Twitter suspends account of Breitbart "tech" editor

[Notter]

I can say "we need to kill all the muslims" without fear of going to jail, so you're kind of wrong.

You are right though that as far as I can find, he didn't really say anything terrible, or incite others to say terrible things to here, although I know some of them took huge flack on twitter yesterday. You'd think the people sending pictures of their jizz on your headshot should be the ones banned

Yes, you CAN say that, but you can't advocate for it, or propagate for it, or incite people to do it.. that would be illegal in most countries.
Also, keep in mind, just because actions are not taken against someone who promotes that, doesn't mean it's legal.
usually actions are only taken against people that are high profile.

anyway, on topic:
a few months ago, everyone were protesting the idea that twitter will now have a committee, controlled entirely by lead SJW figures, to monitor twitter users.
we now see the results of that.
obviously twitter is not a place to express and trade opinions. and i really hope people still stop using that shit site and move to something else.

[PC2]

Twitter was exercising their freedom of expression by not associating themselves nor granting a platform to someone who lives to harass other people, yes. You're getting it now. You understand!

Correct Twitter is not breaking the law, they are silencing unpopular speech which shows a lack of integrity and ethics.

[BannedForViews]

As a shit post on facebook, sure. If you're in front of a big crowd with a bunch of guns ready to go gunning down some muslims, you bet your ass is going to jail. Even if you haven't harmed anyone yet, that falls under speech meant to invite violence. The context and situations are entirely different.

http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/...t-to-violence/

The above link is a short post that should clear a lot up for those unfamiliar with US law.

And I never said that you couldn't go to jail for inciting violence, or posing an imminent threat to others. No one has ever contended that wasn't illegal in the US on this site, to my knowledge. But the test is pretty hard to pass. "Guidelines spelled out in 1969 added three factors: to be subject to restriction, speech must have the intent and the likelihood of causing imminent violence."

- - - Updated - - -

You do realise that freedom of speech has never been absolute, right? There are precise rules and it does not protect hate speech.

Yes, it does. For the last time.

- - - Updated - - -

You are speaking of plain delusion and concepts that don't apply to Society/Reality.

Yes, they 100% do apply to reality.

[8bithamster]

Its a bit hard to show off now since his account is gone. I know there are ways to go back and see what he was saying before that but I have no idea how.

so.. there is no real evidence coming from your side? Do note, he can be a dick and has shown himself being a huge asshat in the past. But when people ask for proof and your response is "Well, I cba to find any", it does kinda make your whole point seem flawed.
(Do note, I do not for a moment doubt he did this, he does anything he can get for attention. Then again, so does the Ghostbusters fanboys with their threats etc.)

[BannedForViews]

Yes, you CAN say that, but you can't advocate for it, or propagate for it, or incite people to do it.. that would be illegal in most countries.
Also, keep in mind, just because actions are not taken against someone who promotes that, doesn't mean it's legal.
usually actions are only taken against people that are high profile.

anyway, on topic:
a few months ago, everyone were protesting the idea that twitter will now have a committee, controlled entirely by lead SJW figures, to monitor twitter users.
we now see the results of that.
obviously twitter is not a place to express and trade opinions. and i really hope people still stop using that shit site and move to something else.

Guidelines spelled out in 1969 added three factors: to be subject to restriction, speech must have the intent and the likelihood of causing imminent violence.

As to your hatred of Twitter, I 100% agree and approve of it.

- - - Updated - - -

You can all it whatever you'd like, but ultimately Twitter has not done anything wrong.

Twitter has not done anything illegal. I think most people would disagree with you that they haven't done anything wrong.

[urasim]

Your opinion is equally valid or invalid, fwiw. You don't know for sure he did or did not break the rules, as none of us here can say one way or the other.

Words have meaning... Incite means something. There is no incitement from Milo. He didn't tell his followers anything. You're delusional if you can't get this through your head.

And turning my opinion into an absolute is a pretty bad way to set an argument. Censorship is a pretty big word to throw around, especially since he's not being censored; his account has been suspended. If people want to quote Milo's words and paste them on Twitter, Twitter won't punish them solely for that. His message can still be broadcast loud and clear, regardless if its from his account or someone else's. So long as the content isn't deemed as harassment or inciting said harassment, I doubt it'll be removed.

Your opinion is that twitter is right. Based off of nothing but your feelings.

Censorship isn't a big word to throw around and it has a mother fucking meaning that perfectly describes what has happened. Milo is censored on the Twitter platform. He can't speak there. Do you know what censorship means? This is like Bill Clinton trying to twist words in order to argue his way out of lying... Fucking pathetic.

And I severely doubt that an editor for Breitbart, who has his own platform to speak from, is going to suffer that much backlash from a Twitter suspension, but it seems Twitter's staff believes that he was responsible for more harm than good, and their opinion, unlike yours or mine, is what counts.

Having a separate platform is irrelevant. He's still censored on the bigger platform.

If I were a mod and started removing your posts here, I'd be censoring your speech even though you can complain about it in other areas on the web.

Seriously, words, learn them.

[PC2]

You can all it whatever you'd like, but ultimately Twitter has not done anything wrong.

That is your opinion and Twitters. I believe neither of you should be silenced because of it, even though you would silence others you disagree with

[Hooked]

Twitter is pretty radical leftwing. I don't have a twitter or facebook account.

[Deleted]

Now we can ban all the "kill all cops/whites" and isis supporting accounts.

No? Ofc we cant, that would be racist or something..

[Aori]

Milo makes SJWs, feminists and BLM look like fools, so that is enough for me to like him alone. He gets banned from Twitter what seems like monthly and usually for no legitimate reason as he is reinstated rather fast most times.

[PC2]

I'm not silencing anyone or saying anyone should be silenced.

I'm proud of you.

I'm simply indifferent to what Twitter wants to do with their private property and think people who dislike what Twitter does with their private property should go get their own. Then they can run it however the hell they please. I'm not sure why everyone feels entitled to unconditional access to the private property of others just because they arbitrarily label it an issue of free speech.

Again, in the name of free speech, should I have open access to your private property such that you should have no right to bar me from using it? If not, then why should Twitter be subjected to such a standard?

If you welcome somebody on to your property under a set of verbal or written premises, you do have an obligation to reasonably adhere to those expressed premises. By changing the interpretation of policy at a different point, it leads to moral and ethical problems. Even though you still have legal right to the property. If you want 100% control without ever facing any conflict, the key is to never allow anyone on your property in the first place.

[BannedForViews]

I do not concern myself with what "most people" think because "most people" are not given to thinking thoughts worth thinking in the first place. Find me someone who thinks it's reasonable to have the same standard they ask of Twitter in regards to access to their private property imposed upon themselves and I'd be more inclined to listen. Barring that, it seems rather unlikely that their view is the product of any sort of meritous ethical framework, as opposed to every day arbitrary morals.

You are confirming my opinion that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. My phone is a private service I pay for my own consumption. Twitter is a public service that anyone can you.

Anyone cannot use my phone. Anyone can use twitter. You see the difference? This is exactly what the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" was created for. I don't need to find that person because you standard is foolish and relevant to nothing.

To be clear: The standard being asked of twitter is that they do not silence some unpopular speech whilst not silencing other unpopular speech. They are fully in their rights to ignore this request (i.e. legal) but that doesn't mean people are being disingenuous if they are upset by this (i.e. wrong).

To give a WoW example, since this is a WoW website.... If I don't want to let (unprotected group) into my guild, I am allowed to do that. If blizzard says (unprotected group) are not allowed to play the game though, many people would think that is wrong. Since they are an unprotected group it isn't illegal, but it is still wrong. I do not have to want that unprotected group in my guild to realize it is still wrong for them to not be allowed to play. These things are not mutually exclusive and you can't make them so just because you want them to be. I know you put a lot of effort into your stupid analogy, but it's about time you just pretend you never said it and try again.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Correct Twitter is not breaking the law, they are silencing unpopular speech which shows a lack of integrity and ethics.

When a liberal wants access and rights to a private business's property you cry foul, when a conservative does that business lacks integrity.

You've never been impartial though, so there's no surprise there.

It is, after all, the conservatives who most commonly cry about private businesses having their rights impeded on by dirty libtards. Which is all well and good for them, at least until THEY want access to a private business's property, then it's "wrong" when they don't get what they want.

[BannedForViews]

I'm proud of you.



If you welcome somebody on to your property under a set of verbal or written premises, you do have an obligation to reasonably adhere to those expressed premises. By changing the interpretation of policy at a different point, it leads to moral and ethical problems. Even though you still have legal right to the property. If you want 100% control without ever facing any conflict, the key is to never allow anyone on your property in the first place.

Twitter is not a house, it is a store. It has Terms of Use. As long as you are not breaking the terms you are allowed to use. Silencing people who don't break the terms is wrong, even if not illegal. This is nothing like saying I don't want you in my home so GTFO. You think Wal-Mart can indiscriminately throw people out of their store? You think they won't face backlash for doing so? You do see how a company that is trying to earn money off people using it is completely different from an individuals private property that is not "open for business"?

- - - Updated - - -

When a liberal wants access and rights to a private business's property you cry foul

Example?
/10char

[Cthulhu 2020]

I can't count the number of times that a conservative has come on here and argued at me that someone's private property is to be respected above all else, and it is theirs to do with as they want, and anyone who wants to force them to do otherwise is morally wrong. I'm pretty sure even PrimaryColor has argued that in some form or another at some point, but I couldn't be sure.

It's always heart warming to see them pull a 180 and start doing mental flips trying to tell us how Milo should be allowed to invite online harassment against other people, and Twitter disallowing him from doing so on their platform (for which they are legally liable if something does happen to someone) is WRONG even if it's not illegal.

[Jun]

Words have meaning... Incite means something. There is no incitement from Milo. He didn't tell his followers anything. You're delusional if you can't get this through your head.



Your opinion is that twitter is right. Based off of nothing but your feelings.

Censorship isn't a big word to throw around and it has a mother fucking meaning that perfectly describes what has happened. Milo is censored on the Twitter platform. He can't speak there. Do you know what censorship means? This is like Bill Clinton trying to twist words in order to argue his way out of lying... Fucking pathetic.



Having a separate platform is irrelevant. He's still censored on the bigger platform.

If I were a mod and started removing your posts here, I'd be censoring your speech even though you can complain about it in other areas on the web.

Seriously, words, learn them.

If you're done with that Crystal Ball, peering into what you seem to believe are my true inner thoughts, feel free to pass it on.

Or get off your high horse and realize that you're only getting the message you want to see out of what I'm typing.

Take a deep breath, and think rationally; Milo even admits, in his official response to Twitter from Breitbart, that his followers and fans did do things.

I quote:

"Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the special pretzel logic of the left. Where are the Twitter police when Justin Bieber’s fans cut themselves on his behalf?"

Now, you can agree or disagree with his side or Twitter's; it doesn't really matter. The point is, it is possible that he did it. You refuse to admit that, revealing your bias. As for my opinion, which you seem to think you've nailed to a board, I don't think he intentionally incited people to flame her. However, intentionally or not, he's a part of that wave of people that got reported by Leslie Jones and others; hence the suspension. Thus, my opinion amounts to nothing here.

Take note of the last statement, as we'll get back to that in a moment.

As far as censorship goes, I'm going to double down on what I said previously; he's not being censored. There's no anti-Milo agenda here, which censorship implies; he's been suspended for what Twitter states is a clear violation of its rules.
Along with a whole lot of other people.
I also find it deliciously ironic that he's playing the victim card when he loves to put people on full-blast when he feels them do the same; the very first tweet to LJ was, "If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim." He then goes on to play the victim in his official response to Twitter from his platform on Breitbart, which you can read at your leisure from the OP's post.

Oh, and as I read your post, feel free to keep bashing me. "Fucking pathetic," eh? That's a logical response.

And if you were somehow erroneously promoted to Moderator status here, and deleted all of my posts for no reason, I'd patiently follow the guidelines for an appeal and let the staff above you take care of it. As far as censorship goes, it is a big word, loaded with a great deal of nuance, as there are multiple kinds of censorship, and not all censorship is illegal. So yes, I'm fairly intimated with the term, "censorship."

I'd take care in stating absolutes like you seem to enjoy doing; they merely prove that you don't wish to read further into the subject matter; rather, your initial opinion and feelings are all you need to feel justified.

But hey, that's okay too. Remember, my opinion doesn't matter. Take it for what you will.

But if it's all the same to you, your opinion doesn't matter much either.

Though, if you're in town for the RNC, I hear Twitter's booth is right across from Breitbart's, so feel free to let them know how you feel, if that'll help smooth things over.

Cheers.

[PC2]

When a liberal wants access and rights to a private business's property you cry foul, when a conservative does that business lacks integrity.

You've never been impartial though, so there's no surprise there.

It is, after all, the conservatives who most commonly cry about private businesses having their rights impeded on by dirty libtards. Which is all well and good for them, at least until THEY want access to a private business's property, then it's "wrong" when they don't get what they want.

I can only speak for myself, but I would be happy to denounce any scenario where a liberal was silenced or denied service for having an unpopular opinion or trait. If you have a business open to the public I think you do have moral responsibility to focus on your job and not try to discriminate and manipulate a narrative.

[nextormento]

Then they can run it however the hell they please. I'm not sure why everyone feels entitled to unconditional access to the private property of others just because they arbitrarily label it an issue of free speech.

Is anyone asking for unconditional access?.
It's Twitter the ones presenting themselves as a platform that believes in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power.
That this presentation comes with other policies attached, like those against hateful conduct -precisely to protect that freedom-, is what triggers users to seek consistency.
Twitter is certainly free to conduct their platform as they see fit. They decided to conduct it in a way that encourages the discussion of certain entitlements. I don't think they've done anything wrong on this one instance, but the argument that denies the fairness of those expectations is radically pointless.

[Notter]

BTW, this is the victim of this story.
a victim that has no problem with doing what she claims has been done to her.

[urasim]

If you're done with that Crystal Ball, peering into what you seem to believe are my true inner thoughts, feel free to pass it on.

What the fuck is this even in reference to? You make no sense at all.

Or get off your high horse and realize that you're only getting the message you want to see out of what I'm typing.

High horse?

I see someone BLINDLY agreeing with Twitter without actually looking at the evidence. There's no incitement or you'd prove me wrong already.

Take a deep breath, and think rationally; Milo even admits, in his official response to Twitter from Breitbart, that his followers and fans did do things.

I quote:

"Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the special pretzel logic of the left. Where are the Twitter police when Justin Bieber’s fans cut themselves on his behalf?"

You just proved my point. That people don't have control of their followers and what Twitter did is based solely on their political biases. I don't even have to read the rest of your post because you literally think people should be held accountable for others when no incitement happened AT ALL!

Go look up the word incitement, please. Milo didn't incite a mob. You're insane if you think he did.