Katie Hopkins suspended from Twitter

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ric, 30 Jan 2020.

  1. nimrod

    nimrod

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2006
    Messages:
    15,376
    Location:
    Down Under
    Bet he wouldn't really.
     
  2. nimrod

    nimrod

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2006
    Messages:
    15,376
    Location:
    Down Under
    I know people who spend all day doing that, it's pure idleness and sloth.
     
  3. aguero93:20

    aguero93:20

    Joined:
    21 Oct 2013
    Messages:
    74,610
    Location:
    Pep Out
    Team supported:
    Pep Out
    Well he wouldn't now, he's dead.
     

    ADVERTISEMENT

  4. BJL_City

    BJL_City

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2016
    Messages:
    10,985
    Location:
    GDPR
    grave words.
     
  5. BlueHammer85

    BlueHammer85

    Joined:
    13 Oct 2010
    Messages:
    18,783
    Can’t stand people that try and dictate what the likes of ‘twitter/Facebook etc should be doing - they’re social media sites and not compulsory and there’s hundreds of other platforms to spout shite - if Twitter or Facebook want to ban someone because they’re a twat then so they should, it’s their website and they can do as they please.
     
  6. nimrod

    nimrod

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2006
    Messages:
    15,376
    Location:
    Down Under
    RIP
     
  7. che_don_john

    che_don_john

    Joined:
    7 Nov 2011
    Messages:
    681
    Spot on. There is not a single freedom or right that doesn't come with some restriction, condition or caveat, and for a good and simple reason; an absolute right/freedom inevitably infringes upon the rights and freedoms of someone else. This was properly understood and sorted out over 300 years ago by Social Contract theorists.

    For example, an absolute freedom to go around hitting people would infringe upon other people's right to be free from physical harm. That's why we have laws against it. An absolute right to take ownership of anything we want would infringe upon other people's right to own things. That's why we have property laws to govern such rights.

    The same goes for speech; if we had an absolute freedom/right to say whatever we wanted then we would risk causing harm to others in some way (directly or indirectly). And I'm not talking about criticising beliefs or opinions here; that's fair game. The rule is simple - no 'ad hominem'. Play the ball and not the man, basically, and don't use speech to deliberately inflict physical or mental harm. I suspect that Hopkins is probably smart enough to grasp that concept, but decides to ignore it anyway for money/retweets.
     
    Alex-MCFC and ZenHalfTimeCrock like this.
  8. nimrod

    nimrod

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2006
    Messages:
    15,376
    Location:
    Down Under
    Looks like she's back now.
     
  9. aguero93:20

    aguero93:20

    Joined:
    21 Oct 2013
    Messages:
    74,610
    Location:
    Pep Out
    Team supported:
    Pep Out
    Shame. I was hoping she'd be stuck for something to do without Twitter and would decide to try playing with the traffic on the motorway.
     

Share This Page