Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Suspends American Far-Right Activists' Accounts (theguardian.com)
Twitter has suspended the accounts of a number of American "alt-right" activists hours after announcing a renewed push to crack down on hate speech. From a report on The Guardian:Among the accounts removed were those of the self-described white-nationalist National Policy Institute, its magazine, Radix, and its head Richard Spencer, as well as other prominent alt-right figures including Pax Dickinson and Paul Town. Spencer, who according to anti-hate group SPLC "calls for 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' to halt the 'deconstruction' of European culture", decried the bans as "corporate Stalinism" to right-wing news outlet Daily Caller. "Twitter is trying to airbrush the alt right out of existence," Spencer said. "They're clearly afraid. They will fail!"
The primary issue I find with all of these Nazi claims is that the actual Nazis were the ones using the popular media and personalities to silence and censor and were not the ones being silenced and censored.
Being "private company" is, obviously, not enough of a defense, as Facebook just found out the hard way, for example. Evidently, some violent hate-groups — such as BLM and the rest of the "anti-Trump" crowd — are more equal than others.
Has Twitter banned any of accounts calling for an assassination of the President-elect? For killing all White people? Obviously not.
But, hey, it is a private company... Maybe. A good illustration on why "hate speech" must remain legal — because any enforcer will be just as biased as Twitter is proving themselves to be.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In Oregon LGBT is a protected class since 2007. The bakery did break the law.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Headline falsely implies that the accounts were deleted because they were alt-right or far-right, when they were deleted because they used hate speech. Not a bias in viewpoint, but a cap on hate speech.
Talk versus the left rioting. You can't see the difference?
Of course they probably can't. It's the same reason why you'll see media(especially leftist media) in europe fall over itself supporting things like Antifa or not reporting on it at all, while their members beat the shit out of people or firebomb places while stating they're "anti-fascist." Or calling for the rape and murder of ethnic germans, sometimes just whites though.
Om, nomnomnom...
So if you read that, you will see that the damages were awarded for the denial of service and not the release of the complainants information.
The op and I were wrong.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
A few 'interesting' news clips over the last two election cycles about violence targeted at people for their opinions:
A Thousand Oaks man got his finger bitten off by someone who didn't like the Anti-Obamacare Protesters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...
Democrat tried to run down Republican with his car.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...
Left wing nut flies plain in to building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...
(interesting to note that he was 'originally' reported as a right-wing nut because... Texas. After his "note" was found, it was clear he was a left wing nut)
Man beaten and robbed by democrat thugs because he supports Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
High school girl attacked for supporting Trump:
http://nbc4i.com/2016/11/11/vi...
To be fair, there were also these bits:
Muslim women in CA and LA attacked by Trump supporters.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
Oh wait... no witnesses or injuries -- and one admits to lying about it entirely and is going to be charged for filing a false police report.
Trump supporters paint "Die Blacks Die" during protest:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... (foxnews, but associated press provided).
Oh wait... it said "Die whites die". So silly of me.
Yes... and how willingly they ignore what's under their nose...
So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
Eat the rich.
None of them are. They are merely expressions of hateful opinions. To be hate speech the speaker must incite others to hatred or violence against the object of his hatred.