Katie Hopkins suspended from Twitter

[GortonBlue62]

Agree but we have laws about racism mate and she is a fucking racist.

She should have no platform for that crap.

Then you clearly don't agree.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" George Orwell.

Twitter are a privately owned corporation, you sign up to their rules to be part of their club.

If you were part of a private golf club, you couldn't abuse other members of the club and expect to be allowed to stay because of "muh free speech"

 

[blueinsa]

Then you clearly don't agree.

Not with hate speech no as its against the law, rightly so.

That doesnt mean I'm not for free speech, I am so long as it is within the law.

 

[Blue Hefner]

I’ve just seen a clip for her ‘acceptance speech’ at the **** award’s. I won’t post it but needless to say it’s fucking vile

 

[GortonBlue62]

Twitter are a privately owned corporation, you sign up to their rules to be part of their club.

If you were part of a private golf club, you couldn't abuse other members of the club and expect to be allowed to stay because of "muh free speech"

Twitter has to make a profit and like all commercial companies has to exist to do that. If the ignorant baying herd demand that certain thoughts cannot be expressed then Twitter has to comply.

Even in the United States where the first amendment protects freedom of speech, it is still under attack.

 

[blueinsa]

I’ve just seen a clip for her ‘acceptance speech’ at the **** award’s. I won’t post it but needless to say it’s fucking vile

Best way.

She wants her shit shared, its what she thrives on.

Starve her of it.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

If the ignorant baying herd demand that certain thoughts cannot be expressed then Twitter has to comply.

Even in the United States where the first amendment protects freedom of speech, it is still under attack.

Nope. Twitter has a code of conduct much like bluemoon does, if you don't follow that code of conduct you have no right to access that platform

Try posting hate speech on bluemoon and see how you get on

 

[GortonBlue62]

Nope. Twitter has a code of conduct much like bluemoon does, if you don't follow that code of conduct you have no right to access that platform

Try posting hate speech on bluemoon and see how you get on

You don't need to post hate speech on Bluemoon to get banned you just need to post something @Ric doesn't agree with. That's fine, it's his baby and he can be as illiberal as he chooses.

Twitter, unlike a private golf club is influenced by society in general and has to play by the rules.

Too many group thinkers have forgotten that all progress depends on the freedom to speak our mind.

We need to defend 'freedom for the thought we hate'.

 

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

Too many group thinkers have forgotten that all progress depends on the freedom to speak our mind.

She does though, just not on Twitter.

It's also twitter's freedom to set boundaries on what they deem acceptable on their platform.

 

[Phil1]

You don't need to post hate speech on Bluemoon to get banned you just need to post something @Ric doesn't agree with. That's fine, it's his baby and he can be as illiberal as he chooses.

Twitter, unlike a private golf club is influenced by society in general and has to play by the rules.

Too many group thinkers have forgotten that all progress depends on the freedom to speak our mind.

We need to defend 'freedom for the thought we hate'.

When speaking your mind equates to hate, spite and stirring tension amongst people then you don’t deserve that right anymore.

 

[mexico1970]

When speaking your mind equates to hate, spite and stirring tension amongst people then you don’t deserve that right anymore.

That's the Labour front bench pretty much done for then. Hopkins is beyond the pale but for that Riley woman to have a sit down talk and suggest that people she doesn't agree with get banned is a bit rich. I prefer to see my enemy in full sight and allow the public to decide.

 

[Phil1]

That's the Labour front bench pretty much done for then. Hopkins is beyond the pale but for that Riley woman to have a sit down talk and suggest that people she doesn't agree with get banned is a bit rich. I prefer to see my enemy in full sight and allow the public to decide.

Not sure if it just applies to labour but that’s by the by.
The rational amongst the public have long since decided that Hopkins is a ****, nice to see something finally being done.

 

[mexico1970]

Not sure if it just applies to labour but that’s by the by.
The rational amongst the public have long since decided that Hopkins is a ****, nice to see something finally being done.

I agree that she needs a rocket up her arse that's a given she's vile. But for a z list sleb to sit down and take credit for getting someone banned is something we all should be worried about.

 

[GortonBlue62]

When speaking your mind equates to hate, spite and stirring tension amongst people then you don’t deserve that right anymore.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Who decides then? I don't trust you to decide what I can and can't say. How about we just defend one of our most precious rights and allow people to speak freely? That might mean that people will hear things they don't agree with but they are free to counter with arguments.

You can't revoke a right. Your are confusing rights and privileges (which can be revoked as they were assigned - usually by a higher authority).

 

[GortonBlue62]

Not sure if it just applies to labour but that’s by the by.
The rational amongst the public have long since decided that Hopkins is a ****, nice to see something finally being done.

Let's hope you never inadvertently say something that Rachel Riley disagrees with.

 

[Phil1]

I agree that she needs a rocket up her arse that's a given she's vile. But for a z list sleb to sit down and take credit for getting someone banned is something we all should be worried about.

I didn’t even know who she was. Not seen countdown since Richard Whitely was presenter.

 

[mexico1970]

I didn’t even know who she was. Not seen countdown since Richard Whitely

She's a very attractive woman and I watch countdown mainly because of her bud ;)

 

[Phil1]

Spoken like a true liberal.

Who decides then? I don't trust you to decide what I can and can't say. How about we just defend one of our most precious rights and allow people to speak freely? That might mean that people will hear things they don't agree with but they are free to counter with arguments.

You can't revoke a right. Your are confusing rights and privileges (which can be revoked as they were assigned - usually by a higher authority).

I have a simple rule of thumb.
Don’t be a **** and call out a **** when you see/hear them.
Probably why I respond to your posts.

 

[Ric]

You don't need to post hate speech on Bluemoon to get banned you just need to post something @Ric doesn't agree with.

That's not really true. You're still here, after all.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Spoken like a true liberal.

Who decides then? I don't trust you to decide what I can and can't say. How about we just defend one of our most precious rights and allow people to speak freely? That might mean that people will hear things they don't agree with but they are free to counter with arguments.

You can't revoke a right. Your are confusing rights and privileges (which can be revoked as they were assigned - usually by a higher authority).

No rights have been revoked for Hopkins that she hasn't agreed to cede to someone else's judgement when signing up to twitter.

It's not an inalienable right when it's on a company's own website; it's only a right as far as the company terms of use allow it; if those terms, which have been signed up to, grant them the right to ban an account, then the account user has agreed voluntarily to give up that right.

If someone wants free use, they can set up up their own website and do it there.