EAW | Season 11
EAW is all around the best form of e-federation on the web. We have intricate stories/scripts, amazing graphics, talented writers and artists, a booming community, unrivaled productivity, a near decade of prestige and we've been a model of consistency with no signs of slowing down. This may be a big pond, but if you're consistent and active on the website you will find yourself greatly enjoying your time here. We have all different people from different backgrounds who interact daily, and while we may seem like a bustling big city, at the end of the day we're truly a community. Get assigned to one of the 3 brands today!




The Land of Elite
 
HomeMain SitePortalFAQSearchUsergroupsRegisterLog in
DIA DEL DIABLO COMES YOUR JULY 29TH, 2017 || NEO: UPRISING COMES YOUR WAY SOON || SITE UPDATES COMING AFTER TRE'S VACATION ||
Top posting users this week
Ryan Wilson
 
Astraea Jordan
 
Moongoose McQueen
 
Cameron Ella Ava
 
TLA
 
坂崎ハルナ
 
Finnegan Wakefield
 
The Trickster Azrael
 
Keelan Cetinich
 
Jamie O'Hara
 
Latest topics
» What if EAW was in Marvel or DC?
by Jacob Senn Today at 2:40 am

» EAW Feed Handles
by The Trickster Azrael Today at 2:01 am

» HAPPY BIRTHDAY TRE
by Nathan Fiora Today at 1:38 am

» The Compliment Game
by Anthony Leonhart Today at 1:19 am

» #何でも聞いて (AMA Part 2)
by 坂崎ハルナ Today at 12:35 am

» What song are you listening to right now?
by 坂崎ハルナ Today at 12:12 am

Upcoming Events

Note: Voice chat only activates when you want it to… Default chat is text.

Share | 
 

 What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Lioncross
Showdown
Showdown
avatar

Posts : 590
Age : 24
Status : Team Special Treatment

PostSubject: 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.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kurt_Burton

avatar

Posts : 221
Age : 34

PostSubject: 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,



Credit to Rhyse for the awesome banner!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Y2Impact
EAW Hall of Famer
EAW Hall of Famer
avatar

Posts : 2348
Age : 20
Hailing From : The Upper Room

PostSubject: 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.


Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Ryder

avatar

Posts : 153
Age : 18

PostSubject: 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.




BEST POLYGAMY IN THE BUSINESS




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Y2Impact
EAW Hall of Famer
EAW Hall of Famer
avatar

Posts : 2348
Age : 20
Hailing From : The Upper Room

PostSubject: 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


:gotya:


Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Y2Impact
EAW Hall of Famer
EAW Hall of Famer
avatar

Posts : 2348
Age : 20
Hailing From : The Upper Room

PostSubject: 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

:punk:


Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Kurt_Burton

avatar

Posts : 221
Age : 34

PostSubject: 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.



Credit to Rhyse for the awesome banner!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tiberius IV
Showdown
Showdown
avatar

Posts : 2688
Age : 25
Hailing From : Scarborough Ontario
Status : Insert "I'm a hustling" type phrase, but yeah guess progressing through life now.

PostSubject: 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.



Back to top Go down
View user profile
 

What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

 Similar topics

-
» What is your personal definition of "free speech" and opinion of what its application should be?
» 1 8" Pioneer bass tube. Free today only.
» Free parking for Sat golfers.. where?
» Nabokov released by SKA contract, now a free agent
» coolant...OAT, green, red, silicate free?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
EAW | Season 11 :: Interact :: General Discussion-