Top posting users this week | |
Upcoming Events |
Note: Voice chat only activates when you want it to… Default chat is text.
|
| | What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? | |
| |
Author | Message |
---|
Lioncross Showdown
Posts : 623 Age : 31 Status : Team Special Treatment
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? July 29th 2016, 11:25 pm | |
| Free speech = all these politicians not getting north of $100,000 to do a university or major dinner party. |
| | | Kurt_Burton
Posts : 221 Age : 41
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 1st 2016, 7:26 am | |
| - The Machine wrote:
- Kurt_Burton wrote:
- a.) Yes he did, you may just not be aware. He tweeted them back out at her. One of his fans pointed out that he forgot to remove the Delete button when he did it. The tweets you posted are not the tweets he faked. The tweets he faked were things like her calling him a faggot. The tweets he posted, were pretty crazy, but were dated from the next day, and had the delete button still on the screen, meaning he probably used a service. While this article is left leaning and biased, screencaps of his faked tweets can be found in this article. http://fusion.net/story/327103/leslie-jones-twitter-racism/
b.)No, I am saying that Roger Ebert never responded to anyone's complaints about being called racist things, saying they deserved it for being a shitty actor, and SCREAM "EVERYONE GETS HATEMAIL!" which seems to have been traced as the beginning of the onslaught.
c.) I am pointing out one is free speech, and the other is not. Both are deplorable. But one should be allowed, and the other should not. Milo was doing the latter, not the former. If he posted a review of the movie saying "I think its stupid that there are four women, none of them are boneable, and this black chick looks like a dude" and left it at that, I would have been ok with it. Instead, he encouraged harrasment(not free speech), and put words in her mouth (Defamation of character, not free speech) Also, while I do not think there has been a ruling on faking tweets, I know that misleading editing to create inflamatory comments in video editing is illegal. You cannot do ALTV and make someone sayHitler is great, that opens me to a lawsuit and government fines.
d.) Twitter does not normally comment on bans, so we do not know what he has done previously. He has harrased other users in the past though, including telling one woman "She deserved it" and "Quit asking for it". This leads me to believe the other two were for harrasment as well. However, if he posted screenshots of his previous ones, I would be willing to say this argument may or may not be valid.
But, in the end, none of what you have shown proves this to be a free speech issue. Free Speech is to protect unpopular opinions. This is a guy getting banned because he made sexist comments and incited a twitter mob. If he was banned for saying, racist things and sexist things in general, yes for the love of god free speech. He was not though. So this argument is a bit moot. Nowhere in that entire article is it ever confirmed that Milo created fake tweets. The only time he even so much as references the fake tweets is when he said "Don't tell me some mischievous internet rascal made them up!" which, sorry pal, does not implicate him in any way (amended, he cited the tweets, doesn't mean he actually made them). I think anyone with a fully functioning brain can pretty clearly discern the tweets were faked by the hundreds and thousands of people hurling racist remarks at Leslie. Regardless, ascribing every fake tweet to Milo is ridiculous because a bunch of users did the same thing. Him posting or citing those tweets comically doesn't mean he created them. One Twitter user claiming Milo was the perpetrator of the fake tweets doesn't make it so. You could argue he spread the fake tweets by replying to them, but again another iffy argument. The comments by Milo were undoubtedly inflammatory, but relative to other Twitter users whose accounts are still active and have never been flagged or reported, they're minor offenses at best. Public figures get in spats on Twitter all the time with their followers harassing the other's, to claim he was "inciting harassment" means Twitter is now subjecting itself to a precedent where everyone who tweets negative things deserves a ban, but the problem is they only selectively distribute bans. There is an agenda here, which is exactly why it's a free speech issue rather than a simple harassment issue. There are plenty of women that identify as feminists on Twitter that have harassed other people unprovoked (will cite examples if asked), yet their accounts remain while conservative political commentators are typically banned without a second thought or have their verification check marks removed, why? Because of the agenda. It SHOULDN'T be a free speech issue, but this kind of conduct is not instabanned, and as long as bans are only distributed selectively, it's going to continue to be a free speech issue. I am not sure you twitter too much, but the fake tweets were posted as photos so that it would like he was doing a retweet. The only way I know to do that on twitter is to post it to twitter as a photo. And the only way he would have the photos is to either A.) Have made them. B.) Colluded with the person who made them, C.) Took it from the person who made them, following it independently, and then posted them. Any of those three though, is harrassment and not free speech. This is not a free speech issue any way it is cut, |
| | | Impact EAW Hall of Famer
Posts : 2487 Age : 27 Hailing From : The Upper Room Status : You broke the rules you can't break.
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 1st 2016, 7:30 am | |
| - Kurt_Burton wrote:
- The Machine wrote:
- Kurt_Burton wrote:
- a.) Yes he did, you may just not be aware. He tweeted them back out at her. One of his fans pointed out that he forgot to remove the Delete button when he did it. The tweets you posted are not the tweets he faked. The tweets he faked were things like her calling him a faggot. The tweets he posted, were pretty crazy, but were dated from the next day, and had the delete button still on the screen, meaning he probably used a service. While this article is left leaning and biased, screencaps of his faked tweets can be found in this article. http://fusion.net/story/327103/leslie-jones-twitter-racism/
b.)No, I am saying that Roger Ebert never responded to anyone's complaints about being called racist things, saying they deserved it for being a shitty actor, and SCREAM "EVERYONE GETS HATEMAIL!" which seems to have been traced as the beginning of the onslaught.
c.) I am pointing out one is free speech, and the other is not. Both are deplorable. But one should be allowed, and the other should not. Milo was doing the latter, not the former. If he posted a review of the movie saying "I think its stupid that there are four women, none of them are boneable, and this black chick looks like a dude" and left it at that, I would have been ok with it. Instead, he encouraged harrasment(not free speech), and put words in her mouth (Defamation of character, not free speech) Also, while I do not think there has been a ruling on faking tweets, I know that misleading editing to create inflamatory comments in video editing is illegal. You cannot do ALTV and make someone sayHitler is great, that opens me to a lawsuit and government fines.
d.) Twitter does not normally comment on bans, so we do not know what he has done previously. He has harrased other users in the past though, including telling one woman "She deserved it" and "Quit asking for it". This leads me to believe the other two were for harrasment as well. However, if he posted screenshots of his previous ones, I would be willing to say this argument may or may not be valid.
But, in the end, none of what you have shown proves this to be a free speech issue. Free Speech is to protect unpopular opinions. This is a guy getting banned because he made sexist comments and incited a twitter mob. If he was banned for saying, racist things and sexist things in general, yes for the love of god free speech. He was not though. So this argument is a bit moot. Nowhere in that entire article is it ever confirmed that Milo created fake tweets. The only time he even so much as references the fake tweets is when he said "Don't tell me some mischievous internet rascal made them up!" which, sorry pal, does not implicate him in any way (amended, he cited the tweets, doesn't mean he actually made them). I think anyone with a fully functioning brain can pretty clearly discern the tweets were faked by the hundreds and thousands of people hurling racist remarks at Leslie. Regardless, ascribing every fake tweet to Milo is ridiculous because a bunch of users did the same thing. Him posting or citing those tweets comically doesn't mean he created them. One Twitter user claiming Milo was the perpetrator of the fake tweets doesn't make it so. You could argue he spread the fake tweets by replying to them, but again another iffy argument. The comments by Milo were undoubtedly inflammatory, but relative to other Twitter users whose accounts are still active and have never been flagged or reported, they're minor offenses at best. Public figures get in spats on Twitter all the time with their followers harassing the other's, to claim he was "inciting harassment" means Twitter is now subjecting itself to a precedent where everyone who tweets negative things deserves a ban, but the problem is they only selectively distribute bans. There is an agenda here, which is exactly why it's a free speech issue rather than a simple harassment issue. There are plenty of women that identify as feminists on Twitter that have harassed other people unprovoked (will cite examples if asked), yet their accounts remain while conservative political commentators are typically banned without a second thought or have their verification check marks removed, why? Because of the agenda. It SHOULDN'T be a free speech issue, but this kind of conduct is not instabanned, and as long as bans are only distributed selectively, it's going to continue to be a free speech issue. I am not sure you twitter too much, but the fake tweets were posted as photos so that it would like he was doing a retweet. The only way I know to do that on twitter is to post it to twitter as a photo. And the only way he would have the photos is to either A.) Have made them. B.) Colluded with the person who made them, C.) Took it from the person who made them, following it independently, and then posted them. Any of those three though, is harrassment and not free speech.
This is not a free speech issue any way it is cut, I find it hard to believe he couldn't have just seen the tweets posted by another user and then posted on his own account. A lot of people commenting on the subject have even said they can't confirm if he created any fake tweets or just showed them to his followers as a joke. I think C is most likely and I personally consider that too harsh a standard for "harassment." Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, just think our fundamentally different beliefs make us see the topic differently. |
| | | Ryder
Posts : 152 Age : 25
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 1st 2016, 8:15 am | |
| Free speech is simply you can say what you want, and have opinions about something without the government demonizing you for not agreeing with what they want. Of course the limitation laws are fine, as it would be wrong and destructive to society to go to a park and tell a kid to fuck off, or yell "bomb" on an airplane.
The issue with Milo is sadly one that the people really can't do anything about. We can be upset about the double standard or the fact that Milo can't control his followers from what they do, but in the end Twitter is an independent company and they rightfully can do whatever they want to whoever they want on their site. I do think the active ISIS recruiters on Twitter are a bigger issue, or the cop killing enthusiasts, but our say doesn't reflect a private entity. |
| | | Impact EAW Hall of Famer
Posts : 2487 Age : 27 Hailing From : The Upper Room Status : You broke the rules you can't break.
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 1st 2016, 12:35 pm | |
| http://www.dailywire.com/news/7864/breaking-depaul-university-bans-shapiro-john-minster |
| | | Impact EAW Hall of Famer
Posts : 2487 Age : 27 Hailing From : The Upper Room Status : You broke the rules you can't break.
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 1st 2016, 12:42 pm | |
| http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/01/student-govt-leader-proclaims-all-lives-matter-days-later-she-received-this-letter-from-the-university/ More language-policing bullshit |
| | | Kurt_Burton
Posts : 221 Age : 41
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 1st 2016, 3:50 pm | |
| It's not just conservatives getting protests and bans, though they are getting a disproportional amount on college campuses. Biden and Albright got major heat against them from conservative groups recently. |
| | | J-Dynasty 2? Showdown
Posts : 2747 Age : 31 Hailing From : Scarborough Ontario Status : I'm out, for now. I imagine my return, but if not, it was good times overall. Much love. J.
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? August 2nd 2016, 12:30 am | |
| Banning Ben Shapiro has NO excuse, no educational campus can be taken seriously if it does this. Flat out disgusting, and an insult to us of the left wing. Milo is somewhat a troll or a type of clear provoker who deals with the alt right and other disgusting groups-it can still be argued he shouldn't be banned, but I personally am not bothered by it-, while Ben Shapiro is simply someone with different ideas and should be allowed to have his content put in the battle of ideas. |
| | | Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? | |
| |
| | | | What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be? | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |