The feeds named in the Telegraph article (@ABalkhi and @alemarahweb) are about as "threatening" as a Westboro Bapist Church Twitter account, with a few facts tucked away between tweet after tweet filled with jingoistic statements and "preaching to the converted."

So annoying but not hate speech. Hate speech can be shut down - shutting down someone because they're annoying is out of line. Think of that South Park episode where they take down anything xmas related that offends anyone.


--Previous Message--
: There are limits to freedom of speech. Hate speech or promoting
: hate is not protected. Granted, I have never read the Taliban's
: tweets, but I have read and heard other gems they have produced.
: I am not giving a legal opinion, but as a matter of decency I
: agree with Lieberman on this one. Taking away the Taliban's
: Twitter will not end the terrorism, but it also will NOT create
: more terrorism. If Twitter were owned by me I would shut down
: the account. Let the Taliban take me to court of they have a
: problem with it.
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I think the issue here is more that blocking someone's speech
: because you don't like it is a bad thing. Is talking about ___
: worse than actually doing it? If anything blocking speech is
: more likely to cause someone to act up and cause shit to happen.
:
: