Whatever one's view on this tweet, it very obviously violated no Twitter rules.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 9, 2022
Its only sin was it fell outside of what was deemed to be the limits of acceptable views about an historical event.
Criticizing it was therefore insufficient. It had to be institutionally banished. https://t.co/ZVQHe5iiLE
This is the prevailing repressive climate constructed by the consortium of power centers I mentioned Tuesday, led by "journalists" whose only real function is to enforce institutional orthodoxies by banning any dissent from them.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 9, 2022
It will come for everyone except Good Liberals.
পোস্টগুলি
৮৬টি মন্তব্য:
If Trump is soooooo bad that he deserved to be banned, this woman deserves it as well.
“May her pain be excruciating” violates the Twitter rules. So Glenn Greenwald is wrong, or lying.
And what is Anya's heritage? An elite looking down upon deplorables. A deplorable that rises from their knees. Perhaps a wicked solution to a purportedly hard problem. A political congruence or two to facilitate its consumption.
When first we practice to play with the double-edged scalpel.
Twitter has a rule against tweets that wish or hope that someone experiences physical harm. Seems clearly applicable to me.
Greenwald is not wrong but he's not going deep enough.
Why is this particular instance of usually perfectly acceptable anti-white bigotry being banished?
It isn't because anybody wants to protect the reputation of the Queen. The WEF/Davos crowd wants to protect the British Monarch because they have a big ally in the now Current Occupant of the Throne, barmy Prince Charlie, who is a thoroughly committed climatista and big into population control, among other ideas championed by Klaus.
100%. By all means let people tell you who they are!
Greenwald is such a breathe of fresh air, in that he upholds the old principles whereby if you believe in something you will defend it even when it's used in support of views you abhor.
Twitter is not a free speech platform and their rules are merely directional; inconsistently enforced at their own discretion.
"Whatever one's view on this tweet, it very obviously violated no Twitter rules."
Why? Was the Queen a secret Trump fan or something?
I'll bet this lady is a real hit at parties.
Seems we have some cognitive dissonance here. Although the British Empire was arguably the third worst thing that ever happened, after the holocaust and the founding of the United States of Slavery, some benighted souls harbor a sneaking affection for the deceased Queen, and for the trappings of Monarchy. Tsk!
Given Queen Liz is dead, this sort of remark is in the same class as saying "I hope Hitler is buring in Hell" or "I hope Bush-I died a horrible painful death".
Classless, but given others are banned on Twitter for simply deviating from the current Political "Party line" its hard to get upset.
Frankly, I've been shocked at the hate toward the Queen shown online. Rather odd, given she was basically a powerless Constituional Monarch who would've happily stepped down if the Labour party had abolished the monarchy. Other than having a "Bully Pulpit" and British crown can't really do much of anything, and is responsible for almost nothing, good or bad.
Sounds like the Queen’s death was not excruciating.
So DEI didn’t grant her wish.
Lazy thinkers thrive in academia.
Now the professor has something common with Trump.
“chief monarch” is redundant.
May her pain be excruciating.
Writing that was not nice.
Keep in mind that there never has been any thieving, raping or genocide in Nigeria -- except what was done by British colonists.
It’s poor sportsmanship when conquerors whine about getting conquered.
When black tribes conquer then that’s good. But when the English did it, it’s genocide.
England’s kings and queens beat her kings and queens.
It's Twatter. Nuff' said...
It does make you wonder if Twitter deletes the tweet to protect the Twitterer.
That tweet really made its way around yesterday. Hopefully Uju will be allowed to continue to colonize Carnegie Mellon.
Is she Irish?
But her tweet DOES violate Twitter's rules.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
Rule #3 is that you cannot engage in "targeted harassment." Wishing pain and death on a specific person is "targeted harassment."
"This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm."
It's Rule #3. Ya'll need to read the rules before you claim this tweet doesn't violate them.
Twitter's rules are so broadly defined that ANY tweet can be seen to be violating their "rules."
This tweet also violates Twitter's rules against harassing people on the basis of their national origin (in this case, UK).
Why not let's debate whether Twitter is a violation of the United States Constitution first. Twitter's existence, and partnership with our government, is what is the threat to free speech. This company is anathema to our Constitution and First Amendment rights and should be confiscated by the federal government and shut down. The first Republican that begins to address this will separate himself from the boring pack.
Twitter cannot be allowed to continue to exist in a free country such as the United States. SHUT. IT. DOWN.
No less than the owner of the Washington Post newspaper objected to it.
I don't want any censorship.
I want these dim-witted, affirmative action quota-hire morons to be exposed for who they really are.
"This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm."
Because she's dying Elizabeth Windsor's pain is exempt from the rule? It seems like a sad little hill for Greenwald to defend.
Notable, mostly because it's super rare to happen to anyone on the left. Odious as she is, I am not in favor of suspending accounts which offend.
FYI
Uju Anya is a researcher and professor of applied linguistics at Carnegie Mellon University. The primary focus of her critical discourse studies is to investigate the roles that race, gender, sexual orientation, and social class play in the acquisition of a new language through the perspectives of African American students. On August 4, 1976, she was brought into the world by a Nigerian father and a Trinidadian mother. Uju was born and raised in the state of Enugu. Uju is also famous for her support of the LGBTQ community. She has publicly declared she is a lesbian after her divorce from her husband.
If the woman wishes to expose herself as to what she is, twitter should allow it
A word that describes Uju Anya well is NASTY.
On the contrary Uju Anya should not be allowed to delete this. She has revealed her true self, and that revelation should be indelible.
You're no longer a person when you're dead. You're no longer a someone. You can't harass a corpse, just like you can't defame it.
Sadly, our host was more enamored with the Tweet than the facts. Fortunately, others above have clarified her error regarding Twitter rules. That said, I think the Twitter rules are lacking. Hyperbole should be allowed. Of course, that still requires judgment over what is hyperbole and what is hateful/inciting speech.
I believe that it took until the 1920s before the "raping, genocidal empire" was able to ban slavery in that liberal humanistic area of Nigeria. 90 years after being able to enforce a ban almost elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
Either way, the Commonwealth predates the birth of Queen Elizabeth II.
Lefties used to love this kind of stuff, but now that they're close to becoming monarchs and rulers of the world themselves, it's no longer helpful.
“May her pain be excruciating” violates the Twitter rules. So Glenn Greenwald is wrong, or lying.
The tweet was posted after the Queen died. Therefore, the wish was not against a living person and does not violate Twitter rules.
Left Bank is either wrong or lying.
I suspect that wishing someone pain violates Twitter rules.
Of course, that assumes there are such things as Twitter rules. Rules are supposed to apply to everyone, and Twitter rules most certainly do not. They are more flexible guidelines that are enforced at a whim.
Twitter deleted the post for the same reason they keep going after Libs of TikTok -- it made The Left look really, REALLY bad.
Must keep up appearances, and all that.
The tweet was deleted, but was she banned? Deadnaming will get you a permaban, is that worse than wishing excruciating pain on someone?
Sadly, our host was more enamored with the Tweet than the facts.
You're right about that. Ann should have read the rules and then applied them as if she was an attorney. Or say, a law professor. Argue the facts, so to speak. She pounded the table. And we all know what that means.
However ... Althouse is correct that Twitter cannot be allowed to be the arbiter of what speech is acceptable in the United States and what speech is not.
Twitter cannot be allowed to exist in a country that has a First Amendment which guarantees its citizens the right to hold abhorent opinions. I'm sorry. It can't be allowed to exist. The fact of the matter is that Twitter has joined with the US federal government to arbitrate speech in our country - and that violates our rights. It cannot be allowed to do that. Period. It cannot set rules. It cannot be allowed to decide what is and what is not offensive or what is "harassment."
Twitter must be shut down in the United States.
As for Greenwald, he lives in Brazil. He has no free speech rights and little right to say what we should do in the United States. If he wishes to control what we do here, he should move here.
'The primary focus of her critical discourse studies is to investigate the roles that race, gender, sexual orientation, and social class play in the acquisition of a new language through the perspectives of African American students.'
All things I give zero fucks about.
I am blessed : )
If the tweet had been about Trump, DeSantis, or Tucker Carlson, it never gets deleted or forced deletion by the author. I think everyone understands this. The rule isn't that you can't wish pain or agony on another person, it is that you can't do it to certain people.
Greenwald is correct- the tweet shouldn't have been deleted- I have seen far, far worse left up written by prominent people of the left, and far milder ones deleted because either the target was a protected class, or the writer of the tweet was a semi-fascist MAGA type. The only rule Twitter really has is to censor people on the right, not the left. In this particular case, though, the writer attacked someone who was a protected class- an older female beloved by most people left and right.
If you don't like Twitter rules, Donnie will be glad to post any lie you want to post. And 8chan will as well.
Uju Anya is sick. Attacking a powerless monarch who also was a very old and respectable lady who never could change any governmental decision made anywhere within the entire United Kingdom since 1947 is unfathomable.
But defending the indefensible action of Glenn Greenwald is inexplicable as well.
I'm of the view that free speech is free speech. Nothing gets banned or censored. That means that the expressions of vile hate by evil people will be posted. And the rest of us will have a window into their heart of darkness and can respond as we see fit.
This know-nothing professor at an obsolete college, Uju Anya, is, without a doubt, a hateful, evil person. I see that a spokesperson for the once prestigious college put out a statement indicating that the school does not condone the offensive and objectionable message. Further, "Free expression is core to the mission of higher education, however, the views she shared absolutely do not represent the values of the institution, nor the standards of discourse we seek to foster." This is appropriate and should be a standard response.
Moreover, schools should probably have an "Elvis does politics" statement ready: The university as an institution does not make statements on politics. It is up to individuals to use their rights as citizens to make political speech. We do not interfere.
"Frankly, I've been shocked at the hate toward the Queen shown online. Rather odd, given she was basically a powerless Constituional Monarch who would've happily stepped down if the Labour party had abolished the monarchy."
Many people get up in the morning just to hate. It's shocking and sad.
Not only does it violate Twitter’s rules, it is vile and hateful.
"Its only sin was it fell outside of what was deemed to be the limits of acceptable views about an historical event."
I often like Greenwald, but I think this is false: I'm pretty sure the issue is the personal hatred turned into wishing harm on another, even if somewhat hypothetically to a dead person. "Acceptable views" of the "historical event" in question include the notion that the British Empire was a murderous monster. It's easy to test: post a tweet saying that the statement about Queen E is wrong but the British Empire did commit atrocities in its past. See what happens. Prediction: nothing. Standard prog history.
Though I disagree with the letter of Greenwald's claim, I agree with the spirit (also of Althouse's post). It would be better for Twitter to let the hate come through, and for progs to be exposed in all their raw glory. But the cancellation is fake anyway, since all good progs approve of the political sentiment.
I'm guessing they're from a shithole country back when Britain wasn't a shithole country.
If free speech doesn't apply to a monumental thundercunt like this, it applies to nobody.
If I am not mistaken Section 230 absolves social media companies from choosing to be common carriers or publishers. Congress should repeal Section 230 and let the companies decide if they want to be common carriers or publishers and act accordingly.
Poster girl for the Woke.
Twitter deleted this post to protect not punish Uju Anya.
Rcocean,
"powerless"? Really?
Elizabeth and now King Chuck have powers that would make Stalin blush.
Commander in chief of all military
Veto power over all laws
Appoints and can fire the prime minister and cabinet
Appoints and can fire judges. I think they can override verdicts, guilty or innocent
Can dissolve parliament
All govt and military members swear an oath of loyalty to the person, as opposed to the office of king/queen.
The above applies, more or less, to Canada and all other commonwealth countries eg: trudeau is not elected but is appointed by the monarch via their governor General.
Elizabeth ruled with a very light hand. Her rule was behind the scenes and subtle. If she had objected to a party's recommendation for pm, she would have let it be known via back channels. An acceptable name would have been proposed.
The UK monarch has incredible and absolute powers. That they choose not to exercise them directly in no way negates them. Their subjects have only their soverign's better nature to rely on.
That worked with Elizabeth. Will it continue to work under king chuck?
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
"Why not let's debate whether Twitter is a violation of the United States Constitution first. Twitter's existence, and partnership with our government, is what is the threat to free speech. This company is anathema to our Constitution and First Amendment rights and should be confiscated by the federal government and shut down."
*****************
It would take a painful Vulcan Mind Meld to get in there to tease apart the ignorance and full-frontal naked contradictions in those sentence.
The deep thinkers tell us that if king chuck were to more visibly exercise his considerable powers it would cause a "constitutional crisis" I've never understood his this can happen in a country with no constitution.
Oh, it does have a constitution you say? Where might I find a copy? (yes, I've read Bagehot)
More importantly, who has any power to do anything about it?
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
I agree in general that Twitter should censor nobody.
But, since they have positioned themselves as the arbiter of nice speech, they should apply their rules even handedly.
We have the power to not use them, boycott advertisers and generally grouse and whinge. I wound not wasn't to try to use the government to control them.
Otoh, we are now seeing that govt is controlling them. Telling them who and what to allow and ban. When the private company allows that they become, it seems to me, a government agency. The 2nd amendment the applies to Twitter even as ostensibly a private company.
Apparently, anyway. There seems to be evidence of govt/Twitter collusion. I don't think we know for certain yet.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
Lizzie presided over the breaking up of the empire. In general, though, the relation between monarchs and the empire has been fuzzy since the Tudors died and England booted out the Stuarts. It looks like monarchs were mostly just figureheads who had to show up for ceremonies and sign the documents the politicians put in front of them.
She didn’t threaten or slander anyone, she didn’t incite violence or encourage criminal activity. If her tweet violated twitter rules, the fault lies with the rules. Greenwald is, as usual, right.
Jupiter said...Although the British Empire was arguably the third worst thing that ever happened,
Strongly disagree. The British empire is one of the greatest institutions in human history. It’s not a coincidence that the wealthiest, freest, and most successful former colonies are former British colonies.
“chief monarch” is redundant.
Have been watching, before Compline, an English television series from the 70s called Rising Damp much of the humor (or putative humor) of which is occasioned by the outrageously racist attitudes of the landlord (Leonard Rossiter) toward one of his tenants (portrayed by the wonderful actor Don Warrington) who is the son (who has ten wives back home) of an African 'paramount chief' studying at the nearby university. I wonder if the nasty professor had that expression in the back of her mind when she typed 'chief monarch'.
In an interesting cultural bonding, #irishtwitter is likewise abounding in less than respectful commentary.
Including this quote from last year from the Irish Times:
"Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown."
I’m of(in?) the camp that it should not be deleted (by Twitter).
I’m pretty sure if it was some lesser person, it would have not been banned even though it might have violated their ‘rules’.
Gusty Winds said...
The left wing twitter sheep and bots always say... Twitter and FB are private companies...they can do whatever they want. They don't have to adhere to the 1st amendment.…
While this is true, the Government is charged with upholding the constitution, and it’s amendments. When a service becomes a de-facto mechanism or platform for speech, should the government step in to uphold that?
Of course, that is a grey area, but the government exists to ensure each individuals liberty, or can be argued, is not violated. If private companies are free to do so, what use is the government?
You can't threaten or promote violence on Twitter or encourage people to harm themselves. You also can't wish someone suffers physical harm. Whether that was intended to include wishing physical suffering from non-human causes on third parties, it looks like that's also banned by the rule.
It would be nice to know how strictly and fairly Twitter enforces the rule, but that would require some serious digging, not simply finding an article one agrees with and dropping it into the thread. Greenwald is usually right, but in this case maybe not so much.
I’m inclined to believe the fall of civilization is not social media itself but everyone arguing about what the rules are…and if you haven’t figured out what the rules are at this point…
just get off the fucking thing.
“May her pain be excruciating” violates the Twitter rules. So Glenn Greenwald is wrong, or lying. - Left bank of the Charles
And they're crocodile tears he's crying, all the way to the bank -- doing the free speech hustle.
Of course, that is a grey area
Ann likes the common carrier argument but she’s been batting below the law prof Mendoza line lately…
As for Greenwald, he lives in Brazil. He has no free speech rights and little right to say what we should do in the United States. If he wishes to control what we do here, he should move here. - Buckwheathikes
I lived the vast majority of my life in the US, am a US citizen, pay taxes there & am there constantly. - Glen Greenwald, May 14, 2020
Twitter cannot be allowed to exist in a country that has a First Amendment which guarantees its citizens the right to hold abhorent opinions. - Buckwheathikes
Lawsuits alleging free speech violations against social media companies are routinely dismissed. The primary grounds for these dismissals are that social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Consequently, those who post on social media platforms do not have the right to free speech on these social media platforms. - Brett M. Pinkus, SPRING 2021 ISSUE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Rules aside, there is such a thing as taste, and civilized behavior. Sadly we have now raised two generations, large parts of which have no comprehension or consideration of either. Character has become a matter of likes and re-tweets. How long, oh Lord?"
The EDU guys have brainwashed the young into believing that they are being good little activists by being violent speech vigilantes.
But the worse the speaker’s point of view, the better it is to let them speak. SO WE THAT KNOW WHAT THEY THINKING. That alone is THE reason we have rules protecting free speech. So that the insane cannot sneak up on us. This explains why libs of tic toc is such a threat to the good little censors. They give libs speech lots of exposure so they cannot sneak up on us.
John Henry said, “ Elizabeth and now King Chuck have powers that would make Stalin blush. ”
Yes, everything he said is correct. The monarch can use any of those powers. Once. Then Parliament will revoke that power and, if sufficiently upset, can do away with the monarchy.
A great benefit of free speech is that it allows repellant people like Uju to identify themselves.
“May her pain be excruciating” violates the Twitter rules. So Glenn Greenwald is wrong, or lying. - Left bank of the Charles
**********
As ever, Left Back ignores the obvious: Twitter has MANY rules violating Free speech, especially those disallowing "disinformation" aka "information the left wants to silence".
But don't worry, Left Back likes those rules, very much.
Mike Sylwester said...
Keep in mind that there never has been any thieving, raping or genocide in Nigeria -- except what was done by British colonists.
*****************
Correct. Project Veritas has looked into it. Boko Haram, for example, is a secret branch of British Freemasons.
You heard it here first.
Mongo,
It would be interesting to see how Parliament could do that.
Stalin once asked "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
I would ask the same thing: "How many divisions does Parliament have?" Answer: None. All the UK military is under control of the king and has sworn loyalty to his person.
Since the king can prorogue Parliament (probably) and send them home, there might not even be a parliament to oppose him in any way.
In the US, we have perhaps 2-3 guns for every man woman and child and perhaps hundreds of rounds for each gun. In a really SHTF scenario the civilian populace could rise up to violently oppose the govt. Yes, extremely unlikely but armed resistance always has to be part of the calculus.
In the UK, subjects have close to no guns at all. They are not even allowed to own pointy kitchen knives. So the king would not need to worry about a popular uprising other than street protests and such.
So they are back to depending on King Chuck's better nature and hoping he has one.
As a wise man once said "Never rely on a man's better nature. He may not have one."
John Stop fascism, vote republican Henry
No advocacy for surgical, medical, or psychiatric corruption, No dreams of redistributive change. No Some, Select [Black] Lives Matter. No Occupations. No political congruence. No calls to take a knee, beg... No Diversity [dogma], Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE). No Mengele mandates. No human rites. No wicked solutions.
"social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums"
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
"Lawsuits alleging free speech violations against social media companies are routinely dismissed. The primary grounds for these dismissals are that social media companies are not state actors ..."
Whether or not Twitter is a state actor is a matter for a jury to decide.
Lawsuits alleging that Twitter is a state actor are dismissed because they don't want anybody knowing that Twitter is acting on behalf of the state - the same state that dismisses the lawsuits, conveniently.
Twitter IS the state. It IS the federal government. It IS regulating speech, on behalf of and at the direction of US the federal government.
Any jury hearing evidence would decide so.
That's why the state will not allow these lawsuits to reach a jury.
Just look at the deep emotional attachment triggered by triggering of a triggering tweet. It's snowflakes all the way down.
Sick, hateful and violent. That is progressivism in a nutshell.
How is she going to get likes and millions of followers if she only Tweets nice things?
Twitter set up the scoreboard and she’s doing her best to adopt the behaviors it requires.
I am all for Twitter on this one. It is against their terms and also isn’t political.
I am currently suspended from Twitter for threatening Obama's life (didn't happen) and spreading nudity (again: didn't happen).
There's no recourse for their actions, of course.
Twitter deleted the post for the same reason they keep going after Libs of TikTok -- it made The Left look really, REALLY bad.
Exactly.
Is Twitter the new JournoList?
One reason that I'm a big fan of free speech and against censorship is that it's extremely important to know people's real opinions. If someone's an A-hole, I want to know that.
For example....Crack's comments tell us a lot about him. A lot.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন