Keep in mind, there are actual feeds belonging to active terrorist organizations out there. I don't know who those two feeds mentioned belong to and I don't care enough to look into them. I am sure that Lieberman was speaking about the actual terrorists' Twitter accounts (and perhaps those two belong to them too?). Most likely he was responding to or supporting work started by families of victims of terrorism who have launched a campaign to get Twitter to shut down the actual terrorist feeds. Hezbollah has one, so does the Taliban. These goofs have killed many innocent people and make life hell for countless more. The efforts to shut down those actual terrorist feeds is the real story here. It is an initiative that Lieberman did not start, but probably supports.
Journalism being what it is, I think this writer is spinning the story to be about Lieberman in order to make him look like he is pro-censorship--which he may or may not be. Either way, the issue of Terrorists on Twitter is not the case or point to pin on him. And shutting down the Twitter accounts belonging to mass murderers is not the same as taking a star off of a Christmas tree because it offends someone (like on SP).
There is still a case to be made in favor of protecting terrorists use of Twitter, and there are purists who don't think any speech should ever be censored or ever held accountable for what that speech promotes, no matter how vile it is. I disagree, but that is just me.
--Previous Message--
: 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.
:
:
:
:
Message Thread
« Back to index