The exact moment that Jason Whitlock stopped mattering

Whitlock is back on Twitter and tweeting away. Supposedly the suspension was only for a couple days and Twitter said they screwed up in putting him in the penalty box.

Frankly I wish more journalists would comment on police arresting journalists for no valid reason when they are covering protests.

 

I wish more journalists would comment on why the wearing of suits directly contributes to a decline in common decency and compassion.

My theory is that it has something to do with office thermostats, but I must admit that I do not have extensive research nor a broad-based sample of field observations to back that up.

 

they can't they're being silenced a guest on bill mahr's show mentioned this

 

This is the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

Twitter and all social media companies are private companies, not public forums. They can censor their platforms as they wish. The first amendment doesn't apply remotely.

I hope your newspaper published every single letter to the editor and allows comments on its website. Freedom of speech!!!!!!1!!1!!!1!

 

Do you think Twitter should be sued if there's something on its site that is libelous?

Because here's the real thing: Twitter enjoys 230 "free for all" protections newspapers don't enjoy. Twitter is getting better at moderating its site, but it's not perfect, and whereas a paper publisher gets dinged for printing libel, Twitter doesn't. It doesn't have that guardrail. Imagine a companion who goes on there and write libelous things about their companion's spouse; you can sue the tweeter, but not Twitter. The public square is that. You don't sue the city for the dude screaming "Bob Smith stole $120,000!" on public property.

And that's the thing. Remove 230 protection and Twitter isn't Twitter. But when Twitter says "not this story, but this story" it's functioning less like a free-for-all public square and a little more like something else. You go far enough down that line, and all of the sudden it's easier to say "OK, Twitter, we're holding you responsible for libel the way we would the New York Times. Proceed accordingly."

Twitter is probably out of business without 230 protections.

 

Fair. But should a platform already making stronger content choices by the day be absolved of any responsibility on libel issues? I can make an argument for "yes" and "no."

The second issue is whether Web hosting services are colluding with Twitter by shutting down other competitors or keeping them off their servers.

 

Let's say that laws are passed that prohibit Twitter from banning Donald Trump and Jason Whitlock? Would Twitter then be prohibited from banning the President of the American Nazi party?

And Whitlock was locked out because he disclosed the residence and showed a picture of the home of a BLM official, according to the screenshot. I would suspect that if I printed your address on this thread that I would be banned. Do I have a first amendment right to print your address in this thread?

What is the standard you seem to propose.

 

I'm not sure I am proposing a standard. I'm setting what I think the fairer terms of the debate are - which is to include the section 230 discussion. I actually think, yes, Twitter is its own platform. But it is not responsible for any of the offensive commentary on it, save through the pressure of the people who largely use it, which is one side of the political aisle.

 

Twitter enjoys protection from libel. If it didn’t, Twitter would likely have to shape its approach differently.

I’d probably agree with you that Twitter shouldn’t be held liable for libel. But the 230 protection may turn out to be something that’s in play precisely because, to some, Twitter appears to favor certain views and certain complaints over others.

And yes they are content choices if you’re beginning to curate to a higher degree what does or does not stay on the site. An art museum doesn’t make the art. Does it make content choices? Of course.