http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36842710

Good - “free speech” does not guarantee you the right to a platform, nor does it give you the right to be heard.

I’ve not seen the film, so I’m bemused about the abuse it and the actors are getting about it. It seems to be just because the lead roles are all female, and that one of those is black.

The problem is entire sections of the internet's usual tribes are getting conflated - some people are just pissed off that what is likely a sh1t film has been constructed off a cult brand. Others are clearly just the usual Twitter fcuktards.

Truth is, the film would likely have been an even weaker hit if it wasn't for the controversey. All of this serves Sony, and I doubt they'll give a crap about their actress.

You really hate that film, don't you, ernie?

What was so bad about it?

I've nothing against the film itself (I haven't seen it!), it's the lazy, cynical BS around it's production that's now being blamed on the usual Twitter w@nkers. It's a vested interests sham. By most accounts the film's average at best and hasn't made the money it should, but Sony probably can't believe bad press is actually propping it up.

Even the director of the original/producer of this one has suggested he doesn't believe the thrust of the controversey is misogyny.

I'm not sure about this one. Twitter being a private entity can remove anyone they want from their platform. This doesn't impact on Milo's "free speech" either as he still carries that right - just not on Twitter.

What I don't agree with is that the ban was deserving. I didn't see any evidence of him "abusing" the actress in question nor any tweets directing others to abuse her.

I understand she did get some hateful/racist remarks but I don't see how that is Milo's responsibility. It's also quite telling that a lot of those responsible for the actual abuse have not themselves been banned.

I can't help but feel that this was a targeted attack to get an outspoken controversial conservative banned - after all the 3rd wave feminists (feminazi?) have been trying (unsuccessfully) for quite some time.

It's social (internet) justice and I don't like it.

Twitter vows to act more swiftly after banning Leslie Jones abuser | Technology | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... annopoulos

Yeah, I remember the last hundred times you said that.

I believe in this particular instance it was more about orchestrating dogpilling by his supporters than him abusing her directly. He's been suspended plenty of times in the past for posting insane [LIFTED] as well, so there's plenty of form there.

There's no actual evidence of this happening though. In fact it has been suggested since the ban that the abuse directed Leslie was already ongoing and Milo waded into the middle of it *Source*

You have the right to free speech. However, you d not have the right to a platform, nor do you have a right to be heard. Twitter is a private company, and they let people use their platform - however, they do not have an obligation to anyone.

Anyone* complaining about Twitter censoring their freedom of speech clearly miss the point that they also have the freedom to set up their own platform.

*That is anyone in a country that has freed of speech. I know that there are many counties that control such platforms.