Twitter suspends American far-right activists' accounts, cracks down on hate speech

[Endus]

It didn't happen every time =/= "that didn't happen"

And "I didn't see it happen" =/= it didn't happen

You said it didn't happen... then said it didn't happen EVERY time. That's irrelevant. It happened. A LOT more than you think. It happened frequently. But living in your liberal world where everyone echoes everyone else, you don't see it. We did. On a very regular basis.

YOU are the one who said, and I quote;

"Because it happened. Repeatedly. To anyone on the right who DARED to say they didn't like Obama."

You said it happened, repeatedly, to anyone who said they "didn't like Obama". That means every single person who stated that was attacked like this repeatedly.

That is what never happened. Don't blast me for pointing out that you were being hyperbolic.

- - - Updated - - -

writing to assassinate anyone is against the law that isn't hurt feelings that is breaking the law

Really? Cite the law. I'm pretty sure you'll find that it doesn't actually apply. There'll be clauses about it needing to be a "credible threat" or the like.

[Tradewind]

Yeah. This didn't happen. That's the simple answer.

site:twitter.com "I don't like obama" "racist"

Give it a whirl. Or just stop lying. Pick one, or both....preferably both.

[PC2]

It explicitly is.

Maybe you meant "at the felony level", or something. It's part of the criminal code, not the civil code. It's the same level of offense as flashing people.

I never said that harassment was a civil violation. I said the harassment you mentioned is not criminal.

Unless you've got precedent, this isn't an argument.

You're the one making the claim that you dont need any physical threat, the onus is on you to prove the legitimacy of your claim.

[Endus]

site:twitter.com "I don't like obama" "racist"

Give it a whirl. Or just stop lying. Pick one, or both....preferably both.

Again, the claim was that it happened to every single person who ever uttered the phrase. That's what I contested. Not that it ever happened to some few people, at some times.

[perasite]

YOU are the one who said, and I quote;

"Because it happened. Repeatedly. To anyone on the right who DARED to say they didn't like Obama."

You said it happened, repeatedly, to anyone who said they "didn't like Obama". That means every single person who stated that was attacked like this repeatedly.

That is what never happened. Don't blast me for pointing out that you were being hyperbolic.

- - - Updated - - -



Really? Cite the law. I'm pretty sure you'll find that it doesn't actually apply. There'll be clauses about it needing to be a "credible threat" or the like.

It happened. Repeatedly..... where exactly did I say it happened EVERY time? I said it happened repeatedly. Very specifically. You even quoted it and then said something completely different from your quote!?!?!?

Another tactic of the left. Bog every argument down in minutia and nonsense so that you can pretend that what actually is happening does not in fact happen, thus allowing you to continue being intolerant while demanding tolerance.

[Tradewind]

Again, the claim was that it happened to every single person who ever uttered the phrase. That's what I contested. Not that it ever happened to some few people, at some times.

Not really, you gave some throwaway useless response claiming that it didn't happen. Maybe you should be a bit more specific when you just want to brush aside what other people are saying.

[therayeffect]

Really? Cite the law. I'm pretty sure you'll find that it doesn't actually apply. There'll be clauses about it needing to be a "credible threat" or the like.

Here's the Law: Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat..._United_States

[Fencers]

Freedom of speech, but not for those I dislike.

Companies don't have an obligation to freedom of speech. Just the government.

[JadedTauren]

Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you can scream it hatefully from the middle of your local grocer without him kicking you out.

[Tradewind]

Because neo-Nazis are anti-heroes now? Lol. And btw, alt left accounts that spout threats or hate speech also get banned. There's just fewer of them and they're less organized than the alt right.

Proof of this?

Did Leslie Jones ever manage to get banned?

Oh...nope.

[Arenis]

Here's the Law: Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat..._United_States

a threat was knowingly made if the maker comprehended the meaning of the words uttered by him. It was willingly made, if in addition to comprehending the meaning of his words, the maker voluntarily and intentionally uttered them as a declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution

A twitter post with some dumb smileys and the likes isn't really a 'declaration' or 'determination to carry them into execution' .....

[Kraenen]

Meh, just pushing them further into extremism and polarization. Political views tend to get more extreme when they're in isolation of others.

[Venant]

It's fairly consistent, when you add in the few anti-discrimination policies. If you divorce the sister of the local grocery store owner, and he bans you from the store and you have to drive miles out of your way to a competitor, tough nuts, that's his choice.

At no level does this spring to "corporations have the power to choose who lives and who dies", which is what you'd actually tried to claim.

The foundation of this argument is the non-aggression principle, which states that the freedom of a person or business should not be infringed upon by threat of force.

Anti-discrimination laws imply a governmental initiation of force, which is inconsistent with the ideology you are asserting.

Therefore:
Bakeries should not have to bake cakes for anyone they don't want to
Diners should not be forced to serve anyone they don't want to
Buses should not be forced to give rides to anyone they don't want to
All of the businesses cited are allowed to discriminate based upon any criteria they choose, and it is the market that will determine whether these policies work out.

[PC2]

Companies don't have an obligation to freedom of speech. Just the government.

So the government or Twitter can arrest Twitter users for speech? Otherwise free speech applies to both.

[Mohangz]

Don't see the problem twitter is a private company, if people care that much an alternative will rise out of demand, Its crazy really though liberals use to actually be liberals now their authoritarians and the saddest part is they don't even realize it

[unfilteredJW]

Don't see the problem twitter is a private company, if people care that much an alternative will rise out of demand, Its crazy really though liberals use to actually be liberals now their authoritarians and the saddest part is they don't even realize it

Horseshoe Theory.

Check it out.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

It absolutely is a feeling. If youw ant to call it a "thought" go for it. Whatever label you put on it doesn't matter. They aren't some disenfranchised community. They say things that an entity who provides a platform for people to say things doesn't want on their platform. Thems the breaks.

Society losing, at least we have Trump...I appreciate the drama, but don't start selling tickets anytime soon. You need more practice.

We have Trump, so whether they want it or not, they'll get their ideas challenged. Perhaps if not on Twitter, it will be in real life.

But then again, because they can don't mean they should. In fact, they shouldn't. They have ethical responsibilities to uphold.

And, once again, it's their right not to uphold them. But we've seen what it does to their shares, which have plummeted the past year and will continue to do so.

[Vyxn]

Really? Cite the law. I'm pretty sure you'll find that it doesn't actually apply. There'll be clauses about it needing to be a "credible threat" or the like.

Criminal Threats
Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel. In some situations, speech can even constitute a crime, such as in the case of criminal threats. A criminal threat, sometimes known as the terrorist threat, malicious harassment, or by other terms, occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else.

Communication
A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...l-threats.htm#

If you tweet jokes about killing Trump, the Secret Service will find you
Though a Secret Service spokesperson declined to comment*on specific threats against Trump or any other candidate,*he cited two laws outlining the duties of the agency*and how it handles threats against candidates.*------
Under one of those laws, anyone who "knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm" upon a candidate can expect a visit, face fines and up to five years in jail.-------


A 29-year-old Iowan woman said*she "tweeted something like 'just let me shoot, you ass'"*while waiting outside a gun range as Trump's sons shot rifles inside.*Agents showed up at her workplace and told her she could spend 10 years in prison for her now-deleted tweet
http://mashable.com/2016/03/08/secre.../#5KOogx7jdPqY

do you need more?
and you was saying again?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Horseshoe Theory.

Check it out.

More people should read on that. Horseshoe theory is happening right now and perhaps knowing so will help some people be more moderate.

[Kraenen]

Companies don't have an obligation to freedom of speech. Just the government.

Yeah, I think they do. If we want to maintain an open and liberal society - as individuals and companies that form society - banning views outright is anathema to that goal. In a free society people have the right to ask companies to align themselves with what people believe. Would you say, that before discrimination laws were in place, that there was any obligation against putting up "no blacks" signs in restaurants?