Katie Hopkins

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 minute ago, Branyy said:

I'm aware of what free speech means.

I'm not disputing Twitter's decision, I don't know what their rules are, I don't really care, and it's a private platform anyway.

 

My point is that labeling something as "hate speech" is very vague and in most cases it sounds like "opinions that oppose mine". 

Most cases?  

[Guest makapaka]

18 minutes ago, Branyy said:

I'm aware of what free speech means.

I'm not disputing Twitter's decision, I don't know what their rules are, I don't really care, and it's a private platform anyway.

 

My point is that labeling something as "hate speech" is very vague and in most cases it sounds like "opinions that oppose mine". 

In this instance it’s opinions that oppose commence decency, racism and snobbery. 

[Branyy 10]

3 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

Most cases?  

Yes, that's my personal perception when I encounter the term "hate speech".

2 minutes ago, makapaka said:

In this instance it’s opinions that oppose commence decency, racism and snobbery. 

See, I wouldn't call lack of decency and snobbery "hate speech".

[Arnold_Lane 0]

7 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Yes, that's my personal perception when I encounter the term "hate speech".

Hopkins wasn’t banned for breaching a ‘Hateful Speech’ policy. It was their ‘Hateful Conduct’ policy and hundreds of thousands of accounts have been closed for such breaches.  I doubt you’ve seen all such posts.

 

Where do you encounter the term ‘hate speech’ most?

Edited June 20, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Guest makapaka]

14 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Yes, that's my personal perception when I encounter the term "hate speech".

See, I wouldn't call lack of decency and snobbery "hate speech".

But racism?

 

regardless of whether it’s “hate speech” its abhorrent and twitter are perfectly right to remove her.

 

she can set up her own website to peddle her views If she wishes and I certainly wouldn’t deny her right to do it.

 

only idiots would choose to follow it though.

Edited June 20, 2020 by makapaka

[melthebell 862]

34 minutes ago, makapaka said:

 

 

only idiots would choose to follow it though.

and hateful, racist bigots

[casualbystander 0]

14 hours ago, melthebell said:

and hateful, racist bigots

cant you see the irony in all the supportive posts saying its the correct thing to do?? removing katie Hopkins? so something you dont like should be brushed under the carpet and hidden away?? a bit like removing historic statues......nothing to see here ....move along!

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 minutes ago, casualbystander said:

cant you see the irony in all the supportive posts saying its the correct thing to do?? removing katie Hopkins? so something you dont like should be brushed under the carpet and hidden away?? a bit like removing historic statues......nothing to see here ....move along!

So hateful figures should have a platform, and that's better? Should Anjem Choudry have farages old slot on LBC?

 

[melthebell 862]

6 minutes ago, casualbystander said:

cant you see the irony in all the supportive posts saying its the correct thing to do?? removing katie Hopkins? so something you dont like should be brushed under the carpet and hidden away?? a bit like removing historic statues......nothing to see here ....move along!

Its removing a platform, a privately run platform, nothing more, like has been said she can start her own website to publish her dribble and start at the bottom again, to attract the proper hateful racist bigots that want to watch her, not use the ready made audience that twitter etc provide.

[casualbystander 0]

6 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

So hateful figures should have a platform, and that's better? Should Anjem Choudry have farages old slot on LBC?

 

Choudry is a different matter hes a convicted terrorist so not a good example, as far as i know Katie hopkins isnt a terrorist and hasnt been convicted of anything. all i am saying is she has a following and has a view that a lot of people agree with , like it or not.

 

[Guest makapaka]

21 minutes ago, casualbystander said:

Choudry is a different matter hes a convicted terrorist so not a good example, as far as i know Katie hopkins isnt a terrorist and hasnt been convicted of anything. all i am saying is she has a following and has a view that a lot of people agree with , like it or not.

 

Ok - so if we can find an Islamic radical who hasn’t yet been convicted would you be ok with having them on the radio?

Free speech and all that?

 

[butlers 259]

That is a very good question.

When Choudry was at his height  every time we walked to the VERY limit of what could be said without it being a crime.

It gave him some respectability possibly.

And who were most enraged by this, native born Muslims of the UK.

Saw a Chanel 4 programme where they demolished him for his warped world view