Laura Loomer banned from Twitter

#188
#188
tumscalcium said:
Twitter is a hardcore left-wing social media platform. You start posting facts that don’t line up with the ultra-liberal agenda and you won’t be on much longer.
Click to expand...

If I got on Twitter and started calling out evangelicals for their treatment of women and gay people, I'd get kicked out. Twitter is a corporate entity and it has policies in place about hate speech. They make their own policies and set their own definitions of hate speech. Why is that so hard to understand for Conservatives? If you don't like it, don't use it and/or start an alternative platform.

Twitter should have banned Loomer for wearing dresses like this one in public:
181122-laura-loomer-mc-938_f01ea06c264859a976906c9eff42b424.fit-760w.JPG
 
#189
#189
Purple Tiger said:
If I got on Twitter and started calling out evangelicals for their treatment of women and gay people, I'd get kicked out. Twitter is a corporate entity and it has policies in place about hate speech. They make their own policies and set their own definitions of hate speech. Why is that so hard to understand for Conservatives? If you don't like it, don't use it and/or start an alternative platform.

Twitter should have banned Loomer for wearing dresses like this one in public:
181122-laura-loomer-mc-938_f01ea06c264859a976906c9eff42b424.fit-760w.JPG
Click to expand...
You need to scroll back and read my post on platforms vs publishers.

 
#190
#190
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Twitter bans far-right activist Laura Loomer

I bolded what her tweet was about. She isn't lying or making stuff up. It's known facts. So, did she deserve to be banned?
Click to expand...

Those aren't facts, those are opinions. Plenty of people think Christianity is oppressive to women and gays. Those aren't facts either, they're just opinions. They may be based on facts, but it's still a subjective conclusion.
 
#191
#191
Rasputin_Vol said:
Interesting that Twitter is allowed to pick and choose who can use its service based on terms of agreement, yet the WH isn't allowed to kick out Acosta based on the WH's terms of agreement.
Click to expand...

One is government and one is a business. Maybe the WH should be allowed to, but they're not comparable.
 
#194
#194
n_huffhines said:
One is government and one is a business. Maybe the WH should be allowed to, but they're not comparable.
Click to expand...
It being the government doesn't matter. If you are trying to make the case that the media can behave how they want because they have some sort of 1st Amendment protection, you are reaching.
 
#196
#196
Thought experiment.

Let's say the libertarian utopia comes to fruition. All the roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. are privately constructed, owned, and maintained. But something has gone wrong, somehow all of these spaces have been bought up and built by political extremists. Essentially what should be public spaces are now monopolized by anti free speech zealots. Combine that with the same zealots owning all of social media. In this hypothetical and dystopian landscape you will be banned from sidewalks, parks, streets, etc. if you say things while on their property that they do not like. And on the internet, likewise, you will be banned for dissent. Essentially, there is nowhere that free speech laws apply except in the privacy of your own home.

The question : Is this a free speech issue?

Follow up question : If it is not directly an issue of free speech, can you still make tha claim that these conditions have eroded free speech? Taken the teeth out of free speech? Afterall, free speech was meant to be a tool to give everyone an opportunity to have their voice heard.
 
Last edited:
#197
#197
lawgator1 said:
Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.
Click to expand...

That's a thin line many may cross. And they'd be wrong. If one was correctly practicing religion in Christ's way, they would be able to defend the teaching against the action without oppressing the individual. Two totally different actions.
 
#198
#198
SamRebel35 said:
Thought experiment.

Let's say the libertarian utopia comes to fruition. All the roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. are privately constructed, owned, and maintained. But something has gone wrong, somehow all of these spaces have been bought up and built by political extremists. Essentially what should be public spaces are now monopolized by anti free speech zealots. Combine that with the same zealots owning all of social media. In this hypothetical and dystopian landscape you will be banned from sidewalks, parks, streets, etc. if you say things while on their property that they do not like. And on the internet, likewise, you will be banned for dissent. Essentially, there is nowhere that free speech laws apply except in the privacy of your own home.

The question : Is this a free speech issue?

Follow up question : If it is not directly an issue of free speech, can you still make tha claim that these conditions have eroded free speech? Taken the teeth out of free speech? Afterall, free speech was meant to be a tool to give everyone an opportunity to have their voice heard.
Click to expand...

There is no libertarian utopia. The world is going to be cruel and unfair in any political system. Libertarians just think small government will create the best outcomes, overall.

This scenario only seems plausible if some supermajority (75%+?) of people are anti-free speech "extremists". If you have a normal amount of extremists, then their attempts at monopolizing everything will fall flat. Every time they try to shut normal people out, they are creating an opportunity for somebody to address their demand. The market opportunity outweighs their wealth, unless the oppressors are plentiful and the oppressed are few. If there is a supermajority of extremists, then social media and roads are probably the least of our worries, no matter what kind of political system we have.

Also, if the oppressors have so much power, why are they not voting to move away from libertarianism to a stronger government? That'd be a much easier pathway to controlling speech and you don't need a super majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#200
#200
Trump doesn't even understand what Free Speech is, can't expect his cult to, either.

I don't agree with deleting accounts for sharing alternate opinions, but I don't own Twitter. Not up to me.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top