Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Rolls Out Stricter Rules On Abusive Content (apnews.com)
Twitter has begun enforcing stricter policies on violent and abusive content like hateful images or symbols, including those attached to user profiles. From a report: The new guidelines, which were first announced one month ago, were put into place Monday. Monitors at the company will weigh hateful imagery in the same way they do graphic violence and adult content. If a user wants to post symbols or images that might be considered hateful, the post must be marked "sensitive media." Other users would then see a warning that would allow them to decide whether to view the post. Twitter is also prohibiting users from abusing or threatening others through their profiles or usernames. While the new guidelines became official on Monday, the social media company continues to work out internal monitoring tools and it is revamping the appeals process for banned or suspended accounts. But the company will also begin accepting reports from users.
So, you're wrong. But you probably already knew that.
In the case of the baker/cake/gay-wedding:
When you operate a business of public accommodation, that is, a business that is open to the public, you have to operate under certain rules and laws. One of those laws is that you cannot deny service to a person solely based on that person's inclusion in a protected class.
Now, federally, there are several protected classes. They include, sex, age, nation of origin, and race. (This list is not exhaustive.)
Now, that means, if you operate a business open to the public, you cannot refuse service to someone simply and solely because they are a woman, or because they are black.
States can add to the list of federally protected classes, but may not remove anything from that list.
Colorado, where the bakery/gay-wedding case took place has added sexual orientation to that list.
Which means that the bakery could not, legally, refuse service to the couple simply because they are gay.
If the bakery had been booked solid, and could not have produced the wedding cake in the time required, it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery didn't even offer wedding cakes as one of the services they offered, it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
But because they do make wedding cakes, and because the owner made it clear he wasn't selling the couple a wedding cake because they were gay, it was discrimination, and it was illegal under Colorado's laws.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
business-wise
Twitter still has no viable business model. Turning into an echo chamber won't end well for them.
The simple fact is butthurt SJW types are a tiny, whiny minority. Our last election has showed a quarter of the country absolutely despises them, and another half of the country doesn't give a fuck. Throw in probably another 20% on top of that, because the majority of Clinton voters voted not because MUH GENDERS, but because - well, let's face it: Bush-style Republicanism has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
Creating a work of art is a First Amendment act, and cannot be compelled - even if the artist is otherwise running a business. No public accommodation law overrides the First Amendment rights of the artists that would be creating the cake.
Notice that in the Masterpiece Cake case, the owner of the store offered to sell the couple an undecorated cake AND the decorations so they could make it themselves. This would have allowed the couple to get their cake and for the artist to avoid being compelled to speak. Instead, they chose to sue. Who is actually the hater here?
Good thing you know less of the law then you're quoting. You see where the word "incite" is? Now go look up the definition, and show where he tells people to go out and do it.
Ex: You know what I hate? All those muslims and mexicans, damn well integrate into society and stop crossing over illegally and being a drain on society. - This is not a 319 offence.
Ex: You know what I hate? All those muslims and mexcians. We need to get the trees ready, and get the rope. And here's where we're starting boys! - This is a 319 offence.
Note that 319 also covers "reasonable discussion" the above is also not a 319, I could have a discussion on a street corner in Canada arguing both points of view and it's still not a hate crime.
Om, nomnomnom...