Not arguing for absolute freedom of speech. I'm saying that the idea this "shouldn't be allowed" is an affront to freedom of speech. This really is not a difficult concept. Do you think that this should be banned? Seriously?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
United thread 2018/19
- Thread starter KentBlue
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Not arguing for absolute freedom of speech. I'm saying that the idea this "shouldn't be allowed" is an affront to freedom of speech. This really is not a difficult concept. Do you think that this should be banned? Seriously?
I'm not sure he said "City". In the transcript I read (and I forget where) he said the team whose name I can't even mention. Rather like Ferdinand, who said, "Congratulations to the other team", he is a prick.
On the republik mancunia or what ever rag site it is has the written transcript and it does say City but agree he's a prick like the rest of them.
Not arguing for absolute freedom of speech
Ain't that a contradiction in terms?
Ain't that a contradiction in terms?
Not really. The famous example is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. There always has to be some limitation on it, I'm just amazed that some apparently want it on a piss poor inappropriate joke, that's all.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,362
It depends what they're asking for. Personally, I don't see being banned from Twitter an infringement on your right to free speech any more than being banned from this forum is. There is a rule in Twitter's terms of service that bans wishing harm on an individual (e.g. I hope you get hit by a car), but it's fairly easily arguable that this account wasn't genuinely wishing harm on the Glazers, as it was clearly an ill-advised joke. I don't know how Twitter implements it in reality when it comes to jokes vs. genuine comments, and how they could judge the difference without everyone being able to claim that they were joking every time they break the rules.Not really. The famous example is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. There always has to be some limitation on it, I'm just amazed that some apparently want it on a piss poor inappropriate joke, that's all.
M
M
mat
Guest
It depends what they're asking for. Personally, I don't see being banned from Twitter an infringement on your right to free speech any more than being banned from this forum is. There is a rule in Twitter's terms of service that bans wishing harm on an individual (e.g. I hope you get hit by a car), but it's fairly easily arguable that this account wasn't genuinely wishing harm on the Glazers, as it was clearly an ill-advised joke. I don't know how Twitter implements it in reality when it comes to jokes vs. genuine comments, and how they could judge the difference without everyone being able to claim that they were joking every time they break the rules.
Wasn't about being banned from Twitter - it was about banning such things full stop.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,362
Yeah that's stupid. Half of the world would be in trouble. Every time a famous person dies there are sick jokes going round almost instantly.Wasn't about being banned from Twitter - it was about banning such things full stop.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
Fookinell. Only one of them looks like a footballer.
Not really. The famous example is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. There always has to be some limitation on it, I'm just amazed that some apparently want it on a piss poor inappropriate joke, that's all.
I referring to free speech, you're either for or against. Creating a halfway house just add ambiguity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.