There's a lawsuit pending re Twitter bans...

[Yambabe]

...and it seems the judges (in the US at least) are not in favour of them.

Unfortunately it seems that the person/organisation in this case is a right-wing nutjob.

But leaving aside the rights or (very much in my opinion) wrongs of what he wants to say the concept of him being allowed free speech on Twitter in view of other recent suspensions and bans is interesting.

Link in next post (so hopefully it will work!) Would be interested ti hear your thoughts.

twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1008054653790183424

"Judge Kahn recognized Taylor’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) that Twitter could be, in effect, guilty of false advertising by holding itself out as a public forum for free speech while reserving the right to ban the expression of ideas with which it disagrees.
Judge Kahn also recognized Taylor’s claim under the UCL that Twitter’s terms of service—according to which it claims the right to ban any user any time for any reason—may well be “unconscionable,” and a violation of the law.
In oral argument, Judge Kahn asked: “Twitter can discriminate on the basis of religion, or gender, or sexual preference, or physical disability, or mental disability?”
Counsel for Twitter conceded that it claimed that right—even thought it would never exercise it. Judge Kahn denied that Twitter has such a right."

It feels like a social honour system gone awry. After what we've seen with other tech companies, it feels disingenuous for Twitter's counsel to argue that it has a right it would never exercise.

If the suit does proceed it will be interesting to see how it plays out and how much of it will reflect the US distinction between actionable comments and what falls under "protected speech".

Interesting, but it will just lead to the likes of Britain's First being allowed back online to spread their hate if successful

I would love to see women's "free speech" held up in court.

It feels like a social honour system gone awry.

As do many things at the moment!

Britain First and their ilk should be combatted with reason, logical debate and the law (equality legislation, ‘hate speech’/mal comms laws etc if they are inciting violence or issuing threats). Individuals can block and not engage with them if they wish, but I don’t think wholesale bans are productive. They just help make martyrs.

Interesting! I’m actually in favour of Britain First being allowed online they are another example of people soooooo unaware they should just be allowed to get on with spouting their bile, they do their ‘cause’ more harm than good.The British public are largely able to distinguish between people wanting to have a sensible conversation about immigration and racist extremists.

I'd rather see Britain First given permission to speak than see Jenni Murray denied it.

I'd rather see Britain First given permission to speak than see Jenni Murray denied it.

Absolutely. Free speech matters and, to the point that people stay working the law, you can’t pick and choose who gets to speak. Newly-minted Labour MP Janet Daby boycotted hustings last week during the Lewisham East by-election, refusing to share a platform (‘giving oxygen’ I believe was her quote) with the For Britain candidate. Every other party turned up (apart from the Tory candidate who claimed a prior engagement). The whole event however was scuppered by ‘Stand Up To Racism’ campaigners protesting outside, blocking access, there were reports on Twitter of scuffles and two older people falling to the ground, police shut the whole thing down. So everyone was silenced.

"Judge Kahn recognized Taylor’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) that Twitter could be, in effect, guilty of false advertising by holding itself out as a public forum for free speech while reserving the right to ban the expression of ideas with which it disagrees.

Yes I agree.