Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

Hologram · 23-07-2016 05:49PM

Meh, I can't be blamed for there being no such thing as truly free speech (i.e. the right to broadcast absolutely anything whatsoever, including unprovoked insults) and "free" speech having a set of rules to accompany it even under the U.S. constitution.

From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech."

So it is not actually free, and a bit of a stupid name.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 05:53PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

She said you misunderstood the post. Your reading comprehension is either sub par or deliberately off kilter. Funnily enough this reply tends to reinforce that impression. You seem to read whatever you feel like having read, rather than what was written.

Listen pal, there's a thanks button there if parroting is your game. If you've anything to actually add then we're all ears.

Mardy Bum · 23-07-2016 05:55PM

Bullying and harassment whether in person or online is still bullying and harassment. Most workplaces, schools, institutions and websites have policies on this. These are very important policies if you want to be successful. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. It is mind blowing how blind or misled people are about this.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:00PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Bullying and harassment

Twitter can ban people for whatever they like at a whim. This happening is of itself evidence of precisely nothing that the person did except Twitter don't like them, or they think he's bad for their business model, or they banned him for sh1ts n giggles.
Oh, I should add "you'd need to be thick or an idiot not to agree with me" here I suppose as everybody else is at it. Nice way to get a dig in when it's addressed to nobody specific, isn't it?

Renegade Mechanic · 23-07-2016 06:05PM

Can someone make my day please and put a vote in for the purple segment? That would satisfy me immensely..

Outlaw Pete · 23-07-2016 06:05PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Bullying and harassment whether in person or online is still bullying and harassment. Most workplaces, schools, institutions and websites have policies on this. These are very important policies if you want to be successful. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. It is mind blowing how blind or misled people are about this.

Nobody disagrees with that.

It's about selective application of the rules, as has been pointed out many times now. They are not alone of course. There are many private enterprises that only seem to have issues with abuse whenever it's being directed at those who happen to share their political ideologies or are part of a minority which they are not in the least bit afraid to be seen to be showing favouritism to, given what it will say about them.

JJayoo · 23-07-2016 06:07PM

Multi millionaire successful actress crying because some losers on Twitter are talking **** boo fcuking hoo.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:10PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Oh, I should add "you'd need to be thick or an idiot not to agree with me" here I suppose as everybody else is at it.

Jeez, I'm not.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:13PM

Hologram wrote: »

Jeez, I'm not.

It's grand. The mods here don't seem to have an issue with it so it mustn't be abusive <-- see what I did there?

TSMGUY · 23-07-2016 06:13PM

Hologram wrote: »

I wouldn't be inclined to defend unprovoked insults being thrown at people (anyone - I don't just mean in this case) as free speech. It can't really be policed, but I would not deem it something as noble as free speech - it's unnecessary and unconstructive, it just brings bad blood to a discussion. Free speech refers to fairly supported ideas and opinions (which I would defend, no matter how unpalatable - discussion needs to be allowed) not just any auld stuff.
Therefore I don't have a problem with someone intervening and saying "Knock it off" if insults are being thrown, and giving a few chances - I don't think it would be entirely fair to just redirect the responsibility to the person on the receiving end, by suggesting they leave (although there can be a point reached where they should just walk away).

Well, if hologram doesn't deem it "noble", it certainly shouldn't be allowed. Puritanical much? And if Twitter started banning things that were unconstructive (don't even think that's a word tbh) and unnecessary they'd have to delete the whole site.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:15PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

It's grand. The mods here don't seem to have an issue with it so it mustn't be abusive <-- see what I did there?

No really, I can't recall being in any way abusive to you.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:18PM

Hologram wrote: »

No really, I can't recall being in any way abusive to you.

It was more directed at who I was replying to, but don't tell me you haven't seen this thread littered with those types of comments. "Idiots who agree/disagree with X" when they know damn well there's people agreeing or disagreeing right here.

InTheTrees · 23-07-2016 06:18PM

Hologram wrote: »

Meh, I can't be blamed for there being no such thing as truly free speech (i.e. the right to broadcast absolutely anything whatsoever, including unprovoked insults) and "free" speech having a set of rules to accompany it even under the U.S. constitution.

From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech."

So it is not actually free, and a bit of a stupid name.

There's a common legal expression about the limits of free speech "crying fire in a crowded movie theatre".

PopePalpatine · 23-07-2016 06:19PM

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ha, this is gas. That article is an April Fools joke. Look at the date.

Again, where is the proof on Twitter (keyword) that he directed and orchestrated abuse at this actor? All the other stuff being posted is just smoke and mirrors. Surely you guys are better than that.

OK, I messed up. I shouldn't have been so naive as to think Milo would confess to what his followers would see as the enemy, i.e. left-leaning news outlets like Buzzfeed.

I guess at this point the two sides (anti- & pro-Milo's banning) are just talking past each other. There's no "smoking gun" (as far as I know) that has been released by Twitter (e.g. DM exchanges in any private groups he's in, which I'd assume they have access to) to definitively prove he was behind the abuse suffered by Leslie Jones.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:20PM

TSMGUY wrote: »

Well, if hologram doesn't deem it "noble", it certainly shouldn't be allowed. Puritanical much? And if Twitter start banning things that were unconstructive (don't even think that's a word tbh) and unnecessary they'd have to delete the whole site.

Weird amount of misreading on this forum.

Where did I imply that because I don't deem it noble, then it shouldn't be allowed (the irony when all I was doing was expressing my opinion)?

(I actually said it would be difficult to police) - I did say it's not unreasonable for people to object to it (free speech and all that) and that unprovoked insults are hardly a noble and worthy ideal to be respected and defended like the exchange of ideas (which is what "free" speech refers to). I don't think Voltaire was including the likes of "Yeah well you're GAY!!!" in his famous quote.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:23PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

OK, I messed up. I shouldn't have been so naive as to think Milo would confess to what his followers would see as the enemy, i.e. left-leaning news outlets like Buzzfeed.

That's about as far from contrite as you can get TBH... my evidence is lies but it's still their fault for not giving me something to work with...

Realt Dearg Sec · 23-07-2016 06:27PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Listen pal, there's a thanks button there if parroting is your game. If you've anything to actually add then we're all ears.

You had clearly misunderstood it the first time so it had to be said again. But I suppose you already decided you weren't going to understand it anyway.

Still, for someone who loves free speech, you sure are fond of trying to silence people you don't agree with.

TSMGUY · 23-07-2016 06:27PM

Hologram wrote: »

Weird amount of misreading on this forum.

Where did I imply that because I don't deem it noble, then it shouldn't be allowed (the irony when all I was doing was expressing my opinion)? (I actually said it would be difficult to police) - I did say it's not unreasonable for people to object to it (free speech and all that) and that unprovoked insults are hardly a noble and worthy ideal to be respected and defended like the exchange of ideas (which is what "free" speech refers to). I don't think Voltaire was including the likes of "Yeah well you're GAY!!!" in his famous quote.

My God, you're an absolute intellectual weasel. And the irony of you invoking Voltaire in an attack on ignoble free speech is just astounding. Voltaire's specialism was the searing insult, the witty ad-hominem. "Well you're gay" is just the laziest strawman argument I've ever seen.
"Not unreasonable" LOL. Stop obfuscating your fascism with unnecessary verbiage. You're saying quite explicitly, not implying, that insults don't fall under the purview of free speech. That's absolute nonsense.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:29PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You had clearly misunderstood it the first time so it had to be said again. But I suppose you already decided you weren't going to understand it anyway.

Still, for someone who loves free speech, you sure are fond of trying to silence people you don't agree with.

Oh, you couldn't click Thanks twice so you're back to repeat yourself. Great.
You're welcome to repeat your non-point as many times as you'd like. Knock yourself out.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:32PM

TSMGUY wrote: »

My God, you're an absolute intellectual weasel. And the irony of you invoking Voltaire in an attack on ignoble free speech is just astounding. Voltaire's specialism was the searing insult, the witty ad-hominem. "Well you're gay" is just the laziest strawman argument I've ever seen.
"Not unreasonable" LOL. Stop obfuscating your fascism with unnecessary verbiage. You're saying quite explicitly, not implying, that insults don't fall under the purview of free speech. That's absolute nonsense.

Ignoring your personal attack apropos nothing, are you sure unprovoked insults are included under (the incorrectly named) "free" speech (it being ironically limited - not something decided by me)?
Is it incorrect to say it's not unreasonable to be critical of unprovoked insults? Surely such criticism is also just free speech?

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:35PM

Hologram wrote: »

Is it incorrect to say it's not unreasonable to be critical of unprovoked insults? Surely such criticism is also just free speech?

You're confusing yourself now. It's YOU that's thinks "unsupported" or "ignoble" things aren't covered by the term free speech.
Why on earth would something be censored just because it's wrong? Who gets to decide?

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:36PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

It was more directed at who I was replying to, but don't tell me you haven't seen this thread littered with those types of comments. "Idiots who agree/disagree with X" when they know damn well there's people agreeing or disagreeing right here.

I suppose insults are just free speech though, so fair enough?

(Joking: I don't agree with people insulting you - as per the point I have been trying to make; I think discussion would be more fruitful without people resorting to that crap).

TSMGUY · 23-07-2016 06:36PM

Hologram wrote: »

Ignoring your personal attack apropos nothing, are you sure unprovoked insults are included under (the incorrectly named) "free" speech (it being ironically limited - not something decided by me)?
Is it incorrect to say it's not unreasonable to be critical of unprovoked insults? Surely such criticism is also just free speech?

No contention that that's part of free speech. You, however, seek to limit free speech to everything minus "unprovoked insults." You either have an absolutist conception of free speech and support it all the time, with the exception of when it incites violence or harm, or you don't believe in free speech at all.

You seem to believe in some sort of conditional free speech. You're like a company inertia selling "free" goods that cost money to claim. That's not a free product and, likewise, what you're advocating isn't free speech.

TSMGUY · 23-07-2016 06:38PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

You're confusing yourself now. It's YOU that's thinks "unsupported" or "ignoble" things aren't covered by the term free speech.
Why on earth would something be censored just because it's wrong? Who gets to decide?

Hologram's motto: All speech is free but some speech is freer than others:rolleyes:

PopePalpatine · 23-07-2016 06:39PM

Again with the inferring. I just heard he had a chatroom with some 4channers, I should have paid more attention to the date of the article.

In summary, here's my case:

He has a cult following amongst 4chan, especially thanks to hopping on the GamerGate bandwagon (having earlier called gamers "pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds").
The abuse aimed at Leslie Jones ramped up following this Breitbart article (which, surprise, surprise has been deleted).
And finally, that "fat should always be shamed" tweet. So he has form in setting up targets for his followers.

It's a nice evening, so I'll leave you all with Milo saying that trolls should be banned from the Internet, just as we ban drunk drivers from driving.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:40PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

You're confusing yourself now. It's YOU that's thinks "unsupported" or "ignoble" things aren't covered by the term free speech.
Why on earth would something be censored just because it's wrong? Who gets to decide?

I don't "think" it. "Free" speech is limited everywhere, even the "free" speech as outlined by the First Amendment.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 06:50PM

TSMGUY wrote: »

No contention that that's part of free speech. You, however, seek to limit free speech to everything minus "unprovoked insults." You either have an absolutist conception of free speech and support it all the time, with the exception of when it incites violence or harm, or you don't believe in free speech at all.

You seem to believe in some sort of conditional free speech. You're like a company inertia selling "free" goods that cost money to claim. That's not a free product and, likewise, what you're advocating isn't free speech.

TSMGUY wrote: »

Hologram's motto: All speech is free but some speech is freer than others:rolleyes:

Lol - you and the other person are so upset it is hilarious!

But you staunchly believe in free speech.

Except you like to shout down the free speech you disagree with

Free speech is not unlimited or absolute (the fact that there is an exception in relation to violence/harm in the first place illustrates this, therefore it is not free) - why do you and the other person steadfastly refuse to admit this? I have only exercised my free speech by saying it is not unreasonable to criticise unprovoked insults and that they're hardly worthy of defending as "free speech" but you keep on attacking me personally and twisting what I say, you big free speech fan you!

:D

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:53PM

Hologram wrote: »

Lol - you and the other person are so upset it is hilarious!

No, no, you're the one with your knickers in a twist etc. Stop getting so worked up etc. "Hilarious".

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 06:56PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Again with the inferring. I just heard he had a chatroom with some 4channers, I should have paid more attention to the date of the article.

In summary, here's my case:
He has a cult following amongst 4chan, especially thanks to hopping on the GamerGate bandwagon (having earlier called gamers "pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds").

The abuse aimed at Leslie Jones ramped up following this Breitbart article (which, surprise, surprise has been deleted).

And finally, that "fat should always be shamed" tweet. So he has form in setting up targets for his followers.

It's a nice evening, so I'll leave you all with Milo saying that trolls should be banned from the Internet, just as we ban drunk drivers from driving.

That's not a case. It's preconception suiting wishful thinking. "He has fans so he's guilty of abuse" is really and truly the extent of what you've got.

super_furry · 23-07-2016 07:06PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's a nice evening, so I'll leave you all with Milo saying that trolls should be banned from the Internet, just as we ban drunk drivers from driving.

Wow that is just perfect. I mean I knew he was an opportunistic hypocrite as soon as he hitched his wagon to the Gamergate ****wagon after spending the earlier part of his 'career' castigating gamers, but that's a different level.

Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

Comments