We have previously discussed the troubling efforts to bar conservative speakers from college campuses and social media, particularly Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos who has become something of an icon for young conservatives. Twitter has long been criticized for banning or harassing conservative figures, including repeated suspensions against Yiannopoulos. Now, the company is under fire for permanently banning Yiannopoulos — just 20 minutes before his “Gays for Trump” event takes place at the Republican National Convention.
What is equally disturbing is that Twitter has remained silent about the reason for the permanent ban. The supporters of Yiannopoulos however cited a series of exchanges with Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones on the site. Jones, who herself has been criticized for racially insensitive comments against whites, reportedly spoke with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey after she complained about “abuse” on the platform.
There is no question that Jones has been subject to disgusting and racists attacks on social media after the release of the highly unpopular Ghostbusters movie (It is highly disturbing that Jones, who is black, seems to have generated the most criticism rather than the other actresses). Supporters of Yiannopoulos insist that he is often blamed for the comments of others on these sites, which are often caustic and racist. I find the comments directed against Jones to be highly offensive and Jones ultimately quit Twitter. Yet, Jones is a celebrity and, in a free and open forum, there will be inevitable trolls and vile commentators. It is the cost of free speech that we often have to put up with a degree of garbage, including racists like some of those attacking Jones. On our own site, we have a civility rule and I try to catch racist or personal attacks but I also try hard to minimize deletions on a site committed to free speech. That results in commentary that I often dislike or find offensive. Yet, such hateful commentators are often shouted down by more mature commentators.
Moreover, when people like Jones are subjected to racist or obnoxious attacks, it serves to lay bare the serious racial problems that we continue to face in this country. Removing evidence of such views just forces these commentators under ground and turns them into victims. As difficult as the trolls must be for celebrities like Jones (and I do not belittle the emotional toll even for a celebrity), these postings expose the problem rather than scrub it away through bans and sanctions.
I remain very concerned about the increasing content-based censorship on Twitter, Google, and other sites. Yiannopoulos has objected that he is being punished for the comments or actions of fans and trolls as opposed to his own statements. Moreover, he has raised what he views as a double standard in the treatment of groups like Black Lives Matter and more conservative groups. The New York Times reports “Twitter barred one of the most egregious and consistent offenders of its terms of service, Milo Yiannopoulos, in an attempt to show that it is cracking down on abuse.” Yet, there are no examples of such violations or even a recognition by the New York Times of the free speech implications of such terms of service when used to target people on the basis of the content of their views.
Twitter does need to explain this action. We use Twitter as part of our blog but it would be difficult for a site committed to free speech to use a company that abridges free speech, if these allegations are true. Twitter has an obligation to not only establish clear guidelines but address controversies like this one.
I am not well versed in the writings of Yiannopoulos, but I do believe that he has been subjected to unfair and unequal treatment on campuses. I continue to believe strongly that, despite hateful or obnoxious speech on social media, we are far better off in maintaining a free and robust forum on the Internet than engaging in private censorship. The desire to silence critics can become insatiable as companies like Twitter sanitize their media through bans and sanctions. Whatever problems people have with Yiannopoulos, he remains a strong voice for young conservatives. Critics should answer him, not work to silence him.
What do you think?
Twitter has a strange policy of what it allows. I don’t use it anymore because I find it inane and lame. My BFF Penelope Dreadful tweets sometimes. Saying that Leslie Jones could play “Harambe, the Gorilla” in a movie is not nice, but pretty harmless compared to the black lives matter stuff they allow. And if I understand it correctly, Milo didn’t say a lot of things, but his followers did. So yes, this looks like raw censorship.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – have you read Milo’s full review of the film? He really rips it. You will enjoy the prose. 😉
Unbelievable!
One question….
Where’s Annie/Inga?
That is the very definition of private entity pushback.
The government is obligated to treat all persons equally, whereas private corps (within civil rights limits) are not required to do so. Twitter could arbitrarily ban anyone they wanted generally and capriciously. The only legal challenge to a banned person could be based upon the terms of the agreement, OR a claim of illegal prejudice based upon a place of public accommodation, which Twitter is.
Lacking those avenues, the more organic way of pushback is public criticism, boycotts of Twitter, moving to a competing Twitter-like service, boycotts of sponsors of Twitter.
It is sad when a private service that was built upon the trust and assurances of fair play, and free speech, starts going down the dark path of censorship, and loses its street cred as a platform for free expression and vibrant debates.
Gary Trieste – I did hear that 50% of the remarks on Twitter are done by bots. Which means, if you can control the bots, you can control the trend. BTW, Milo’s speech was great. He clearly is not PC.
“I remain very concerned about the increasing content-based censorship on Twitter, Google, and other sites.”
Twitter is a private entity and can censor as it pleases. If you don’t like what they’re doing, build your own online communication service and take away their business. In the meantime, your “concern” concerns no one.
ROFL! A blog that deletes “unacceptable” posts and maybe temporarily or permanently suspends accounts, has an issue with Twitter managing their business? This thread drips of pathetic hypocrisy.
btw – it someone follows the Fiorina example and commits a crime (For Fiorina’s baby parts lie I believe 3 people including a police officer were killed) might a smart attorney decide to bring a “deep pocket” Twitter into the action? Should not a legal blog consider possible legal and financial ramifications of a company’s content?
Personally, not a fan of banning any speech. But the conservative hypocrisy on this website regarding private company conduct is wildly inconsistent and beyond laughable.
Pretty good analysis Darren. I also agree that these folks are a small but loud minority. For better or worse, I think Trump is the default candidate for this large population segment, and it also explains his big numbers. This liberal minority may brush him off as just having appeal based on reality TV, but that may be their own understanding and jaded point of view. You can see it from the pundits and talk show hosts who do not have a clue about the understanding of the rest of the country (although they are sure they do). Trump has become the country-wide figure of protest. SO, this will be interesting to see how Twitter survives the coming backlash. It will be interesting to see if people’s memories persist or if Twitter can reinvent itself to be more inline with the new way of thinking.
Since Twitter is a major media outlet backing Hillary, they have been censorous of Milo. What is interesting is that he just knocked her movie, not her. He has a huge following and now has a #freemilo hashtag supporting him.
One of the things that Milo has proved is that you can be gay and conservative. And funny.
For much of the Left, it is only censorship when the content removed supports their politics and sensibilities. Otherwise, it is justified as being necessary to protect their position or whatever victimhood designation they proffer to advocate on behalf of.
On this website two or three months ago, someone pointed to a survey that found that those identifying themselves to be liberal were twice as likely as conservatives to support censorship of a topic they disagreed with.
I believe now the intolerance by the left to free speech and dissenting views will increase with time. Yet, I suspect they are more of a vocal minority that perceives itself as being a larger segment of the population that it actually is currently. And for some reason they are given more credibility than what is equitable.
One would think from a business point of view any news medium, including Twitter, will instead embrace free speech since it brings in more customers. But they unfortunately cave in to one person who complains and suddenly extreme measures are taken against the other. I suspect there is a measure of these social media companies being administered by, for lack of better words, “Generation Wimp”; many of whom demand that they be both protected or sheltered from anything “bad” in the world, and who are so narcissistic that other people’s views or opinions do not matter because they know everything and everyone else is wrong and a threat.
But, as long as there are not many who will call out Twitter and others who censor based upon political alignments, this will continue.
“Jones, who herself has been criticized for racially insensitive comments against whites,[…]”
Most of your statements have links to support them, why not this one?
I tried to find something to support the quoted statement but couldn’t come up with any. Perhaps you can point me to the information that prompted you to make such a statement.
Milo is a gay guy with a rant.
He tweets, speaks at colleges & universities. Here’s Milo video. GOP convention, July 20, 2016
Milo Brings Down The House At Gays For Trump Party In Cleveland
I can’t judge this particular instance because I’m not familiar with tweets and have no interest in going there, however, “Free speech” is something guaranteed by the government, not corporations, so I don’t see this as a free speech issue. Furthermore, bullying, even cyber bullying, should not be allowed.
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
Umm, Twitter is owned by a corporation so they regularly censor “free speech” A Bernie Sanders supporter, Jeanette Jing, who regularly posted on #Bernieorbust had her account suspended. Only after major pushback did they reinstate it.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/290630/twitter-suspends-jeanette-jing-bernie-sanders-supporter/
Reblogged this on Truth Troubles: Why people hate the truths' of the real world.
Very good article Sir, I appreciate you dispersing your knowledge about issues that I don’t know of. I have grown to respect your opinions.
Good points made RE Milo! Only it seems the Brave New World is getting bigger, more encompassing and more invincible than perhaps you or I realize.
Perhaps the problem is actually summarized unintentionally in your statement:
“On our own site, we have a civility rule and I try to catch racist or personal attacks but I also try hard to minimize deletions on a site committed to free speech. That results in commentary that I often dislike or find offensive. Yet, such hateful commentators are often shouted down by more mature commentators.”
How to define “racist” and “personal attacks”? If one attacks the ideas held by a minority or PC-personage, one can be easily dismissed as “racist,” “sexist,” “neocon,” or whatever… and then censored into oblivion. Ones arguments are entirely ignored. You certainly must know this and that FREE SPEECH does include “racist” and “personal attacks.” Thus on the one hand you argue to be a free-speech proponent, but on the other hand you admit to being a censor of subjectively-determined “racist” and “personal attacks.” That is the crux–the same crux confronting the faceless Twitter arbiters.
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident (www.theamericandissident.org)
Warspite, WTF you talking about, sucker? They are the arbiters of the truth, so they could not possibly be fascists! SIEG HEIL!
Milo exposes liberal hypocrisy on a daily basis. He is an acerbic, intelligent, witty, assassin of the left.
You think these well-meaning liberals & “progressives” even have an inkling of their fascism?
like or dislike him Farage sums it up
now apply this to free speech especially at the end
same outcome