On social media websites like Twitter, Facebook, or even Youtube where conservative political commentators like Milo Yiannopolous have arguably been unjustly attacked and permanently suspended from Twitter for "inclining hatred toward other users," or Youtube videos that mention Islam in a negative, critical light being taken down while other religions are constantly attacked with no punishment, let alone a similar one, being given for it? 

Moreover, do you agree with the logic espoused by some that "free speech" simply means you can't get arrested for what you say, and not that you can't be banned from a particular platform (like Twitter) to express your thoughts?

Discuss.

To me Freedom of speech means you shouldn't do something to someone either for the views they have, or the views they speak, or the views they write.

It means to be that although I don't agree with what someone has to say, I'd fight to the death to defend their right to say it.

Free speech = Every subject. Every words you could use. Every form of media you can use.

Free Speech IMO is actually the right to let our thoughts out or something like that. As long as we don't use violence, bad words, and profanity I think it should be just fine.

Then again, not everyone can really apply that definition, we are just not perfect.

We should be able to say whatever we want whenever we want without any consequences whatsoever.

It doesn't even mean you can't get arrested for what you say.  It means you can feel free to say what you'd like without worrying about any form of capital punishment.  If you say something that you know others wont agree with, they have the right to verbally retaliate or simply shut you out of their business, airwaves, or lives.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean speech without consequences.  You can be fired, fined, sued, or arrested for what you say if it's defaming, disagreeable, or is meant to insight something violent or illegal.

Free speech is the freedom to espouse any idea that is not directly harmful (I.E.  criticizing a religion may hurt feelings, but will not lead to harm.  Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater will cause people harm and is not free speech)

Free speech is a right granted by the government.  It does not protect from retaliation for said speech (i.e.  "Blacks are inferior!"  "You're a racist"  "You can't critisize me free speech!  WOOO!), or protect you from privately held companies removing a platform.  You can go on PBS or NPR, but facebook cannot be forced to provide a platform for anything.

Nobi wrote:

Free Speech IMO is actually the right to let our thoughts out or something like that. As long as we don't use violence, bad words, and profanity I think it should be just fine.

Then again, not everyone can really apply that definition, we are just not perfect.

Fuck that.

Honestly, is there such thing as free speech?  In a perfect world there is, but in our world, nah.  It's a concept, not reality.

I'd argue that in a perfect world there is no free speech.  Perfection means no conflict, and an absence of conflict only exists when there's an absence of individual opinion.  Then the argument could be made that a world without free speech is imperfect, thus creating a paradox that questions the existence of society as a hive mind or if we in fact all have free will at all.

The fact that I can go outside and not get shot lawfully for the God I choose to believe in (or not at all, depending on your disposition), or get mowed down by a firing squad for what political button I wear or what book I carry on my person is a pretty amazing thing for humanity to accomplish as bleak as it might sound.  

Or maybe I've read too much Orwell, but it's probably more likely that I've read the newspaper as well and have just chosen to point out the correlations between the two.

Plain and simple, free speech only exists if everyone has it.  If every one has it, then everyone has the right to tell you to shut the fuck up and sit down if they disagree with you.  And do you know why? because they have free speech also.  Free speech doesn't mean your word is law, or that you wont get socked in the face for calling someone's wife fat.  Free speech means you can protest a soldier's funeral in the name of 'gawd' without the gestapo showing up and taking you off to a camp.  It doesn't mean the rest of America has to like you for it though.

I also think freedom of speech means you should express it in tl;dr form.

Say what you want...just don't be surprised when you get your ass beat for it.

What it DOES mean: You can say whatever you want, but it doesn't mean there aren't consequences. In the same vein, wear whatever you want, style yourself however you feel comfortable, it doesn't exempt you from others' criticism and it doesn't mean you can't be punished in schooling establishments where there are dress codes in place, etc. Twitter, Facebook, and so on are not required to give you a platform to express yourself.

What I WANT it to mean: That as long as you aren't physically harming anyone or disturbing the peace (which I understand is a little ambiguous) you should be able to say anything you want wherever you want without consequence. You should be able to speak freely on Twitter, Facebook, and all other social networking websites without being punished. I don't feel society's speech rules should be constructed with the irrational feelings of its people at the forefront of consideration. It creates too much of a divide and doesn't resolve anything. Not to mention I noticed nobody is really addressing the elephant in the room, the fact that conservative commentators are subject to censoring, deleted posts, and banned accounts while liberal political commentators and radical muslims who post about future bombings and murderous ambitions are free to post to their heart's content regardless of what they say and no matter how many times they're reported. There's a divide most liberals won't acknowledge because they're the beneficiaries of privileged treatment in regards to speech and opinion on such websites.

Well, part of the not taking down ISIS posts is because the NSA asked them to leave them up. It helps them to track. As far as liberals, I have personally seen some anti-christian posts get taken down.

IDK what you mean by agree or not about free speech, it's not something to agree with or not. Freedom of speech by government and law sense is whatever the government and law says. As for the general sense of the term free speech it would mean free speech, therefore completely free to say anything.

As for Milo, tbh IDC about him getting banned, he's a pretty bad addition, but hey that's just me.

We can criticize twitter and what not, but even EAW has limits, though ours isn't politically slanted or biased like those sites. I wouldn't say EAW has complete free speech in the general sense, though of course we do government wise because we can't enforce government rule anyways. I'm not a fan of how they pretend like they're not biased, and I'm not a fan of the general double standards the PC police have. Oddly, despite being left wing, and I use to be a vp who stood up for people in EAW and stopped certain bad things in the old days-and I still have those values, I wouldn't allow for people to harass members or bully them extremely-, I just don't like the insanity of the SJW culture. IDK  how someone like me who is quite into proper tact and an enforcer of rules can look at the SJW culture and be so disgusted by the pussies and general weakness crybaby nature of these people who not only are thin skinned, but find offense where no offended is even intended. or try to force so much bullshit down people's throat.

Whenever a person declares that he or she deserves "freedom of speech", they fall under this misled conclusion that whatever they say is deemed to be correct and truthful, with no invalidity whatsoever. It is ridiculously untrue. Let's break this down: ....

Freedom - the authority to speak, act and believe without having to be restrained from an outside force.

Speech - the ability to talk or express emotions through any form of communication.

If we can combine those two, freedom of speech: the authority to talk or express emotion without having to be restrained. However, one's views can always be rendered as a step beyond the borderline. As long as you are not trying to enforce your beliefs and views onto another person,. or harming them in order to come to acceptance with what you have to say, then so be it, you are simply expressing what is running up and down in your mind. We all have a hidden speaker within ourselves that would like to tell a person, a group of people, a class, a school, a community, a city, a nation-----you get the gist. However, if it falls under the direction of social media like Facebook, Twitter, etc, then you are bound to be judge whether your views are morally right or wrong. That is just how this modern day age of the world is. With all the terror going on in the world, people are now thinking that their vision of how to renovate the world and implant new changes is and will be the only way to fix the problem---without having to hear anyone's side of the story. Everyone wants to have their message be sent across so that their can be an audience that is truly enticed and understands the point that they are trying to get across, but don't try to implement force and other obscene methods in order to lure people in a free speech that can be rendered as "weak or opposing".

Saying you deserve freedom of speech doesn't mean you think you're correct or incorrect, what in the world?

OK, so I just researched Milo, because I had not heard about this until this thread.  This is not a free speech issue.  This is a targeted personal attack using hate speech, and if the one about Leslie Jones being "an ape" is actually one of the milder ones as suggested, then yeah, he deserves to be banned.

It's the difference between the Westboro baptist church and a gay basher.  I hate both mind you, but one is positing a philosophical idea stating that gays are evil and such, the other is actively trying to cause harm through words. And so Westboro Baptist is free speech, Milo Y is a harrasser with no protection.  And, as a matter of fact, could be guilty of a crime in some districts.

Milo didn't actually make any racist remarks. He called Leslie Jones ugly, fat, illiterate, which, yes, is inflammatory, insensitive, etc, but in my opinion are more of your garden-variety bitchy comments than something punishable by permanent ban. This was also NOT the reason he was banned from Twitter. They claimed he was being banned for "inciting targeted of abuse of individuals" which is a stretch of the imagination at best unless you believe he can language police and control the actions of hundreds and thousands of users.

And then there's this...



It's fair to dislike the guy, but it seems pretty apparent there's an unacknowledged double standard at play here. I feel like it sets an ugly precedent to essentially ban a user for calling another user fat, especially when considering that virtually everyone has used social media as a platform to insult someone at one point or another. It begs the question, is everyone else who says something mildly derogatory going to be banned, too? This is exactly what I mean when I say certain political commentators are favored because their agenda aligns with the platform they're using whereas others who deviate are handcuffed. The sheer irony coming from a party that preaches tolerance and lampoons its opponents for celebrating "divisive rhetoric," it's staggering.

Sorry, I saw the screen caps.  He created fake tweets painting her to be homophobic.  He failed to edit out the delete button, so we know it was not screencapped from her actual feed.  He was being incredibly sexist, calling her a teenage boy, being rejected by a black man, etc.  

Also, this would be a different story if this was a first time thing with Milo.  It isn't.  

Leslie's are different, because again, they are not targeted harrasment, or hate speech.  She is not getting in your grill about you being white.  She refers to no one person.  He targeted her.  He also in a tweet insulting her work, he pretty much summoned his followers down on her.

See this is the difference between Westboro Baptist church saying "God Hates Fags!" and "Fags are evil"  and someone walking up to the skinny guy at the bar, calling him a fag and saying he should die for being gay.  One is an idea, that's free speech, the other is harassment and assault, and in some ways menacing.

Also, faking the tweets to make her appear to have said "kill all the fags" and such, is defamation of character.

Kurt_Burton wrote:

Sorry, I saw the screen caps.  He created fake tweets painting her to be homophobic.  He failed to edit out the delete button, so we know it was not screencapped from her actual feed.  He was being incredibly sexist, calling her a teenage boy, being rejected by a black man, etc.  

Also, this would be a different story if this was a first time thing with Milo.  It isn't.  

Leslie's are different, because again, they are not targeted harrasment, or hate speech.  She is not getting in your grill about you being white.  She refers to no one person.  He targeted her.  He also in a tweet insulting her work, he pretty much summoned his followers down on her.

See this is the difference between Westboro Baptist church saying "God Hates Fags!" and "Fags are evil"  and someone walking up to the skinny guy at the bar, calling him a fag and saying he should die for being gay.  One is an idea, that's free speech, the other is harassment and assault, and in some ways menacing.

Also, faking the tweets to make her appear to have said "kill all the fags" and such, is defamation of character.

a) He did not create fake tweets. While there was an influx of fake tweets purportedly by Leslie Jones, none of the above tweets are fake. If you don't believe me, http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitter-history/ ... Read this article and you'll immediately notice the tweets embedded are from Leslie's legitimate, verified Twitter account. I think it would be pretty astounding to come away from reading her past tweets not thinking she is at least somewhat prejudiced. Moreover, none of those fake tweets painting her out as hateful or racist were created by Milo. More than likely, they were made by one of the many hundreds upon thousands of egg avatar people trolling her. This is tantamount to throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks just to justify Milo's unwarranted ban.

b) Uh, pardon? Not exactly sure what you're saying here, is he not allowed to critique a movie? I don't see any of the other hundreds of professional movie critics, or millions of armchair critics like you and me, having a gag order forced upon them simply because they have an opinion. If every Twitter user was banned for calling another user fat, ugly, or some other childish insult, I suspect literally millions of the website's users would be banned. The bottom line here is that you cannot pick and choose the content you censor, delete, or the users you suspend, and this goes for other social networking websites like Facebook and Youtube who selectively delete posts denouncing Islam but conspicuously opt to retain posts denouncing Christianity. Personally, I think both kinds of posts are permissible and within people's rights and see no reason for banning or deleting anything; just pointing out a double standard that undeniably exists.

c) Why are you splitting hairs talking about the difference between targeted harassment and isolated prejudice, as if one is more acceptable than the other? Is it more acceptable to make racist remarks in the confines of your own home just because nobody is around to hear it? There are probably not many people who would argue it is, but personally I think it's just as toxic and crass to make such remarks privately as it is publicly. Even if this was a valid argument, which it isn't, Leslie Jones is not some random Twitter user whose tweets nobody will see. She is a celebrity, which inherently increases her public exposure tenfold. Those tweets were obviously going to attract attention, to deny otherwise or insist that it's less harmful is somewhat willfully ignorant because she is in no way anonymous. Everyone sees it.

d) The argument that Milo is a repeat offender cannot be made because he was banned for a reason unrelated to his previous (lifted) banning. The fact that it was not upheld strongly suggests he was wrongfully faulted, making any previous offenses irrelevant. Milo being banned is what happens when emotion becomes more important than fact. Even if you dislike or hate him, what he said didn't merit a ban.

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.

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.

Furthermore, and of foremost importance, Milo did not actually direct anyone to do or say anything to Leslie Jones. You could say he fed her to the wolves, but she was already receiving pretty significant criticism by people who didn't like the new Ghostbusters film beforehand. He never said "go get her" or anything of the such, it's not like he made some abusive hashtag like #CutForBieber telling people what to do. People acted of their own will, Milo didn't recommend abusive language toward Leslie, saying he "incited it" is pure opinion, almost like saying a celebrity incited a user to reply to one of their tweets with "FUCK ME DADDY" by posting a photo of themselves. Not their responsibility what other people say or do, which is why being banned for "inciting hate speech" holds no weight. It's not something you can prove. The best you can do is claim he led by example, which doesn't merit a ban.

TRUE free speech is, or in my opinion should be, the ability to say anything on any platform as long as it doesn't pose a threat towards another person's physical or financial well-being. This is not to say, if you call someone a fat bitch and they get a aneurysm and die that it's your fault, but rather as long as you aren't threatening their life or using your free speech to urge behavior that would cause damage to someone's property. (For example, "I'm going to shoot you in the face" or "someone, please go to -address- and shoot __ in the face".) 

Also, under my idea of free speech, you equally should be allowed to say whatever you want without the threat of physical or financial harm. However you are more than subject to any sort of backlash or ridicule that comes your way, because the public has the freedom to express their unadulterated feeling towards your opinion, so long as it poses no threat to your well-being.

There should also be no repercussion in the workplace. In my view, nothing you say online should mean anything to your employer unless you're threatening harm or disruption in the workplace. Everything else is meaningless, and workplace should go down to if you are doing your job well or not.

Free speech also means you deserve the right to protecting yourself from another person's speech or harassment, especially when the harassment comes as a result of your own expressed thought. If someone is standing outside your house calling you names, you don't need to be subject to that, and law enforcement should make them go away. To me though, online harassment means absolutely nothing because you can remove yourself online. The only problem I can ever have with online harassment is if it interferes with your real life, in the sense that it's stopping you from getting a job, or creating other real life repercussions. But 9 times out of 10, online harassment can be ended by going offline. 

 Leslie Jones, for instance, should have blocked her trolls or quit Twitter entirely and Twitter should have done nothing more about that. Even though she was subject to harassment and verbal abuse by trolls, Twitter should have taken no action unless trolls were making direct threats TO her, then Twitter should have banned them, not Milo.

What people -- especially liberals these days need to understand is that your words are not responsible for another person's actions. It doesn't matter what someone says, unless they threaten someone's well being directly by making a specific, direct threat, there should be no issue.

That is free speech #THATSGOD