Twitter Ignites Censorship Debate After Removal Of Parody Putin Account (thenextweb.com)

Twitter has suspended at least five popular anti-Kremlin Twitter accounts on its microblogging social network. The move has angered fans of the accounts and reignited the speculation on censorship on the platform. One such account parodied Russia President Vladimir Putin. The Next Web reports that some of the accounts have been brought back to function amid criticism from their respective fans. Parody accounts have resided in the gray area ever since the early days of Twitter. The social network's official ToS permits users to run a parody account of a celebrity provided they explicitly mention on their profile that it's a fake account. From the report: After their removal, social media users took two Twitter to voice their displeasure with the hashtag #NoGulagForDarthPutinKGB -- a reference to the repressive Soviet state -- and it's seemingly worked, as both accounts are back today. Of course, for how long, and why they were removed in the first place are questions that remain unanswered.

Comments

Re:Digusting brown nosing by Twitter's managament

[guestapoo]

Everyone know they are satire.

Not everyone, at least Euronews, with screenshot:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/...

Euronews had mistakenly used an image from a fake Twitter account for Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in one of its TV reports

Re:Most publishing is privately owned

[Plus1Entropy]

Well I mean Britain, and European countries in general, have different views on free speech than the US does. For example, in 2007 there was the European Union Framework Decision for Combating Racism and Xenophobia, which makes the following punishable in all EU Member States:

Publicly inciting to violence or hatred , even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.

The same law also prohibits denying or trivializing genocides, crimes against humanity, and war crimes; it specifically mentions crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nuremberg (i.e. Holocaust denial).

Now, denying the Holocaust is stupid, it likely stems from racism, and I would choose not to associate myself with anyone who did. But I definitely prefer the US interpretation and implementation of free speech. It's not the Government's job to be the arbiter of truth, and allowing them to control speech in just about any way is one of the most serious threats to liberty that there is.