1/2 - @jack isn’t familiar with Schenk v. United States, which made a distinction between ‘free speech’ and ‘dangerous speech,’ thus establishing sensible limits to freedom of expression.Seems to me that Alex Jones and Infowars have transgressed into the latter, i.e.,...
Have you considered adding a new rule against users who harass the parents of dead kindergartners so much that they have to go into hiding?https://twitter.com/jack/status/1026984242893357056 …
-
-
-
2/2 - ...yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater. By painting innocent parents of slain children as nefarious, conspiratorial actors—a falsehood, of course—he and his cohorts have actually endangered the safety and lives of these poor people. This shouldn’t be up for debate.
-
Seriously, though—has the old legal trope about yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater [w/ regard to dangerous speech] been completely forgotten? Or perhaps superseded by later SCOTUS rulings? I mean, am I being obtuse here?
-
This is the only explanation that matters. Aside from the inconsistent enforcement of whatever BS language is contained in their TOS,
@jack could ban Jones b/c his speech has caused actual harm, and by virtue of this is criminal. 1A isn’t unconditional. -
Twitter is privately owned 1st amendment does not apply. It limits government. Not individuals.
-
That’s true. But, the rules for appropriate behavior set forth by Twitter are clearly informed by the notion of free expression, echoing the protections of the 1st Amendment. The responsible thing for a private media co. to do would be to define limits, i.e., ‘dangerous speech.’
-
Legally, they’re not obliged to do so, of course. But, it would be a reasonable course of action to recognize the line between free expression of ideas and dangerous speech, i.e., rhetoric/behavior that threatens the lives and safety of others.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
7 times they had to go into hiding. 7 times,
@jack -
I haven’t heard about families going into hiding?!
-
THATS BECAUSE THEY ARE HIDING THATS HOW HIDING WORKS
-
I found a NY Times article related to the lawsuit. Thanks all.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Honestly if Jones hasn’t violated any twitter rules the problem lies with the latter
-
Yup create new rules to target opinions/views you dont like. This is going to open up a whole can of worms.
-
Lying about children being murdered and harassing people whose children got murdered is an opinion? An OPINION? Not bombastic lying bullying to create attention so you can sell pills to idiots?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@jack just a suggestion on leadership - maybe decide from the hip on this one and ban the accounts that encourage violence against the victims of mass shootings? You don't deserve to run a platform this large. ResignThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When did Alex Jones harass parents? Show me some evidence, not just words!
-
Yes, boss, I’ll get right on that, boss.
-
The fact is, you can't. Just BS until you or anyone else can produce EVIDENCE. But then, as you implied, proof just isn't your thing. I get it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hiding behind rules you wrote while defending your decision to keep supporting Alex Jones isn't a good look,
@jack. If your rules allow this content, it's your rules that are wrong.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.