Twitter used to be vehemently free speech, didn’t they?

Twitter announced new guidelines for verified accounts on Wednesday, one week after the company was harshly criticized for granting the coveted blue checkmark to Jason Kessler, the organizer of the deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in August.

“We are conducting an initial review of verified accounts and will remove verification from accounts whose behavior does not fall within these new guidelines,” the company wrote on Twitter.

Among the behaviors that will result in the revocation of verification are “promoting hate and/or violence”, supporting hate groups, “inciting or engaging in harassment of others”.

Shortly after the policy change was announced, the company de-verified the accounts of the white nationalist Richard Spencer, the far-right activist Laura Loomer, the English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson, and others.

Tempus mutandis, eh?

Wonder if promoting hate of the bourgeoisie will count here? Sure, a private organisation, they can do what they like. But, still, partiality….

20 thoughts on “Twitter used to be vehemently free speech, didn’t they?”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Given some of the stuff where seeing from Labour MPs and supporters I hope they are going to be classified as a hate group.

  2. The Unused Testicle

    Silly Tommy.

    Should have called it the English Nationalist Party and he’d have won 98% of English seats…

  3. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    Couple of things to note here:

    * The blue check mark was supposed to verify a user’s identity, because of all the fake and parody accounts floating about. So, why de-verify someone? Because it’s a “coveted” virtual scout’s badge for social justice warriors and Twitter treats it as a mark of favour.

    That’s why some blue-haired blogger you’ve never heard of has a blue tick, while Julian Assange doesn’t.

    * It’s amazing how people routinely get shadowbanned or booted from Twitter simply for supporting the President of the United States, or making fun of lefties (RIP Godfrey) but swastika panty LARPers like Richard Spencer and co. are allowed to remain on the platform.

    Why, it’s almost as if Twitter wants to promote off-putting cretins as the public face of the political Right.

  4. Plenty of ammo to use against twitter by highlighting their approved nutters and anyone with a bit of time on their hands could spend an afternoon reporting the spoutings of SJWs to see what happens.

  5. “Should have called it the English Nationalist Party and he’d have won 98% of English seats…”

    No. English Nationalism is uniquely evil. Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism are fine though.

  6. Twitter needs to be out of business.

    Perhaps anti-trust crap might do it. But then statist scum will never wield power for an anti-statist cause except by incompetence–eg Camoron etc.

  7. “Twitter used to be vehemently free speech, didn’t they?”

    When the guys at Twatter thought everyone wanted to say the sort of things they did. It came as a rude surprise, not everyone did.

  8. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Well I didn’t get schooled by monks even slightly*, and I managed to pick up tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Tut tut.

    * my Dad was a victim of the S.J.s and no way was he visiting that on his offspring. A previous pupil at his school was Alfred Hitchcock; Dad said that explained a lot about his films.

  9. I think there is a right not to be offended
    A lot of freedom of speech campaigners claim there should not be a right to not be offended, and that harassment, bullying, slander, and intrusion into privacy should be total, or else we will live in some kind of fascist or communist dictatorship.
    But my view is bullying, and harassment are everyday tyranny, that cause unhappiness, mental illness, suicide and depression. And there has to be a balance between allowing freedom of speech, and restricting bullying, and slander.
    I cannot accept that in a civilised society, that people should be allowed to shout or write abusive stuff about you, to the point of bullying and harassment with no punishment for them.
    I support freedom of speech, but it is about getting the right balance between these two rights, which I accept that often can quite be contradictory.
    Total freedom of speech –
    In a society with total freedom of speech you would be allowed to say and publish whatever you want, about anyone. So you could stand outside someone’s house shouting verbal abuse at them no matter how vulnerable the person is. You could accuse someone of being gay, a child abuser, a rapist, lesbian, or even a criminal of any type.
    Before a businessman completes his deal you could slander him, that he is a fraudster, and that no one should deal with him. You could accuse innocent school teachers of being child abusers. You could publish pictures of people claiming they are bestiality practioners, or porn stars with HIV.
    You could slander people. You could invade people’s privacy and publish pictures of people having sex or doing the toilet, without their permission.
    In fact the sickest thing is that you could publish material on the internet supporting terrorism, telling people how to perform a terrorist attack or rape, or murder. I think that would be a sick warped, creepy and depraved society, where only the most depraved would be happy. There has to be restrictions on freedoms of speech to protect people from hate speech, bullying and harassment.
    Child abuse and child pornography are evil but if you had a society with total freedom of speech and expression, there would be not a legitimate argument on banning child pornography. As child abusers would claim it restricts their freedom of expression to publish evil child pornography.
    No civilised person could support total freedom of speech. There have to be restrictions for reasons of slander, privacy, bullying, and stopping extremist and child pornography material.
    Total Right to not be offended
    I accept that in a society with a total right to not be offended would be equally dangerous. You would be able to arrest people, because I am offended that someone criticised my spelling mistakes or because someone was offended at someone saying there is nothing wrong with being gay. I accept a Muslim could be offended at someone preaching Christianity or Judaism. So there should not be a total right to not be offended.
    The debate is about where the line is, on protecting people from slander, hate speech, hate material, incitement to violence, and racism, sexist, homophobia, bigotry and telling people to kill themselves.
    There has to be a balance between allowing freedom of speech and stopping harassment.
    I do not support total freedom of speech, or a total right not to be offended. But I support a balance between the two. My view is there should be bans of extremist material, child pornography, invasions of privacy, bullying, harassment, slander and sometimes there have to be restrictions for national security reasons or legal reasons. Such as restrictions of naming of court defendants and witnesses, and victims.
    No sensible country would allow the press to publish it’s secret military operations when it could damage the success of those missions, that might be carried out to prevent terrorist attacks, or invasions of national security.
    Subjectivity on whether a crime is done.
    Some will use the devious weasel argument that as it is difficult and a subjective decision to define racism, bullying, sexism, then therefore they should be legal.
    But my reply to this would be that no term is possible to define 100%. My answer to the the claim, that how can you ban something that cannot be defined one hundred per cent, is nothing can be defined 100%. There are different definitions for words in different languages, counties, counties, regions, dialects.’
    No crime can be defined 100%. For instance we have court trials to determine if a person is guilty. We have differing classifications of crimes in different jurisdictions, languages. There are pardons, retrials, and appeals. For example if someone is made brain dead, or takes years to die, after an attack. Is that murder, or manslaughter, or attempted murder? A different judge, jury and court may take a different judgement. So does that grey area of definition, mean no murder, theft, or rape can be defined 100%. You are using the argument that bullying, and racism should not be illegal, as there are grey areas, in defining them. Well you can use that argument for any criminal act.

    It is a fact that in quantum physics, there is an issue of where an object starts, and ends at a specific point. There is a confusion where it begins, and ends, at an atomic level, with different possible opinions.
    This can be defined as Loki’s wager, where in Norse mythology, Loki prevented his head being removed after losing a bet, by pointing out that there was debate whether his neck was part of his head. This fallacy, is also called the continuum fallacy. Another name for it is the sorites paradox, where for instance, when you take away a grain of sand from a heap of sand, when does it stop being a heap of sand. There is debate with different opinions of different people. It is subjective.
    The Accusations
    I listened to interviews with gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, where he said that there is no such thing as a right not to be offended. But as you can tell I disagree with him. He argued that the only restriction on freedom of speech should be on protecting people from being falsely accused of being child abusers.
    I agree people should not be falsely accused of being child abusers, but there are plenty of other things that are deeply offensive, that could hurt people’s feelings that people should be protected from being called. I am deeply offended when someone claims I am a lesbian. I accept there is nothing wrong with being gay, but I think there have to be restrictions on calling people gay as an insult. Because 1, it is homophobic to call people homosexual as an insult. 2. It .is deeply offensive to call a heterosexual person gay when they are not. and lastly, the biggest problem is the Homophobes who think all gays are perverts.
    In some homophobic communities people think gays and child abusers are the same thing. So when Peter Tatchell is saying that the only restriction on freedom of speech should be that no one should be falsely accused of being a child abuser. He does not realise that in some homophobic communities calling someone gay is the same as calling them a pervert, or a child abuser or a practionter of bestiality.
    Being a pervert, a child abuser and practioner of bestiality is evil. And there is nothing wrong with being gay. But that fact is most homophobic people think all gay people are perverts. so allowing them to call people gay as an insult is allowing people to be called perverts when they are not.
    I have a friend, who is not gay or a pervert. but was often called gay by homophobic bullies and they seemed to think being gay was the same as being a pervert. So Tatchell needs to realise that being called gay in a community that is homophobic or a prison is deeply dangerous for the victim of such insults. Calling people gay, as an insult is bullying and can have dangerous repercussions for the victim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *