What is it about the concept of free speech which confuses you?

Twitter has been condemned for knowingly giving a platform to a homophobic church which claims that the Westminster terrorist attack was God’s punishment for Britain’s tolerance of gay people.

13 comments on “What is it about the concept of free speech which confuses you?

  1. Umm, no, historically at least they’ve been pretty good on free speech. Nothing illegal and everything else goes.

  2. Social media is being got at by politicals –esp the Espew and SJW trash.

    Plus most of the owners–Zuckers, the Google creep etc (can’t be bothered to Google it) are seeming leftrash.

  3. This will frustrate me till the day I die. Itbshold be as simple as breathing air: if you believe in free speech then you believe in free speech for all, for those whose views you find adhorent. If you don’t think those people should have a platform then you don’t believe in free speech.

  4. Tim – you must’ve missed their politically correct jihad to ban, shadowban, and censor wrongspeech.

    It’s why Milo got de-verified then eventually forced off Twitter, but just being a popular pro-Donald Trump Twitterer is enough to incur their passive-aggressive fuckery.

  5. “a homophobic church which claims that …”: is that any way to refer to the Liberal Democratic Party?

  6. There’s a rumour going round that Twitter is to merge with Youtube and Facebook….

    …. to become YouTwitFace.

  7. “Tim – you must’ve missed their politically correct jihad to ban, shadowban, and censor wrongspeech.”

    So?

    Twitter, as well as timworstall.com, are private concerns. The can do whatever they want.

    ‘Umm, no, historically at least they’ve been pretty good on free speech. Nothing illegal and everything else goes.’

    Then Tim misses the point. Twitter is not involved with free speech. It’s their platform, they can allow or not allow anything they want to, and it’s NOT an affront to free speech. Indeed, their choices are free speech.

  8. Gamecock – Twitter, as well as timworstall.com, are private concerns. The can do whatever they want.

    Nah.

    Freedom of association no longer exists. You’re fighting the last war.

    In a world where your business has no right to refuse to support gay weddings, I see no reason why Twitter should be permitted to refuse service to right-wingers.

  9. I see no reason why Twitter should be permitted to refuse service to right-wingers.

    Bingo. Under the left’s own rules, Twitter should be slammed with civil rights violation suits from those they’ve banned for free speech.

    Of course, in a world where a judge in Hawaii can force Americans to import terrorists from the Middle East, those cases would just be thrown out of court.

    Not that it really matters, because every Twitter ban drives more people away, and it’s racing down the slippery slope to bankruptcy.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.