Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[MajinCry]

So punishing a guy for being a jerkoff is limiting free speech?

What is this, #GamersGate or something?

 

[realibrad]

So punishing a guy for being a jerkoff is limiting free speech?

What is this, #GamersGate or something?

If the speech done by the jerkoff is not illegal yes. Do you not understand that?

 

[senseamp]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress, and thus violation of 1st Amendment not found.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is discrimination based on behavior, which is permitted in every business in America. The anti-gay bakery was discrimination based on inherent characteristics like race or sexual orientation. They are not comparable.

I'd like to point out that there are other protected classes based on behavior as well, not just inherent characteristics.

This kind of discrimination based on political viewpoint, however, is 100% legal.

 

[cbrunny]

Twitter can have any TOS it wants. If twitter wants to ban bronies, then they can should should be allowed to do that. Banning those sickos does not do much harm to society. Banning people for speech you dont like leads to long term problems though. To argue that the bronie banning is going to lead to the world ending would be dumb. Saying that banning bronie speech is bad is not dumb if you think free speech is important.

twitter is not the only platform.

Also, I would assume you are for the cake shop not selling cakes to gays, as nobody forced the gays to buy a cake from that store, and they could go somewhere else. Buying a cake from that shop is 100% optional right?

this is another tricky one that i struggle with. on one hand i would naturally think the cake shop has the reasonable right to refuse service. reasonable becomes an important word though and it isn't up to me to determine if it is reasonable or not. that's a legal question. (fwiw, i don't think it is ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation, hence my struggle.) yes, it is optional, but the law in this case found that the couple had a reasonable expectation of not being discriminated against due to sexual orientation. in other words, the "terms of service" supported the position of the couple.

 

[VtPC83]

This was fun but I'm out. Folks who are saying this is a business and so can do what they want don't understand what has been going on with twitter for the past few years and what twitter has become to the US for politics and the world.

Many of you are looking at this in such a one dimensional way that it is frankly scary. Just a heads up for those that don't know/care, twitter/facebook/etc are now driving forces in politics, social issues and other major issues that define the country and world.

To kick one person off for their language (and suspected political leaning) is frankly in bad taste since they don't kick others off. It is also incredibly detrimental to politics in the country and shaping the social values of the country. You can't do that with just one side of an argument which is where twitter is heading with events like this.

This is why this is such a big deal in many political spheres. It goes way beyond free speech, business doing what they do, etc etc.

 

[PliotronX]

I couldn't find exactly what he was banned for until stumbling onthis article which has a great but gutwrenching breakdown.

 

[WelshBloke]

I see, so targetted attacks for the 'right cause' are super

it's only if the targetted attacks are for the 'wrong cause' that there's a problem

No. What I'm saying is that punching people in the face because you don't like them is obviously wrong, punching someone back that has just punched you; not so much.

BS

she clearly knows how to report posts to twitter and has done so repeatedly

this was strictly an attack call

Opinions vary.

 

[realibrad]

This is discrimination based on behavior, which is permitted in every business in America. The anti-gay bakery was discrimination based on inherent characteristics like race or sexual orientation. They are not comparable.

Being gay is not just feelings, but behavior. Are you saying that gay people can be gay without actions?

 

[cbrunny]

Being gay is not just feelings, but behavior. Are you saying that gay people can be gay without actions?

gay people can be gay without action.

 

[agent00f]

Twitter can have any TOS it wants. If twitter wants to ban bronies, then they can should should be allowed to do that. Banning those sickos does not do much harm to society. Banning people for speech you dont like leads to long term problems though. To argue that the bronie banning is going to lead to the world ending would be dumb. Saying that banning bronie speech is bad is not dumb if you think free speech is important.

The only think I think people should do is speak out against censorship of free speech. Government does not need to be part of anything here. We should 100% always protect free speech in society. Letting it slip would be a very bad idea. Every step in the direction of censorship is bad, but to a degree.

So, I think its bad that twitter limits speech on their platform, but what was done here is not going to do much other than to further censorship which I dislike.

*Edit.
Also, I would assume you are for the cake shop not selling cakes to gays, as nobody forced the gays to buy a cake from that store, and they could go somewhere else. Buying a cake from that shop is 100% optional right?

I'd like to point out that there are other protected classes based on behavior as well, not just inherent characteristics.

This kind of discrimination based on political viewpoint, however, is 100% legal.

These arguments hold zero water since ~100% of the conservatives on twitter aren't banned, just the shitposting jackass who flaunts this in face of repeated warnings against that behavior.

Hard to imagine it's challenging to figure out why someone like that might get banned.

 

[michal1980]

I couldn't find exactly what he was banned for until stumbling onthis article which has a great but gutwrenching breakdown.

oh a vox article?

Might as well find stormfront to defend milo

 

[realibrad]

twitter is not the only platform.



this is another tricky one that i struggle with. on one hand i would naturally think the cake shop has the reasonable right to refuse service. reasonable becomes an important word though and it isn't up to me to determine if it is reasonable or not. that's a legal question. (fwiw, i don't think it is ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation, hence my struggle.) yes, it is optional, but the law in this case found that the couple had a reasonable expectation of not being discriminated against due to sexual orientation. in other words, the "terms of service" supported the position of the couple.

The point is not that there are other options. Again, if your argument is that people can express their speech elsewhere, then you can discriminate and exclude people from one area if they can go to another. If a ban does not want to serve trans people, should it be okay if there is a bar next door?

My answer is no. I would criticize the bar for being transphobic. Just because people have options to go elsewhere does not make discrimination against trans people okay. I am not making a legal argument, but a moral one. Twitter limiting speech that does not infringe on the rights of others is bad, even if there are other platforms that people can use.

 

[MajinCry]

If the speech done by the jerkoff is not illegal yes. Do you not understand that?

He was disallowed from using Twitter to continue being a jerkoff. He can still say fuckwitted and damning things, but he can't use Twitter as his medium.


Should have gone to Specsavers.

 

[KMFJD]

A human pimple is finally popped after one too many tweets....news at 10....

 

[realibrad]

gay people can be gay without action.

But, is it ever moral to say that gay people should not be able to express their feelings? If your argument is that speech can be done through different ways, then limiting say anal sex between men should be okay, because they can be gay in other ways right?

Of course not.

 

[cbrunny]

The point is not that there are other options. Again, if your argument is that people can express their speech elsewhere, then you can discriminate and exclude people from one area if they can go to another. If a ban does not want to serve trans people, should it be okay if there is a bar next door?

My answer is no. I would criticize the bar for being transphobic. Just because people have options to go elsewhere does not make discrimination against trans people okay. I am not making a legal argument, but a moral one. Twitter limiting speech that does not infringe on the rights of others is bad, even if there are other platforms that people can use.

the law says an individual has a reasonable right not to be discriminated against based on certain things. refusing service at a bar to trans people (should? not sure if it is actually protected.. should be for sure) is protected. not the same thing.

 

[cbrunny]

But, is it ever moral to say that gay people should not be able to express their feelings? If your argument is that speech can be done through different ways, then limiting say anal sex between men should be okay, because they can be gay in other ways right?

Of course not.

#morethingsididntsay

 

[realibrad]

He was disallowed from using Twitter to continue being a jerkoff. He can still say fuckwitted and damning things, but he can't use Twitter as his medium.


Should have gone to Specsavers.

It is sad that people seem to have lost the desire for free speech, even when its offensive.

 

[agent00f]

This was fun but I'm out. Folks who are saying this is a business and so can do what they want don't understand what has been going on with twitter for the past few years and what twitter has become to the US for politics and the world.

Many of you are looking at this in such a one dimensional way that it is frankly scary. Just a heads up for those that don't know/care, twitter/facebook/etc are now driving forces in politics, social issues and other major issues that define the country and world.

To kick one person off for their language (and suspected political leaning) is frankly in bad taste since they don't kick others off. It is also incredibly detrimental to politics in the country and shaping the social values of the country. You can't do that with just one side of an argument which is where twitter is heading with events like this.

This is why this is such a big deal in many political spheres. It goes way beyond free speech, business doing what they do, etc etc.

Since you're confused why others might not get kicked off. First, twitter simply doesn't have the manpower to enforce every little tiff on their system. However this was a prominent case so it receives closer scrutiny, and serves as an example for the peons.

Second, twitter is going to draw the line somewhere for harassment or behavior in general that it deems socially acceptable, and apparently that line gets drawn at milo. You have to wonder if any of these people have jobs or whatever to believe that anything goes anywhere.

It is sad that people seem to have lost the desire for free speech, even when its offensive.

Frankly it's impossible to convince anyone deliberately too stupid to understand what's being said.

 

[fskimospy]

Being gay is not just feelings, but behavior.

Loving v. Virginia was also only barring behavior, in that case interracial marriage. Similarly you can't ban people from your store for praying. In Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS ruled that discriminating against behavior common to a protected class was also unconstitutional, in that case gay sex.

From a practical perspective US courts have decisively rejected the argument that you can discriminate on practices common to a protected class without actually just discriminating against that class.

Are you saying that gay people can be gay without actions?

Of course people are or are not gay regardless of their actions. They don't suddenly become gay when they have sex with their first same sex partner any more than you suddenly became straight when you had sex with your first woman.

 

[SheHateMe]

I couldn't find exactly what he was banned for until stumbling onthis article which has a great but gutwrenching breakdown.

Wow, I'm disgusted. And I checked the subreddits mentioned....and yes, this is pretty upsetting. Seems like they targeted Leslie simply because of how much they hate this Ghostbusters reboot.

 

[realibrad]

the law says an individual has a reasonable right not to be discriminated against based on certain things. refusing service at a bar to trans people (should? not sure if it is actually protected.. should be for sure) is protected. not the same thing.

Why should that be protected and not other things? If your activity does not infringe on others rights, why should you or should you not be limited?

Before I mislead, I am 100% for not discriminating against people based on gender identity, or sexual orientation or expression. I do not want a society that treats people like shit for whom they love.

But, if your argument is that its okay to limit things because they can do it other places, then you are building the foundation for discrimination. Not sure why this is not intuitive. Its like when protesters were limited during the Bush admin on where they could protest. The argument is that they were free to protest, just not near the president.

 

[fskimospy]

Why should that be protected and not other things? If your activity does not infringe on others rights, why should you or should you not be limited?

Before I mislead, I am 100% for not discriminating against people based on gender identity, or sexual orientation or expression. I do not want a society that treats people like shit for whom they love.

But, if your argument is that its okay to limit things because they can do it other places, then you are building the foundation for discrimination. Not sure why this is not intuitive. Its like when protesters were limited during the Bush admin on where they could protest. The argument is that they were free to protest, just not near the president.

That was the government limiting protest, not a private business limiting specific actions on its own 'property'. I do not support someone's first amendment right to protest inside a private building, for example.

 

[realibrad]

Loving v. Virginia was also only barring behavior, in that case interracial marriage. Similarly you can't ban people from your store for praying. In Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS ruled that discriminating against behavior common to a protected class was also unconstitutional, in that case gay sex.

From a practical perspective US courts have decisively rejected the argument that you can discriminate on practices common to a protected class without actually just discriminating against that class.



Of course people are or are not gay regardless of their actions. They don't suddenly become gay when they have sex with their first same sex partner any more than you suddenly became straight when you had sex with your first woman.

But there is more to being gay than simply being attracted to the same sex. If you cannot express your feelings then you are limiting homosexuality.

The current argument is that limiting something in one area is okay because they can do other things. Limiting gays from holding hands in public should be okay, because they can hold hands on private property. That would be the logical conclusion of limiting free speech in one area vs all areas.