want, and not be told to leave?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except... he hasn't silenced anyone.

It's no different to the preacher not being permitted to book certain venues around the country. He's not being silenced, those venues are privately owned and they're free to choose who and what they want to be a platform for.

It's basic common sense.

Could Dorsey make up a rule that said, no Jews, or no Whites, or no Muslims or no Black's are allowed on his platform, If he wanted to? If not, why not?

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Could Dorsey make up a rule that said, no Jews, or no Whites, or no Muslims or no Black's are allowed on his platform, If he wanted to? If not, why not?

No.

Because that's excluding people based purely on race, which is discrimination. Excluding a whole race of people is much different to refusing to give a platform to a single foul mouthed bigot.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

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?

That would be a direct threat and easier to deal with yes. Incitement is an offence, hate speech is an offence, I'm not saying she has it's just to highlight you don't have to physically threaten someone to be charged with an offence.

Social media rules will have to follow guidelines to not have their content fall foul of these offences, again she isn't silenced and is free to carry on on different platforms, make speeches and attend events to spread her 'opinion'.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dia.

No.

Because that's excluding people based purely on race, which is discrimination. Excluding a whole race of people is much different to refusing to give a platform to a single foul mouthed bigot.

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Alf

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

George Orwell **** would be secret police breaking down her door and making her disappear into the night. Modern day **** is her getting banned from one social media platform for being hateful.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Could Dorsey make up a rule that said, no Jews, or no Whites, or no Muslims or no Black's are allowed on his platform, If he wanted to? If not, why not?

Very poor attempt at an argument Alf.

Has Katie been banned because of her skin colour, race or religion? No.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

But it's ok for the people whose thoughts and opinions oppose that of Hopkins to be forced to represent her in their venues and on their social media platforms? Their freedom of speech doesn't matter?

You're literally complaining about something that you are calling to enforce on others.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That would be a direct threat and easier to deal with yes. Incitement is an offence, hate speech is an offence, I'm not saying she has it's just to highlight you don't have to physically threaten someone to be charged with an offence.

Social media rules will have to follow guidelines to not have their content fall foul of these offences, again she isn't silenced and is free to carry on on different platforms, make speeches and attend events to spread her 'opinion'.

The term "hate speech" needs to be rejected. There's either free speech for all, or there's not.

But bear in mind that different people are gonna have different interpretations of what constitutes as hate speech. And who decides what's right and wrong speech, whoever's in charge at the time?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

You have a poor understanding of Orwellian distopia & thought crime Alf. I don't think it's my job to try to explain either to you, because I can't be bothered and don't want to, but... I dunno. If you're interested in knowing about these things I'd suggest reading around them a bit because you're dramatically over simplifying.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You have a poor understanding of Orwellian distopia & thought crime Alf. I don't think it's my job to try to explain either to you, because I can't be bothered and don't want to, but... I dunno. If you're interested in knowing about these things I'd suggest reading around them a bit because you're dramatically over simplifying.

Probably purposely.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But it's ok for the people whose thoughts and opinions oppose that of Hopkins to be forced to represent her in their venues and on their social media platforms? Their freedom of speech doesn't matter?

You're literally complaining about something that you are calling to enforce on others.

But those who are not giving her a platform are not being silenced (oppressed). So nobody has infringed on their freedoms, the way they have infringed on Hopkins. They're excluding her purley based on her politics. It's just as much discrimination as not giving a platform to a certain religion or race.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

But those who are not giving her a platform are not being silenced (oppressed). So nobody has infringed on their freedoms, the way they have infringed on Hopkins. They're excluding her purley based on her politics. It's just as much discrimination as not giving a platform to a certain religion or race.

Purely based on her politics? Oh Alf.

Calling Greta Thunberg an "autistic ****ing wench" is not a political view. It's playground bullying.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

The term "hate speech" needs to be rejected. There's either free speech for all, or there's not.

But bear in mind that different people are gonna have different interpretations of what constitutes as hate speech. And who decides what's right and wrong speech, whoever's in charge at the time?

Hate speech is defined by hate laws, it's not something that is mutable.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Purely based on her politics? Oh Alf.

Calling Greta Thunberg an "autistic ****ing wench" is not a political view. It's playground bullying.

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Alf

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

If it breaks the rules, then Twitter would be in their rights to do so

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

Well you're trying to simplify a situation that isn't simple.

I never said she was banned for her mean girl remarks. I'm illustrating her presence on twitter is not merely voicing "political opinion". That's just incorrect.

She's not being silenced and she's certainly not being silenced for her political leanings.

If anything she's displayed very little understanding of politics outside of exaggerated stereotypes.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

And trump himself of course?

Silly comments are fine not all insults will be called into question, if all insults were banned there would be nobody left on the internet!

It is very specific comments that are the issue, those that could be seen to violate hate laws. In which case the platform would be called to answer why they were hosting such content by the government.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dia.

If it breaks the rules, then Twitter would be in their rights to do so

Is that the World you wanna live in?

What if say, Tommy Robinson lead a party that won a general election, and he decided to use those laws against your opinions? And started banning you from platforms?

It could happen, probably not Tommy Robinson, but somebody who could use the oppressive laws against you. They could say that your point of view is wrong and hate.

[Elliot]

Idk why the hill you chose to die on is defending someone that called a 17 yr old girl with Aspergers ‘autistic ****ing wench’

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

Is that the World you wanna live in?

What if say, Tommy Robinson lead a party that won a general election, and he decided to use those laws against your opinions? And started banning you from platforms?

It could happen, probably not Tommy Robinson, but somebody who could use the oppressive laws against you. They could say that your point of view is wrong and hate.

Tommy Robinson forcing bans on platforms he doesn't own is not even remotely the same.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Idk why the hill you chose to die on is defending someone that called a 17 yr old girl with Aspergers ‘autistic ****ing wench’

Hate is subjective apparently.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Idk why the hill you chose to die on is defending someone that called a 17 yr old girl with Aspergers ‘autistic ****ing wench’

It's easy, because Katie should have the freedom to say that, if she wishes to. It's not or it shouldn't be a crime.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

It's easy, because Katie should have the freedom to say that, if she wishes to. It's not or it shouldn't be a crime.

Nobody said it was a crime that's not why she was removed.