Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
What do you make of Twitter? Personally I loathe it. I think it gives a voice to the kind of slime who really shouldn't have a voice. (I mean the ones who address vile abuse not just towards me but even at my kids; one scuzzball even urged that I should be killed because he saw me on TV and didn't like what I had to say about the environment). I also think it's heavily biased towards the left. So why I do I waste time engaging with it?
Because if you work in the media - or if you're simply interested in catching up with the latest news and gossip, pretty much in real time - Twitter is a necessary evil. In the right hands - as the great Breitbart demonstrated - it can even be better than that: an invaluable way of showing just how mean and low-down the left can be.
But to my mind it is best treated as a playground where good people mix it up with bad people, where wisdom and insight mingles with idiocy and crassness, where the sublime (modesty forbids me from naming @jamesdelingpole) clashes with the ridiculous (that'll be you @piersmorgan). It would be a big mistake to take it any more seriously than that.
Yet this is exactly what the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are now doing.
In 2010 came the pathetic case of Paul Chambers, 27, who lost his job and racked up thousands in legal costs for a jocular Tweet he had sent when his local airport was closed because of snow. It was the kind of flip - possibly bad taste but patently not meant seriously and patently not threatening - remark people make all the time on Twitter. Yet the state decided that here was yet another opportunity to break a butterfly upon a wheel.
You might think that the US had a more nuanced, intelligent approach to Twitter. But it doesn't. In January this year an Irish holidaymaker Tweeted excitedly before a visit to the US about his plans to "destroy America." Guess what: he wasn't really intending to destroy America. (Quite hard for a single tourist to do; and anyway, if you were planning on such a thing would you really announce it on Twitter beforehand). He meant it in the accepted European colloquial sense of paint the town red, party on down, generally have a wild and crazy time. But such subtleties were quite beyond the Department of Homeland Security. The poor man and his traveling companion were barred from entering the US.
Latest development in the saga of the authorities' grotesque over-reaction to Twitter is the imprisonment - yes, the imprisonment - of an idiot who, while drunk, Tweeted some deeply unpleasant, racially offensive things about an ailing footballer.
One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is having to endure the rantings of fools. Their drivel may be an irritation but it is surely less of a menace than the alternative which is to have the state assuming the power to dictate what does and doesn't (in its shaky opinion) constitute acceptable freedom of speech.
I can't say I loved it the other day when that young student issued a request to his Twitter friends that I should be knifed. But I recognized that he was a silly boy who had said something foolish in the heat of the moment and that to do anything more than demand an apology would constitute an overreaction.Yes, quite possibly under our new Draconian laws I could have had the kid prosecuted, perhaps even imprisoned, for incitement to violence. But if you truly believe in freedom of speech, that includes belief in the unalienable right of idiots to say idiot things without having their lives ruined forever.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
Disagree about Twitter being biased in favor of the left. Conservatives are intrinsically smaller or no organization people. Twitter makes it possible for individuals to have a voice; a way to connect with each other, and to respond to the left; the left is much more large organization-intensive needs this less.
In other words, Twitter incrementally levels the playing field between left and right. It makes the power of the big news orgs, almost of of which tilt left, less dominating.
PS: you're still really clueless about American politics, and you know this because I told you on Twitter ;-)
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 2:26pmRe: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
@parisparamus Are you the Santorum fan? May I suggest that that's why you think I'm "clueless" about US politics.
I also disagree with you, natch, about Twitter. The thing you're talking about is the internet and the blogosphere, which does indeed favor the right and does all the things you claim Twitter does. But Twitter itself? No. Certainly not in my experience. It's a bully-pulpit for orchestrated liberal-left hate campaigns.
Jun '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
Twitter does put the lie to any assertion that people are basically good. No, no, no, they're not basically good. Left to their own standards, they're selfish, rude, and crude. That's why separation of power (in government) is necessary, and religious faith is absolutely necessary to have peace, and avoid tyranny.
Aug '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
You may be on to something there - using the anonymous vitriol of the Internet as evidence of the primal depravity of mankind.
I'm not a Twitter-er. And I largely avoid reading the comments at any other website because of the meanness. But I would guess, based only on my limited observations, that the large majority of unsolicited anonymous comments made on the web are negative. Very negative.
Jul '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
James, the problem for police and authorities is they are charged with our safety. If they were to assume every such flippant Twitter comment were innocuous, when one is an actual threat, they would be raked over the coals for missing a blatant signal beforehand. This is the same dilemma they have with all crime: over-police and pick up some innocent people, or under-police and miss some criminals. There needs to be some common sense, but there has to be some responsibility by the people who choose to make juvenile statements and broadcast them to the world. Free speech does not entail freedom from the consequences of that speech, and their being held to account may teach them and others to think before venting.
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
@parisparamus Are you the Santorum fan? May I suggest that that's why you think I'm "clueless" about US politics.
I've been a Romney supporter since late 2007, and think he will be in the same ballpark with Reagan.
I find it sad that you somehow paint him as being like PM Cameron, or barely better than Obama, or that you ever took Herman Cain seriously. It's like you're looking at American politics through a telescope with a lens of very small diameter, or just a pinhole.
Nov '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
If you follow the absurdity of the zero tolerance rules enforced in US education why should the tierney against twitter speech evolve any differently. James, wouldn't Shakespeare be having a field day at present? I mean we have you, Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg, and that is great, but somehow the subtlety is missing. Cheers.
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
ParisParamus:@parisparamus Are you the Santorum fan? May I suggest that that's why you think I'm "clueless" about US politics.
I've been a Romney supporter since late 2007, and think he will be in the same ballpark with Reagan.
But are you a Romniac?
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
Ms. Hemingway, I am not. I read that article. It's a bizarre, and my guess is, agenda-driven piece that tries to make the support base for Romney into something shallow and narrow; as if the WaPo was writing about David Cassidy in Tiger Beat magazine, or something. That article belies the reality that Romney is far ahead in the primaries. Is he doing it all alone with his small team, and everyone else allied with him are starry-eyed fan boys and girls?
Anyway, my original remark was just a tangent, so let's discuss Twitter.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 3:49pmMar '11
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
Idiots have no such right. Idiots say idiotic things all the time, and will suffer the consequences, as anyone who has casually answered the question "does this dress make my butt look big" can attest.
There should be no governmental consequences, however. Those idiots already have enough on their plate.
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
I don't know how to assess Twitter broadly because one's experience with it is entirely a function of who and how you follow. It's possible to create an entirely conservative bubble with more Twitterers in your stream than you could ever possibly read. It's also (I'm sure) possible to do the same thing on the left.
If you look at the trending topics on Twitter you find that most of it, while rude, has nothing to do with politics or any other sensible topic and looks mostly like this.
So James, your clever and pithy prose (and death threats,) notwithstanding, I'm not sure you actually have the data to supprot your assertion. And as you well know, facts are key.
Mar '11
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
-- Mark Twain
He'd have been a monster on Twitter.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 4:28pmJul '11
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
It is said that a “drunk man speaks a sober man’s mind”. This is also true for anonymity. In the past, great and important debates (Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers) were waged under anonymous pseudonyms. These writings were serious because they had a cost of entry, publishing cost were so that the normal citizens did not or could not engage in this type of debate though they were read and discussed. Now we have the internet, a world where any citizen can speak their mind instantly with relative anonymity and negligible cost. In this new world of freedom of expression we discover a great truth; most people are just not that interesting. Most people are just the mean spirited, selfish, judgmental little twerps we thought they were.
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
The key to twitter sanity, in my experience is creating a select list of followed, good guys; a subset of everyone who wants to follow you, and reading only their tweets; a few dozen out of the 1k or so followers I have--yes, JD is on my list. Then again, I'm not famous, so not too many people want to abuse or tweak me. But you definitely need to adjust the faucet to keep Twitter a positive experience.
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
Except that little pearl you dropped is about 40 characters too long for a tweet.
Wisdom doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, in a headline or in a tweet, there just long enough for snarky observation.
I suppose I could "Twitpic" my photoshops when I have snark to share, but the very name, with the word "Twit" so prominent, makes it hard to take seriously.
Jul '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
The problem with Twitter is some people treat it like they're making comments to friends in their living room when the more apt comparison is shouting those comments in the parking lot of a shopping mall. If I make an off-color, sarcastic, or offensive comment to my friends, they know if I'm serious or just blowing off steam. When I broadcast those comments to everyone, they don't have the context of knowing me and may react quite adversely as happened in the instances cited.
Jan '11
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
I don't normally follow Twitter. But one thing I do like about it is that whenever Obama's team tries to create a hashtag for support of their policies (e.g. #ilikeobamacare) it is quickly buried in right-wing mockery.
Just like their snitch sites.
Makes one wonder if the other side is as skilled in using "social media" as they're said to be.
May '10
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
I've found the single most compelling use for Twitter is live-blogging live and televised events, e.g., the GOP debates--some very quick and funny people out there. I wonder if people are doing this in Europe in any great number?
Jan '12
Re: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
Who would ever be frighten of an Irishman painting the town red, partying on down, generally having a wild and crazy time?
What's Twitter?
Edited on March 29, 2012 at 7:21pmRe: Twitter is Vile, but Censorship is Far Worse
But shouldn't some type of line exist on Twitter? Like in this case where Spike Lee and others tweeted and retweeted the alleged address of George Zimmerman, encouraging followers to "reach out & touch him"?
Turns out the address was wrong, and that two elderly people live there and now fear for their lives as a result of the tweet.
As it is, the couple in their 70s has already been harassed by a bunch of thuggish characters, but what if, God forbid, they wound up with their house burnt down or worse? Shouldn't Spike Lee be made to be held accountable for his part in disseminating the address and inciting others to violence?