independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 18th Aug 2019 8:22am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Twitter bans religious insults calling groups rats or maggots
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/09/19 8:26am

CherryMoon57

avatar

Twitter bans religious insults calling groups rats or maggots


About time... Prince community, take heed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...y-48922546

_107808535_mediaitem107808530.jpg


[Edited 7/9/19 8:27am]

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/09/19 12:13pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

What's Farrakhan going to do now? lol
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/10/19 11:30am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Sad... I do not think people should do that but it is not twitter's job to police that. if you think this is okay then do not whine when they shut down other kinds of speech.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/10/19 11:55am

13cjk13

Sure, we need nazis to have all the free speech they want. It worked out so well the first time.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/10/19 11:58am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

13cjk13 said:

Sure, we need nazis to have all the free speech they want. It worked out so well the first time.

this is not a free speech issue...did you mean to use that term to mean something else? did you make a mistake? or do you need to study the law?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/10/19 12:58pm

13cjk13

if you think this is okay then do not whine when they shut down other kinds of speech.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/10/19 2:13pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

Sure, we need nazis to have all the free speech they want. It worked out so well the first time.

this is not a free speech issue...did you mean to use that term to mean something else? did you make a mistake? or do you need to study the law?

.

Of course it is a free speech vs hate speech issue.

.

It may not be a US constitution/bill of rights "freedom of speech" issue, but it absolutely is correct to say this is a "free speech" issue.

.

You need to study law.

.

Legislators and the courts around the world are increasing looking at social media companys' legal responsibilities for the hate speech and imagery carried on their sites. If you had any legal knowledge at all, you would know this is a legal issue. Twitter is protecting itself from being held legally responsible for content that crosses the line in the eyes of the legal systems of the various countries round the world that allow their services to operate. Twitter knows that if does not show it is acting against hate speech effectively, then the governments and courts around the world will require them to do more - This, as you pointed out in first post, is a limitation on the types of speech that they previously freely allowed. As ever with free speech vs hat speech issue, the question is finding the balance.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/10/19 2:16pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

13cjk13 said:

if you think this is okay then do not whine when they shut down other kinds of speech.

they being Twitter not the government. So I guess you may not grasp the difference... it is okay I will TRY to put it into words even you will understand.

Free speech means that government will not punish someone for saying something...

in this case the FREE SPEECH belongs to Twitter... it is their RIGHT, their First Amendment RIGHT, to limit what people say on their platform. Just like Ben does here. Just like you would in your home or on your web site. (or on your twitter or Facebook accounts)

So yes Twitter is limiting speech... but it is not a free speech issue.


And I do think you know this...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/10/19 2:26pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

if you think this is okay then do not whine when they shut down other kinds of speech.

they being Twitter not the government. So I guess you may not grasp the difference... it is okay I will TRY to put it into words even you will understand.

Free speech means that government will not punish someone for saying something...

in this case the FREE SPEECH belongs to Twitter... it is their RIGHT, their First Amendment RIGHT, to limit what people say on their platform. Just like Ben does here. Just like you would in your home or on your web site. (or on your twitter or Facebook accounts)

So yes Twitter is limiting speech... but it is not a free speech issue.


And I do think you know this...

.

Read your constitution: the term you are confused about is "freedom of speech".

.

Look at the source of the article: It is the BBC. The terms for twitter are international not just in one country or just in the application of a clause in the amendments to one country's constitution. Free speech is not exclusively about your constitution at all. Learn some law.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/10/19 4:12pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

they being Twitter not the government. So I guess you may not grasp the difference... it is okay I will TRY to put it into words even you will understand.

Free speech means that government will not punish someone for saying something...

in this case the FREE SPEECH belongs to Twitter... it is their RIGHT, their First Amendment RIGHT, to limit what people say on their platform. Just like Ben does here. Just like you would in your home or on your web site. (or on your twitter or Facebook accounts)

So yes Twitter is limiting speech... but it is not a free speech issue.


And I do think you know this...

.

Read your constitution: the term you are confused about is "freedom of speech".

.

Look at the source of the article: It is the BBC. The terms for twitter are international not just in one country or just in the application of a clause in the amendments to one country's constitution. Free speech is not exclusively about your constitution at all. Learn some law.

you mean 13cjk13 is...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/10/19 5:07pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this.

What this is about is hate speech, which has long been prohibited in many countries (although not in the United States). In this Internet age, the latin proverb 'verba volant, scripta manent' (words fly, writings remain) has never been more apropos as words that are posted online can have an indelible effect on others.

'Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[2][3]

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[4] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics.[5][6][7] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[8] Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[9][10][11] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ate_speech

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/10/19 5:14pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

Read your constitution: the term you are confused about is "freedom of speech".

.

Look at the source of the article: It is the BBC. The terms for twitter are international not just in one country or just in the application of a clause in the amendments to one country's constitution. Free speech is not exclusively about your constitution at all. Learn some law.

you mean 13cjk13 is...

.

OK so I mean 13cjk13 is 100% correct.

.

13 is correct that this is a "free speech issue" not a Right to Freedom of Speech under a particular country's constitution / bill of rights. It is a free speech issue, and an increasing one as more and more public discourse is international and through corporate or privately owned environments.

.

Anyone who confuses free speech within an international social media environmant with freedom of speech as a particular right in a particular country vastly over estimates their knowledge of law.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/10/19 5:32pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you mean 13cjk13 is...

.

OK so I mean 13cjk13 is 100% correct.

.

13 is correct that this is a "free speech issue" not a Right to Freedom of Speech under a particular country's constitution / bill of rights. It is a free speech issue, and an increasing one as more and more public discourse is international and through corporate or privately owned environments.

.

Anyone who confuses free speech within an international social media environmant with freedom of speech as a particular right in a particular country vastly over estimates their knowledge of law.

so you agree with me... it is not a legal issue, and No I have not confused the 2...

also 13 sure seemed to be talking about legal speech... but as I said I am not sure if he or she meant to do that.

[Edited 7/10/19 17:35pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/10/19 5:37pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this.

What this is about is hate speech, which has long been prohibited in many countries (although not in the United States). In this Internet age, the latin proverb 'verba volant, scripta manent' (words fly, writings remain) has never been more apropos as words that are posted online can have an indelible effect on others.

'Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[2][3]

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[4] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics.[5][6][7] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[8] Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[9][10][11] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ate_speech

yeah... that is clear 13cjk13 and IanRG really seem to think some speech should be banned by law.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/10/19 6:11pm

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Sad... I do not think people should do that but it is not twitter's job to police that. if you think this is okay then do not whine when they shut down other kinds of speech.


Twitter is a huge message board. They make the rules that govern their own message board. if they decided that a certain type of speech or certain insults are not allowed on their message board, then yes, they can state, "That language is banned." It is a private business, a private company. Do you not believe that companies should be allowed to make their own rules for what they will allow within their own company?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/10/19 6:56pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Sad... I do not think people should do that but it is not twitter's job to police that. if you think this is okay then do not whine when they shut down other kinds of speech.


Twitter is a huge message board. They make the rules that govern their own message board. if they decided that a certain type of speech or certain insults are not allowed on their message board, then yes, they can state, "That language is banned." It is a private business, a private company. Do you not believe that companies should be allowed to make their own rules for what they will allow within their own company?

huh? I have always said that the owners have the right to limit and regulate content on their platforms.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/10/19 9:25pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

OK so I mean 13cjk13 is 100% correct.

.

13 is correct that this is a "free speech issue" not a Right to Freedom of Speech under a particular country's constitution / bill of rights. It is a free speech issue, and an increasing one as more and more public discourse is international and through corporate or privately owned environments.

.

Anyone who confuses free speech within an international social media environmant with freedom of speech as a particular right in a particular country vastly over estimates their knowledge of law.

so you agree with me... it is not a legal issue, and No I have not confused the 2...

also 13 sure seemed to be talking about legal speech... but as I said I am not sure if he or she meant to do that.

[Edited 7/10/19 17:35pm]

.

So I disagree with you because you are factually wrong. It is a free speech issue not a freedom of speech issue - You were confused and wrong on this. It is a legal issue not a constitutional right issue.

.

If you knew half as much about law as you think you do, you would know how embarrassingly wrong you so often are, but you so often prove you don't.

.

It is a legal issue for many reasons:

1 It is about the legal rights of the service provider

2 It is about the legal rights of the service users

3 It is about the legal obligations imposed on service providers in regards to current and future laws on hate speech and discriminatory materials and practices through their services

4 It is about the legal obligations imposed on people in regards to current and future laws on hate speech, anti-terror and anti-discrimination etc.

5 It is about the practical application by Twitter of legal statutes, legal precedents and legal regulations in many areas as they apply to contract law, media laws, hate speech laws, anti-discrimination laws, anti-bullying laws, religious freedom laws etc.

6 The only aspect of this that may not be a legal issue is that it is also to a certain degree about corporate image and public perceptions of their product.

.

It is simply not solely about non-legal agreements between the service providor and the service users that have nothing to do with the degree of free speech the former will allow the latter. It is a free speech issue and a legal issue and an image issue.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/10/19 9:40pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

CherryMoon57 said:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this.

What this is about is hate speech, which has long been prohibited in many countries (although not in the United States). In this Internet age, the latin proverb 'verba volant, scripta manent' (words fly, writings remain) has never been more apropos as words that are posted online can have an indelible effect on others.

'Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group.[1] Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.[2][3]

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation.[4] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics.[5][6][7] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[8] Additionally in some countries, including the United States, hate speech is constitutionally protected.[9][10][11] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

A website that contains hate speech (online hate speech) may be called a hate site. Many of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ate_speech

yeah... that is clear 13cjk13 and IanRG really seem to think some speech should be banned by law.

.

Read the post: It is not a Freedom of Speech issue - it is a free speech vs hate speech issue. The article addresses the difference without reference to your constitution other than to say your constiution arguably protects hate speech.

.

In another demonstration of your lack of understanding of the law, you think that recognising the existance of laws or that others are making calls for new future laws means the person agrees with those laws. What I said was "As ever with free speech vs hate speech issue, the question is finding the balance."

.

IMHO opinion there is need for approriate anti-hate speech, slander, deformation, discrimination, bullying laws etc but there is a need to protect and encourage free and wide expression. Sometimes the law (or, more particularly, the application of the law) is too much in favour of one or the other. This means sometimes I will agree with a reasonable limitation and sometimes I will stand up against something as an attack on free speech.

[Edited 7/10/19 23:38pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Twitter bans religious insults calling groups rats or maggots