Discuss. For context:Trump supporters chanting 'HANG MIKE PENCE' at the Capitol Building pic.twitter.com/iMSOl4u3tg
— Dallas (@59dallas) January 6, 2021
/2 ....it cuts both ways; it cuts in every direction. So: Twitter’s exercise of free speech and association to ban fascists is absolutely its right, but also subject to the same criticisms as the fascists they are reacting to. It’s all speech. .....
— BannedHat (@Popehat) January 9, 2021
You have two hours. Be sure to write neatly. Please remember to put your name on the cover of your Blue Book./4 Twitter memorably banned me for a while for publishing a threat a Nazi sent me. It banned Trump but publishes worse dictators and promoters of totalitarianism. I have no illusions its moderation is consistent or admirable. But its moderation decisions are core freedom.
— BannedHat (@Popehat) January 9, 2021
For extra credit: more context.
Discuss the difference between Twitter and Parler, and the reach of the 1st Amendment where incitement to crimes is concerned. Please note this is not a doctrine of 1st Amendment jurisprudence:Meanwhile, this what’s happening on Parler pic.twitter.com/DRoaNFfxeg
— Olivia Beavers (@Olivia_Beavers) January 9, 2021
— Bad Legal Takes (@BadLegalTakes) January 9, 2021
He should change his name to Jack Cade and sign his tweets John Amend All.
ReplyDeleteTwitter has no obligation to carry content it doesn't want to carry. But one thing I think is a problem, most of the big commercial places that have some kind of content moderation and a lot of the smaller ones don't hire the brightest of the class to apply moderation. Which is their right too, as frustrating as that can be. Just because you allow reader or listener comments doesn't mean that any comment anyone chooses to leave is something you're required to accept. A raw-talkin' political blog habitué shouldn't expect the kind of language they might be used to would be acceptable to a site that is all about bedtime stories for four year olds or academic discourse.
ReplyDeleteI think there are points of view, especially those that advocate directly or lead to incitement to harm that are rightfully excluded from even the public realm. I don't think there is any reason to allow the advocacy of the denial of rights to anyone except within the context of legitimate criminal guilt or overt dangerousness. That those are not discernible by a bright line is no reason to tolerate the open advocacy of Nazism or the KKK or the stuff the Proud Boys advocate, or cabloid COPS style ie Clint Eastwood advocacy of police violence. Hate speech gets people killed, discriminated agaisnt, oppressed and the crimianls who kill people off without consequences or congratulations. The history of lynch law in the United States proves that that kind of free speech advocacy will certainly fall on People of Color and other members of despised, discriminated against minorities more oppressively than government restriction on the expression of hate speech. If Bill Clinton had violated the American sacralization of "free speech-free press and bombed the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines transmitter,the Rwandan Genocide could have been stopped a lot faster than it could and many thousands of people whose location was giving out to genocidalists on it would have lived.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjXm_-9r5LuAhWAHzQIHbtDDeQQFjACegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fshakespeare.mit.edu%2F2henryvi%2F2henryvi.4.2.html&usg=AOvVaw2J2eFy18AA8vRQWfavVZ-r
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiM5Jm3wZLuAhXMJzQIHRsOB3AQFjAJegQIDBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.floridabar.org%2Fthe-florida-bar-journal%2Flets-kill-all-the-lawyers-shakespeare-might-have-meant-it%2F&usg=AOvVaw36tlnmd9mEJobYmT49aSKm
ReplyDelete