Reply to: Katie Hopkins permanently suspended from Twitter

[Old Greg]

Or a rented bedsit, with you.

FTFY

[Zigenare]

She might end up living on a street after that

Or a rented bedsit, just like you.

[AtW]

Indeed she can take them to court.

She might end up living on a street after that

[BlasterBates]

Gay marriage cake: customer takes case to European court | UK news | The Guardian

This is right up your street, a private organisation having impunity of who it does business with.

Indeed she can take them to court. That would be interesting, defending her right to use abusive language on a media platform.

I'm all for it. Lets see what a judge decides.

[TheGreenBastard]

not necessarily

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

for example

Gay marriage cake: customer takes case to European court | UK news | The Guardian

This is right up your street, a private organisation having impunity of who it does business with.

[BlasterBates]

Obnoxious opinions are permissible as long as they are not deemed as inciting violence.

not necessarily

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

for example

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395

[LondonManc]

Do you think the same about contractor UK ?

Should a pub owner be forced to allow an obnoxious git into his pub ?

Perhaps we need a new law to force people to listen to obnoxious opinions, insults and hate speech.

Obnoxious opinions are permissible as long as they are not deemed as inciting violence.

[TheGreenBastard]

It's a ban, that's all it is. You can ban someone from a pub, you can summarily dimiss them from a job, you don't need to wait for someone to go through a judicial process. If they don't like it, tough they can go public on the thousands of other internet platforms.

The moral is don't use bad language on a public forum.

So a criminal offence didn't occur. And the argument now, is that they can simply do whatever they want, it's their (Twitter's) platform.

You mean it's OK to be abusive as long as it is on a social media platform and not a TV station?

You mean there's no difference between social media and TV broadcasts? The logical conclusion of what you're saying with your strawman, is that individual contributors to a opt-in medium like social media should be under all requirements of broadcast media.

[LondonManc]

Trump gets censored as well but he's not as bad as Hopkins.

I mean I don't mind her to be honest but if she can't hold her temper she's going to get banned.

In any case she can publicise whereever she wants. This "gatekeeper" nonesense is a storm in a teacup. You wouldn't expect a TV station to air someone who uses bad language and insults.

You ban Potus and he's gonna hammer you every which way and get his tax team crawling up your 'arris too.

You ban Hatie Katie and meh. A few at the right end of the Daily Mail's readership will quit in disgust.

No different to England captains getting an easier ride from referees in football - the stuff that Robbo and Shearer got away with when they were captains would have been red cards for others.

[LondonManc]

I always thought a suspension was a temporary thing?

Alisser Thorne begs to differ.

[BlasterBates]

Are we talking about a social media platform or TV stations?

You mean it's OK to be abusive as long as it is on a social media platform and not a TV station?

[BlasterBates]

It also brings up other tricky questions, which legal jurisdiction matters? Saying UK law applies to a US company implies that in China, Twitter can be used as a tool of oppression, because in that country the law allows for suppression of minorities and restriction of data.

It's a ban, that's all it is. You can ban someone from a pub, you can summarily dimiss them from a job, you don't need to wait for someone to go through a judicial process. If they don't like it, tough they can go public on the thousands of other internet platforms.

The moral is don't use bad language on a public forum.

[TheGreenBastard]

Trump gets censored as well but he's not as bad as Hopkins.

I mean I don't mind her to be honest but if she can't hold her temper she's going to get banned.

In any case she can publicise whereever she wants. This "gatekeeper" nonesense is a storm in a teacup. You wouldn't expect a TV station to air someone who uses bad language and insults.

Are we talking about a social media platform or TV stations?

[TheGreenBastard]

They are selective as to whom they ban. It was a commercial decision, rather than a moral one, whatever the merits or otherwise of their decision. Trump will survive, whatever he says, with occasional censure to make sure Twatter is headline news for as long as possible.

It also brings up other tricky questions, which legal jurisdiction matters? Saying UK law applies to a US company implies that in China, Twitter can be used as a tool of oppression, because in that country the law allows for suppression of minorities and restriction of data.

[BlasterBates]

They are selective as to whom they ban. It was a commercial decision, rather than a moral one, whatever the merits or otherwise of their decision. Trump will survive, whatever he says, with occasional censure to make sure Twatter is headline news for as long as possible.

Trump gets censored as well but he's not as bad as Hopkins.

I mean I don't mind her to be honest but if she can't hold her temper she's going to get banned.

In any case she can publicise whereever she wants. This "gatekeeper" nonesense is a storm in a teacup. You wouldn't expect a TV station to air someone who uses bad language and insults.