6 ms·

There is no inherent right to free speech on Twitter. Free speech has always had legal limits, and private organizations such as Twitter are fully within their

There is no inherent right to free speech on Twitter. Free speech has always had legal limits, and private organizations such as Twitter are fully within their rights to further limit speech on their platforms as they see fit. Terrorist groups (including ISIS) have publicly claimed that they are having success using social media as a recruitment tool, so this seems like an appropriate response.

VOYD 10y ago
"Free Speech" doesn't in every country as a right the way it does in the US. And "hate speech" even the US I snot covered.
- daxelrod 10y ago
  Hate speech is absolutely protected under the US's First Amendment. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hate-speech-1st-amendment-20151030-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hat... Here's a quick summary of Supreme Court hate speech cases: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-C...
greydius 10y ago
This is not a free speech issue as far as the US constitution is concerned. Twitter is not part of the government.
- downandout 10y ago
  Correct, which is essentially what I said in my comment. But this article talked about free speech, and everytime this issue comes up, people start moaning that their right to free speech is being inhibited, apparently not realizing or caring that they have no such right on a privately owned and operated platform. That's why I brought it up.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Free speech and the first amendment are different things. People aren't being unreasonable when they moan about the curtailing of free speech on Twitter. That said, I don't have a strong stance either way on this particular issue.
- yarrel 10y ago
  It's too easy to proclaim every failure to shut up and listen to be censorship, sure, but Twitter is a corporation and its users are in a contract with it. Power granted and enforced by the state is at play here at least a little. The problem with censorship is its function, not its form.
tomjen3 10y ago
I have to question the value of this - keep ISIS twitting means it is really easy for the world to share how horrible they are and it gives the intelligence services a handle to start guessing who might support them.
r_smart 10y ago
Why does somebody always have to come and make this argument? Nobody is arguing what Twitter is doing is illegal, but rather whether they should do it or not. The legality of their actions is clear and obvious. This seems similar to the tired old "not all X" argument that is the first thing to come out in response to obvious generalizations. Please reconsider its use in the future.
- downandout 10y ago
  Actually, lots of people argue that platform X is messing with their "right" to "free speech" whenever this issue comes up. Even the article mentioned this. That's why I brought it up.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    And they're correct. The law: > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech Notice how "freedom of speech" is referenced as an external concept, not defined by the law? A right is a more general concept than an inherently narrow-scoped legal attempt to support it.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      They aren't correct. A company or web platform can't take away your right to free speech. They can just refuse to help you reach their users.
      - mindslight 10y ago
        Rights apply to the qualitative characteristics of a situation. When a company controls a public method of communication, then their diktats have the equivalent effect as governmental law. Would you say that a US citizen in North Korea still has an unoppressed right to free speech? (FWIW, your right to free speech can't be "taken away", by anyone. That's the thing about rights - you have them regardless of whether or not they're being oppressed.)
hga 10y ago
and private organizations such as Twitter are fully within their rights to further limit speech on their platforms as they see fit. You tell me when I can operate a segregated lunch counter or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake and I'll consider your argument to have a tiny bit of merit. That ship has long sailed. And if Twitter and company think they can continue to sh*t on roughly half the nation's population without nasty consequences, they are in for a rude surprise in due course.
- downandout 10y ago
  Half of the US population are terrorist recruiters?
  - hga 10y ago
    See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315275 (Very roughly half the US population is on "the right", half on the left. If you add "the middle", there are more on the right than on the left.)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - downandout 10y ago
      I still don't get it. This article was about the deletion of religious extremist accounts (i.e. terrorist recruiters). So you're saying that those on the right or left are terrorist recruiters?
      - hga 10y ago
        The subtext of the article is about banning those on the right, most notably the fabulously gay Milo Yiannopoulos, which might have provoked the first really serious pushback of their general suppression, not just banning, of the voices of the right.

VOYD 10y ago

"Free Speech" doesn't in every country as a right the way it does in the US. And "hate speech" even the US I snot covered.

daxelrod 10y ago
Hate speech is absolutely protected under the US's First Amendment. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hate-speech-1st-amendment-20151030-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hat... Here's a quick summary of Supreme Court hate speech cases: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-C...

greydius 10y ago

This is not a free speech issue as far as the US constitution is concerned. Twitter is not part of the government.

downandout 10y ago
Correct, which is essentially what I said in my comment. But this article talked about free speech, and everytime this issue comes up, people start moaning that their right to free speech is being inhibited, apparently not realizing or caring that they have no such right on a privately owned and operated platform. That's why I brought it up.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Free speech and the first amendment are different things. People aren't being unreasonable when they moan about the curtailing of free speech on Twitter. That said, I don't have a strong stance either way on this particular issue.
yarrel 10y ago
It's too easy to proclaim every failure to shut up and listen to be censorship, sure, but Twitter is a corporation and its users are in a contract with it. Power granted and enforced by the state is at play here at least a little. The problem with censorship is its function, not its form.

tomjen3 10y ago

I have to question the value of this - keep ISIS twitting means it is really easy for the world to share how horrible they are and it gives the intelligence services a handle to start guessing who might support them.

r_smart 10y ago

Why does somebody always have to come and make this argument? Nobody is arguing what Twitter is doing is illegal, but rather whether they should do it or not. The legality of their actions is clear and obvious. This seems similar to the tired old "not all X" argument that is the first thing to come out in response to obvious generalizations. Please reconsider its use in the future.

downandout 10y ago
Actually, lots of people argue that platform X is messing with their "right" to "free speech" whenever this issue comes up. Even the article mentioned this. That's why I brought it up.
- mindslight 10y ago
  And they're correct. The law: > Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech Notice how "freedom of speech" is referenced as an external concept, not defined by the law? A right is a more general concept than an inherently narrow-scoped legal attempt to support it.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    They aren't correct. A company or web platform can't take away your right to free speech. They can just refuse to help you reach their users.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      Rights apply to the qualitative characteristics of a situation. When a company controls a public method of communication, then their diktats have the equivalent effect as governmental law. Would you say that a US citizen in North Korea still has an unoppressed right to free speech? (FWIW, your right to free speech can't be "taken away", by anyone. That's the thing about rights - you have them regardless of whether or not they're being oppressed.)

hga 10y ago

and private organizations such as Twitter are fully within their rights to further limit speech on their platforms as they see fit. You tell me when I can operate a segregated lunch counter or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake and I'll consider your argument to have a tiny bit of merit. That ship has long sailed. And if Twitter and company think they can continue to sh*t on roughly half the nation's population without nasty consequences, they are in for a rude surprise in due course.

downandout 10y ago
Half of the US population are terrorist recruiters?
- hga 10y ago
  See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315275 (Very roughly half the US population is on "the right", half on the left. If you add "the middle", there are more on the right than on the left.)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - downandout 10y ago
    I still don't get it. This article was about the deletion of religious extremist accounts (i.e. terrorist recruiters). So you're saying that those on the right or left are terrorist recruiters?
    - hga 10y ago
      The subtext of the article is about banning those on the right, most notably the fabulously gay Milo Yiannopoulos, which might have provoked the first really serious pushback of their general suppression, not just banning, of the voices of the right.