Twitters Says It Will Ban Trump If He Breaks Hate-Speech Rules (qz.com) 1058
Twitter has made a serious effort as of late to limit hate speech on its social media site, especially after Election Day where "biased graffiti, assaults and other incidents have been reported in the news." The company now faces President-elect Donald Trump, who has used Twitter for the past 18 months as a megaphone for his views and rants, which many would consider as "hate speech." According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits." Quartz reports: While Trump's deceptive tweets may not violate Twitter's rules against harassment, threats and "hateful conduct," Twitter is still keeping an eye on his account for more egregious offenses. This week, the company told Slate it would consider banning key government officials, even the president, if its rules against hate speech or other language were violated. "The Twitter Rules prohibit violent threats, harassment, hateful conduct, and multiple account abuse, and we will take action on accounts violating those policies," a spokesperson wrote. Twitter confirmed with Quartz that everyone, including government officials, were subject to the policy: "The Twitter Rules apply to all accounts," a spokesman wrote. Trump may not have crossed that line yet, but he hasn't exactly refrained from making incendiary claims. Most recently, he claimed that Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who allegedly carried out an attack injuring 11 students at Ohio State University, "should not have been in our country." Artan was a legal permanent U.S. resident, whose family had fled Somalia for Pakistan in 2007. He arrived in the States in 2014.
Abdul Razak Ali Artan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Abdul Razak Ali Artan (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, stuff like this is what I've been worried about. It doesn't matter whether Trump is literal Hitler, figurative Hitler, metaphorical Hitler, or fucking Mecha-Hitler [wikia.com]. Yeah, we've seen presidents like Lincoln being the go-to example that have done things that aren't too constitutional. And that business about the Japanese internment. And no, it wasn't right. But America is great enough that it made it through. And while I'm starting sentence with conjunctions, I should point out that those two examples were actual fucking wars not a bunch of hysterical snowflakes freaking out about the (gay and vegan) Moooooooooooooslims. We've got so many snowflakes doing that it's turning into a fucking blizzard.
I want to live in a country great enough to treat criminals with justice, yes to treat them better than they deserve in shithole countries like, oh I don't know, what Daesh wants to build! 'Course, that guy's not a citizen unlike the flag burners Trump wants to strip of citizenship, just a legal resident. Deportation would be one appropriate response in this case, and I'm too lazy to research precedent or see what the moon matrix media has to say about this one. If the snowflakes demand that he be deported and set free without answering to us for his crimes, so be it. Why not? That's a great precedent there. Want to kill a bunch of Americans? Why, all you have to do is head on over, cause death and destruction, and all they'll do is send you back!
I want to live in a country great enough that its citizens can freely show disrespect to national symbols and traditions. I want to live in a country great enough that its citizens can freely show disdain for that country's religion. I want to live in a country great enough that its citizens can freely block the president on social media.
So are Trumpers going to finally bring an end to America's greatness?
.
.
.
I suppose eventually, Germany did become great again. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, given enough time, everything changes.
Oh and, my sig! Merry fucking Christmas!
"Hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok...
Dude, you are confused. It is neither Trump nor "trumpers", who threaten your right to freely show disrespect. It is Twitter!
It is Twitter, who'll shut you up, should you, in their opinion, engage in "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
Unless,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, twitter can control my citizenship status now and right to free speech?
Where the fuck have I been?
Oh wait no I'm fine, you're a god damn lunatic. Pretty sure I can just go to reddit, facebook, or fuck, here, if I want to exercise my right to call you batshit crazy.
Re:"Hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not about citizenship. Yes, Twitter can take away your speech on Twitter. Maybe, it is not a big deal — if Twitter bans you, but Reddit still remains a free speech zone [wikipedia.org].
But people tend to dislike being told, where they can not protest, so I pointed it out to the OP, that he is barking up the wrong tree, as it were. However offensive he is, Trump is not going to come after him — not until he knives a bunch of people or some such.
On contrast, Twitter will shut him up — if he offends a religion more equal than other religions, or an ethnic group more equal than other ethnic groups, and so on — and will not even explain, why exactly.
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, its more and more of an issue in today's world.
Your ISP can cut your internet to stop your from exercising free speech.
Your host can cut your web server.
Your twitter can be banned
Your facebook can be banned
Your google searches can be empty (as in, it never returns results for you/your site/etc)
Major media outlets are commonly owned and can decide to not publish your story
For all practical purposes, your free speech can be suppressed today - it was much more difficult 30 years ago, some due to
Re:"Hate speech" is protected by the 1st Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
This is tricky bit when you stop using "freedom" as a glittering generality and start tying to live it as a practicality: freedoms impinge on each other. Your freedom to say whatever the hell you want impinges on Twitter's freedom to set whatever ground rules it wants for its privately funded and hosted service. And vice versa.
Which means nobody gets unlimited freedom; or at least most people can't have it; if one person has unlimited freedom than everyone else has no actual rights -- we call that a dictatorship. Or a small group can have almost unlimited freedom, but everyone else has limited rights -- an oligarchy.
To maximize freedom for most people you need rules which adjudicate conflicting freedoms. One such principle is that we can't, as a society, punish things which we are allowed as individuals to punish. The KKK is perfectly legal, but you don't have to let them use your premises or services as a platform.
And it means drawing lines, and whenever you do that you end up with similar looking cases on either side of the line. You can't (in most states) deny gays or blacks housing or other essential services. But you can deny Klansmen housing, if you have the courage to do so. You can redraw the lines elsewhere, but no matter where you choose to draw the line there'll be similar looking cases on either side.
Oppression (Score:5, Insightful)
Love it or leave it. And stand the fuck up for the anthem too, you aren't being oppressed.
"Love it or leave it" is what privileged fools say when they are actively sticking their fingers in their ears so they don't have to hear the truth from people who are being abused by our government. There are plenty of people who genuinely ARE being oppressed in this country. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in very blatant ones. Ask any black person if they feel oppressed by the police. Ask a person with brown skin how easy it is to get a bank loan. Compare the number of unarmed minorities who get shot by police to the number of white people. Ask women how things are going with that equal pay for equal work.
I am a US Citizen because I was born here. I didn't ask to be born nor did I ask to be a citizen. Love isn't unconditional. The notion that I should automatically love the country if it is doing things to actively harm me or things I care about is just nonsense. There are lots of people who are oppressed. Just because YOU aren't being oppressed doesn't mean shit to someone who is. If they want to sit down to make a statement during the playing of the national anthem then they are doing EXACTLY what the first amendment is for. So is burning a flag. Free speech isn't about what is comfortable for you to hear. It is making a statement that tells what they think without harming anyone.
Re: Abdul Razak Ali Artan (Score:5, Interesting)
And stand the fuck up for the anthem too, you aren't being oppressed.
There's a reason the very first Amendment in the Constitution is freedom of speech. Even the Second Amendment, which deals with the defense of the nation, comes second to it. You have every right to sit down or kneel for the Anthem, or burn a flag, whether you are trying to make a statement or just being a dick. It's hard to "Make America Great Again" when you want to remove some of the basic freedoms that make America great in the first place.
Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
if it's hate speech that @jack agrees with. @jack is a hypocritical asshole and everyone knows it.
Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe. And Black Lives Matter supporters will still be able to post whatever vile shit they please about those evil white people. But the second someone dares post "#alllivesmatter" or uses the term "illegal immigrants" it's HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!
Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they will be free to post that, just like all the alt-rights, white supremacists, free speech warriors, pickup artists, neomasculinists, anti-feminists, neo-Nazis and other will be able to post their hateful shit too. Twitter doesn't care about hate speech, it only cares about harassment, incitement and threats. Like the law in the US does.
Re:Own your vote (Score:5, Insightful)
I could maybe accept that argument if Trump were saying things that were truly racist, sexist, etc. If he were tweeting things like "I wish black people would go back to Africa" or "Man, I hate women" or "I think Asians are inferior to white people" then yeah, I could see your point. But when the SJW left has so expanded the definitions of "racism," "sexism" to include saying things like "I think we should deport illegal aliens" or "I think we should build a wall on our border" or "I love fucking supermodels" then the terms have lost all meaning. Calling someone a racist/sexist/blah/blah just because they disagree with a radical social agenda that's completely out-of-line with mainstream America is part of what got Trump elected (and what's probably going to help get him reelected in 2020).
And just remember that the same vile paintbrush can be used by the other side too. I'm pretty sure you don't appreciate people on the right labeling all Clinton supporters as "baby murderers" because Hillary Clinton said she supports abortion, do you? Well, it cuts both ways. The lower you sink, the lower your opponents will sink too.
Go ahead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bans solves everything!
Re:Go ahead. (Score:4, Funny)
Also not standing up to hate speech indicates support for hate speech. Twitter should also ban users who do not publicly condemn tweets containing hate speech. After that, ban those who do not condemn hate speech tweets switftly enough.
Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Being welcomed to a country you are not citizen of is not a human right. We can consider pros and cons to ourselves vs humanitarian benefits of admitting a particular immigrant of from a particular country where terrorism and other crime is more common than in US.
Refusing to have a rational discussion on this subject without accusations of hate and racism is how we got Trump.
Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, any Republican that comes out and says, "Illegal immigration is bad, it hurts Americans and we need to do something about it", will be lambasted as anti-immigrant, with Democrats all over the news talking about how we're a nation of immigrants and that this is just another example of the GOP being racist and hating American values. As if the "illegal" was never specified. An apalling affront to reason and public discourse.
Or like when Trump said that inner cities were a disaster because Democrats had failed the black community, and the response was, "look, he's saying racist things about black people!" The statement was a direct criticism of elected Democrats and their policies, and how they failed to help inner cities if not actually harming them. Could not have been less racist.
Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points to push this up to +5.
Alot of folks just don't understand the frustration that the liberalists create by basically saying we can't say anything bad about anything. We don't live in a happy utopia where everything is perfect.
The United States is a melting pot of cultures and religions. Some of those cultures and religions don't mix very well, so there's going to be friction.
By trying to pretend there isn't and trying to put a lid on it, is just going to cause it to boil over. If you can't talk about it, then there's never going to be resolution, just conflict and friction in perpetuity
Re: (Score:3)
Liberalists (great neologism, there) basically don't say anything of the sort. Rightists say that liberalists say this shit to get themselves all steamed up and cross about liberalists, but like very large amounts of other things that rightists believe, there's no materially significant factual basis to it. For example, Twitter is, you may be astounded to find out, not in fact a font of liberalism but a commercial company whose services are used by large numbers of people of all political persuasions.
Yeah, but inciting people to violence (Score:4, Insightful)
And there was a rational discussion. Several folks (notably Jon Oliver) pointed out very rationally that immigrants from terrorists nations are incredibly well vetted. You'd be more likely to see Dutch terrorists sneaking in with wooden shoe bombs than an actual terrorists sneaking through. But all that was lost on the Fox news crowd.
And we got Trump because the Blacks and Latinos couldn't be assed to come out and vote for Hilary. Trump got the 60 million Romney voters from 2012. 5 million of the 65 that showed up for Obama stayed home. For fucks sake people, you don't have to like it but when the consequences are that obvious get the hell out and _vote_. You've got 2 years. Assuming Trump's justice department hasn't locked you all up to fill their private prisons then don't screw it up again.
Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score:5, Informative)
Notice how the left ignored the Ohio State attack after it was revealed the attacker was both Muslim and didn't use a gun? The second it no longer fit their narrative, they completely ignored it even happened.
Re:Immigration policy is not hate speech (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Day 4 executive order. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no such thing as hate speech if you have free speech. STFU and do something useful.
Re:Day 4 executive order. (Score:4, Informative)
If Trump actually issued that order, I'd be on board. Instead he's expressed the desire to jail and strip citizenship of flag burners. Anybody who passed high school civics should see the problem with that. I was actually shocked to find out that SCOTUS ruled 5 to 4 [wikipedia.org] that flag desecration is protected speech. So yeah, nevermind the abortion thing. We could actually end up with authoritarians on the court who don't care much for free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
He was trolling, moron. He was trying to get an extremely negative reaction to a proposal that HILLARY CLINTON made in the 90s. And he proved his point.
Oh look... (Score:5, Funny)
How refreshing!
Time to short (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's twitter. They don't need the fucking government in order to operate their services.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, yes. Let's ban, ban, ban on our way to obscurity.
Someone grab the popcorn (Score:5, Funny)
On the one hand, hate speech, censorship, and the limits of Presidential power are all very serious topics.
On the other hand, President Trump getting banned from Twitter and watching the resulting tantrum would be beyond hilarious.
So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits.
Everything is hate speech? Awesome.
Re: (Score:3)
hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits.
Everything is hate speech? Awesome.
You need to leave some wiggle room since defining hate speech is similar to defining obscenity, you'll know it when you see it [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Here's another little hurdle. If you have nothing but respecting for me as a human but have criticised my way of life and I find it offensive, you're in the wrong even if you did not mean to cause offence and you opinion is neutrally worded and entirely based in fact.
Of course add personal bias and we find that it's OK to criticise or speak in a certain way about an unpopular religion or a disliked ethnic minority...but generally it seems that no one genuinely likes free speech when it's negative and abou
Responsibilities of a publicly traded company (Score:5, Insightful)
Take, for example, the radical feminist Clementine Ford. She has repeatedly engaged in blatant anti-male harassment [twimg.com] and is known to then cry wolf when a man responds with anti-female harassment and had a man fired from his job for his comment. Yet, for some reason, Clementine Ford's account is still miraculously active [twitter.com]. No matter what Trump said he did or didn't grab, this woman should be off Twitter permanently by that same policy.
This is a pattern that repeats over and over. As it is obvious that Twitter is engaging in selective enforcement, they are not only slowly alienating a substantial portion of their user base for the minority of vocal SJWs, they are threatening their own safe harbor provisions for anything else that goes on Twitter such as terrorist communication or other criminal activity. That translates to fewer users and significant financial risk for operating as they currently do.
The real question is: why are the shareholders not demanding Dorsey's resignation for these policies? Mentioning Trump is a complete non-sequitur and clickbait for Salon's liberal slant. More importantly, it indicates that they are defocused from the real goal of shareholder returns and preserving shareholder value. The tail can't wag the dog any more, and it has to belong to the same animal in any case. Either Twitter curates content consistently or they get out of that business and respond only to complaints of criminal and terrorist activity; otherwise, this half-way house will fall on itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take, for example, the radical feminist Clementine Ford. She has repeatedly engaged in blatant anti-male harassment [twimg.com] and is known to then cry wolf when a man responds with anti-female harassment and had a man fired from his job for his comment. Yet, for some reason, Clementine Ford's account is still miraculously active [twitter.com]. No matter what Trump said he did or didn't grab, this woman should be off Twitter permanently by that same policy.
That's seriously the best you could come up with? Some woman making a few dick-themed insults in what looks like larger back-and-forth conversations?
This is what actual harassment looks like [vox.com].
For one he's targeting visible characteristics (weight, attractiveness, and skin colour) of his targets. Clementine Ford's dick jokes are just non-specific insults since no-one can actually see the target's dick.
Second Milo was the instigator going after people who did nothing to deserve it. There's no context for your
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever looked to see some of the things Leslie Jones said? Obviously not. It's very telling that she still has a twitter account while Milo does not.
Stuff she said as she was being harassed.
It's basically the difference between yelling obscenities in the middle of a heated argument and walking up to someone and yelling obscenities without provocation.
Re: (Score:3)
Well for good or ill, they are a company, and can do anything that does not violate the law as long as their shareholders do not make a fuss.
And Twitter was always going to be a flash in the pan, I think they are just trying anything and everything to not fade into obscurity. I think tumbler has shown that their is demand for safe places on the internet that protect sjws and allow them to say anything they want and harass whoever they want.
"hateful conduct' is vague (Score:3)
Twitter says it doesn't tolerate "hateful conduct". That's pretty vague.
I think US borders should be guarded so that people can only come here legally. Does Twitter consider that statement hateful?
Does Twitter consider showing pictures of the US flag on Cinco de Mayo hateful? These Americans [wnd.com] were called "Racist a–holes” for flying the American flag in the US on Cinco de Mayo at a school. At the school,
officials had banned the practice to avoid violence threatened by Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo. The controversy developed in 2010, when school officials ordered students not to wear U.S. flag-themed shirts on the Mexican holiday. The ban has been upheld by a federal appeals court.
Does a picture of someone wearing a Trump hat [nbcnews.com] "interrupt ... operations"?
If you say the words "he", "she", "him" and "her", are you being hateful because those words make gay people feel "marginalized" [dailymail.co.uk]?
The last three examples are extreme, but they illustrate my point. Twitter has to be careful not to ban political statements because they don't agree with the statements. They should ban statements only if the author is trying to incite violence.
Re:"hateful conduct' is vague (Score:4, Insightful)
That is vague by design. More accurately they do not tolerate anything that risks advertising revenue.
If you were a famous person tweeting it and that annoyed enough people and they did not feel so good about using Twitter, then yes Twitter would consider that statement hateful. Twitter want their users to "enjoy the experience" so something that bursts a comfortable bubble could make the users spend less time with Twitter's application looking at their advertisements.
Framing it as a free speech issue as the summary suggests is more than just a little naive, so while your examples are very good in another context they are just not relevant. You are free to say things without getting locked up but Twitter will pick and choose what they block.
IMPORTANT EXCEPTION (Score:4, Insightful)
Please be aware the following groups are exempt from this:
* Men
* Straight People
* White people
* Conservatives
looks like they are volunteering (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Different people, different rules (again) (Score:5, Insightful)
"According to the American Bar Association" (Score:4, Interesting)
You might as well say "according to the Powerpuff Girls, donuts are...".
"Hate speech" is not an actual legal concept, and the ABA is not an actual bar association.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously does no one see the slippery slope here ? We're talking about banning speech based on someone taking offense ?
If you don't agree you can go fuck yourself you stupid cunt.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is talking about banning speech. Twitter is talking about banning users who violate their rules. That's it.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:3, Insightful)
And their rules are simple: "No speech that we dislike."
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no, they're not that simple. You can read them here. [twitter.com]
I reaffirm: nobody is banning speech. Twitter is banning people who break their rules of conduct on their forum.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Informative)
Their rules are one thing. How evenly they apply them is another.
There are people who have done a lot of experiments in the form of posting some variation on "I hate black people for voting for Hillary" and "I hate white people for voting for Trump" then reporting both accounts to Twitter.
Guess which kind of hatred they refused to ban?
Some people are more equal than others (Score:5, Insightful)
And for those of you who guess it, isn't it funny that you're able to predict this outcome?
Does that feel right to you? Do you think that decent people ever feel good about seeing someone pre-judged based on the color of their skin?
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:4, Insightful)
A biological basis is irrelevant. Race is used as a way to group people. Humans love putting things in categories, and other humans are no exception. You can get over your whole "there's no such thing as race" crap, because it's totally irrelevant to the way the term is used.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter is banning people who break their rules of *speech* on their forum. That's why they are, in essence, banning speech. Admit it already!
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Interesting)
As is their right as a private corporation.
Petition Trump to setup tweet.gov. The "1st Amendment Platform for the US Government".
Look I get you kids like Twitter and Facebook but STOP USING THEM if you don't like them. Jesus. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a BBS account or IRC pseudonym. If you really want to spew what ever comes to your head you can use hashtags and join a #TrumpForLife IRC channel and mash the keyboard.
Twitter's now a platform for middle aged women to tweet The View and feel like someone is listening to their opinion. Hence all the Tide, Sharpie, et al accounts. Anything that doesn't fit that isn't profitable.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does a bakery, as a private company, have the right to say "No cakes that we don't like"?
Does a family-owned store, as a privately held corporation, have the right to say "We won't pay for medical services that we believe are morally equivalent to murder"?
Many Americans think the answer to those should be "yes" -- and if you say no to this, but yes to Twitter, then you should think very carefully about how much sense it makes to draw the line where you draw it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My sincere prayer is that Donald Trump will have to make the argument that corporations should be forced to serve people who violate their policies.
That would be sweet sweet karma.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to go somewhere else to get a cake is not a physical condition.
Should a black person go somewhere else?
Should a dwarf person go somewhere else?
Should a disabled person go somewhere else?
Should an HIV-positive person go somewhere else?
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is not the same. Not even close.
Being gay is a physical condition.
Bullshit. It's a personal choice. People claim that it's a physical condition just to stop other people from blaming them for that personal choice.
Are you straight? (I'm guessing yes.) Do you remember choosing to be straight?
I'm straight, and I don't remember choosing. I just am.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. I make the choice every time I choose who to have sex with.
If you want to screw guys and choose not to, you're closeted. You choose who you have sex with, you can't choose who you *want* to any more than the "pray away the gay" crowd can choose to not have those thoughts.
Why would you think it isn't a choice?
Because many people have tried and failed.
What sort of evidence do you have that this one behavior is not a choice as opposed to every other behavior being a choice?
Who says everything else is a choice?
Do you think people don't have free will?
Define "free will".
Do you think that people are so compelled to some actions that they cannot help themselves?
Try holding your breath for 4 minutes. It won't cause you any harm.It's just a choice to breathe.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, in our time, being a heterosexual and masculine male is now considered to be a deviant social choice.
That's just utter rot. The thing that's being stimatized is acting like a dickhead.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe Donald Trump is racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely that nearly everything he says will appear hateful to you.
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe Donald Trump is racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely that nearly everything he says will appear hateful to you.
If I believe that Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, and bigoted, it's likely because of the things he has said and done.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:4, Interesting)
And just as much as the freedom of speech protects your ability to say something, it equally protects my right to refuse to provide you with a platform for saying it. The owners of Slashdot have every right to delete this comment that I'm writing right now. They have every right to lock my account and even block my IP address.
The great irony here is that Trump is busy empowering people who oppose net neutrality while his followers complain about a private company controlling the content of their own website. Forget about Twitter, ending net neutrality would allow ISPs to exercise much more strict control over your access to the whole Internet, potentially blocking or slowing traffic that they don't feel is advantageous to their business. If Verizon decides they're anti-Trump, they could just block access to his websites because "Fuck you, it's our network and we'll do what we want." The principle that the Internet is communication infrastructure and should treat traffic without bias-- that's the concept Trump is looking to tear down.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Informative)
No, Trump's followers (and a lot of others) complain that Twitter isn't honest about the rules they use. Also that a lot of Twitter's supporters are inconsistent in applying the values they claim to hold or as dishonest as Twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Believe it or not, there is this thing called "humor" that often involves someone saying something for comic or satirical effect that they don't actually believe and that their audience knows they don't actually believe.
Even Vulcans know not to take everything humans say literally.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:4, Interesting)
He overall does have a point.
The problem with identifying something somebody says as "hate speech" is that it doesn't really have a well defined boundary as to what is off limits and what isn't, meaning that it's basically up to somebody's interpretation and context as to whether or not something is effectively benign by that standard. This inevitably means that the rules will be selectively enforced.
If social media continues down this path, then it's likely to just become even more of an echo chamber than it already is. Fortunately "generation Z" seems to be eschewing social media so far, and their reasoning tends to be that they want to avoid having their every move traceable by their parents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, just like a private bakery is free to establish a policy of only baking cakes for weddings between a man and woman, right?
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on New York State law, with which I'm not familiar, Donald Trump's restaurants may have the same requirement.
Nonsense. Restaurants provide general service. If they refused to host a special occasion or make some off-menu item, then it would be a fair comparison. But the bakery in the Oregon case did not refuse to sell any items for a gay wedding. They refused to sell custom-made items. It makes all the difference when discussing whether this was a religious coercion or not.
Re: (Score:3)
it makes them bakers, they were not doing anything different for that cake than any other wedding
That's the part which is false. They do something different for every wedding. It's not like they refused to sell bottles of champagne (which are the same regardless of where they go).
Do you really think they make a considered judgement towards all the cakes they baked?
I am not the one ordering their service. My opinion on the matter is of little consequence. Their customers think that.
I think if even the worst imaginable straight couple came in, they'd bake the cake.
Ok. They didn't refuse to participate because they disliked the couple. In fact, the couple wanted a cake from them because they were regular customers. They didn't want to participate because they felt
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, when was that?
"I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman," Trump said. He added that he favored a domestic partnership law that would give same-sex couples the same legal benefits as married couples.
Trump in 2000.
"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."
Trump in 2011
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're not banning white male Republicans, and they haven't banned Trump (yet.)
They're banning people who break the rules. There's no rule against being a white male Republican on Twitter. But someone who breaks the rules could get banned, no matter their $RACE $GENDER $POLITICALPARTY.
Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:5, Insightful)
"1 retailers have the right to refuse service for any reason (and even lie about what the reason is)"
Please see: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Re: (Score:3)
Your looking at the privatization of the public green, a corp gets control and suddenly gets to set the rules.
Re:Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score:4, Insightful)
SJWs versus the US government. I wonder who will win?
I hope the 1st Amendment wins. Donald has said plenty of things that are offensive and politically incorrect. But ridicule is not "hate".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope the 1st Amendment wins.
The 1st Amendment will win. No matter whether Twitter shuts down his account or not, Donald Trump will still be free to say whatever he wants.
He doesn't have the right to come over to my place and paint it in yard-high letters on my garage door, though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You need a safe space?
Re:If??!?!?!! Really, now Twitter?!?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you expand "hate speech" to include "speech that offends groups" then so did EVERY OTHER politician (and most of their supporters).
In fact, doesn't Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" fit this definition almost perfectly? I'm pretty sure Trump supporters are a group who were pretty fucking offended by that statement.
But something tells me only the right-wing politicians and supporters will get banned. Call it a crazy intuition.
Re:Hate speech is pretty well defined (Score:5, Insightful)
And there were many (*many*) people this election cycle who disparagingly attacked Trump supporters as "white male heterosexual virgins", which is offending all kinds of protected classes, none of whom (or very few of whom) were kicked off twitter. If someone on the other side of the spectrum had gone on about "black trans lesbian sluts", they'd have gotten banned by Twitter more or less instantly.
Nota bene: I'm not a Trump supporter, just really sick of the racist assholes on both sides of the political spectrum, and even more disgusted at the power-hungry self-righteous hypocrites on the left who seek to control other peoples speech by trying to re-define words to make their opponents look bad (like, for instance, claiming you simply can't *be* racist against white people).
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
And the leftist position is? (Score:3, Insightful)
He's already broken hate speech rules repeatedly for basically his entire campaign. What alternate world are we living in here, where we're now pretending he did otherwise?
I'm anxious to hear the left's comprehensive rules that identify hate speech in a non-partisan way. Rules that clearly delineate unbridled hatred (to be banned) from opposing political views (to be discussed).
You guys keep pounding on how every slight and subtle thing Trump does is wrong, how about showing us your vision of how things should be?
Note that illegal speech has a fairly clear and specific definition, along with examples, and has been vetted through the court system. Saying "all abortionists shou
Re:And the leftist position is? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And the leftist position is? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If??!?!?!! Really, now Twitter?!?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can support absurd levels of P.C. standards if you like, that just makes you a psychological marshmallow
Re:If??!?!?!! Really, now Twitter?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's absurd levels of PC standards that denounces Trump for implying that a female news reporter, a significant one from a major news outlet, was only questioning him because she was on her period then I don't know what sexism is. To imply that a female professional at the top of her game couldn't aggressively question him because she was some how out of her wits because of a natural bodily function she's been dealing with since she was 13 is absolutely sexist.
A clearly not sexist approach he could have taken: actually address what she is saying.
And that's just the easiest one to illustrate off the top of my head.
Re:If??!?!?!! Really, now Twitter?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's not how "real" people talk. The reporter in question was a national grade reporter. To suggest she couldn't handle basic female issues she's dealt with since she was a child while interviewing some one is the very definition of sexism.
Believe it or not, women arent just masses or hormones, They actually have brains on their own.
Re: (Score:3)
I support Twitter having the choice to make any rules they want within the law.
Yes. The real issue in this story is not that Twitter is free to make their own rules for their own service, but that the American Bar Association defines "hate speech" as "speech that offends". Rational people would be offended by the ABA's definition, so the ABA is itself guilty of hate speech.
I don't consider it hate speech to offend, and insulting people who share the "other trait" of "being criminals" isn't, either. In fact, just insulting people shouldn't be.
And all of its users are free to stop using their service
I walked away from them the day they star
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, just like a proprietary bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, right?
In that case gay is the new Black.
"We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Re:twitter is proprietary company (Score:4, Insightful)
"We don't serve your kind here" is not something to cheer for.
Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding is not the same thing as refusing service at a restaurant.
1) The bakery owners weren't refusing all service to gay couples. They didn't say, "I won't serve you as a customer because you're gay." or "I won't sell you this donut because you're gay." They were refusing to support gay marriage. The bakery owners were rejecting gay marriage, not gay customers.
2) Suppose a gay couple was offended by the refusal to bake a cake, and they wanted to force the bakery owner to voice support for them. So they sue the bakery owner, and say they'll only be satisfied when the owner stands in front of a TV news camera, holds a sign that says, "I support gay marriage", and says into the mike and camera that he/she supports gay marriage. That demand would be going too far, right? You and I disagree with the bakery owners, but we have no right to force them to state that they support gay marriage. I think the bakery owners see the wedding cakes this way. I think they see making the cakes as a symbol or statement that they support gay marriage.
In case you're wondering, I have nothing against gay/lesbian weddings. (In fact I'm all for them, because I think overpopulation is one of mankind's biggest problems, and gay/lesbian couples tend to produce fewer children than straight couples.) I just hate to see the bakery owners be pressured to bake a cake, which symbolizes that they agree with gay marriage, when they don't agree with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Has this elaborate scenario ever happened or is it the bullshit it appears to be?
I feel bad for Smurfs myself if we are going to feel sympathy with fiction.
Re: (Score:3)
It's only a First Amendment issue if the government is taking the action to limit or suppress your speech. Twitter could ban someone for any reason they like. They could have a ban for cats are better than dogs if they wanted. Nobody's free speech would be violated. Similarly, Slashdot could decide to ban people for any reason they want. This is their site and they get to determine who posts here and who doesn't. To give an offline example, it would be like someone in your house going on a rant. You have th
Re:Trump is love (Score:5, Insightful)
Not hate
Twitter should go ahead and do it. Trump can then open an account on gab, and him publicizing it will draw his crowds there. Or better still, his company could open an online Twitter competitor. Whatever he does, anything he publicizes will attract the crowds away from Twitter
Honestly, how stupid is Twitter's management? Here is one person who has helped Twitter actually eclipse the MSM, despite the fact that nobody want to buy them, and this is how they wanna treat him? Go right ahead, and he can dry up the Twitter swamp.
On another note, come Jan 20, Trump will own both @RealDonaldTrump as well as @POTUS. Now, they may ban the former, but will they ban the latter as well?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)