I’m not sure that’s the best counter-example. The executives and broadcasters of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines were put on trial and sentenced to decades of prison for incitement to commit genocide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ruggiu … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Nahimana …https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1071656214382215168 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Fairly positive you're mixing up medium and content.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jvillalobos @kimmaicutler
Did you see where she said “executives”? Fairly sure she didn’t mix anything up.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jilliancyork @kimmaicutler
Content companies don't have executives?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jvillalobos @kimmaicutler
Of course they do but that doesn’t seem to relate to your disagreement.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jilliancyork @kimmaicutler
The company that was indicted in her article was a radio station, they own the content not the distribution. It’s a critical difference in her counterpoint.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jvillalobos @jilliancyork
If you read legal research on this, American Internet cos based their practices on the existing body of US free speech legal norms. However, over time, they began to deviate & extend from these frameworks w/ public pressure & increasing complexity of cases https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/04/the-new-governors-the-people-rules-and-processes-governing-online-speech/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Most notably, the Boston bombing case represented a significant break from Facebook's previous CoMo practices in that senior executives started using more subjective editorial judgment in deciding that newsworthiness overrode previous policy restrictions on graphic content.
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.