Laura Loomer banned from Twitter

[Orange_Vol1321]

Twitter bans far-right activist Laura Loomer

Far-right activist Laura Loomer became the latest conservative figure to be kicked off Twitter when her account was shut down Wednesday.

Loomer said she was told by the platform that her account violated its rules against hateful conduct after she sent a tweet criticizing Minnesota Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and her Muslim faith.

"I've been silenced in America," Loomer said in a video posted to YouTube in response to the Twitter ban. She had more than 260,000 followers on the social-media platform before her suspension.

In the tweet in question, Loomer called Omar "anti Jewish" and said she is a member of a religion in which "homosexuals are oppressed" and "women are abused" and "forced to wear the hijab." Omar is the first Somali refugee and among two of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress.

Loomer insisted that she did not violate Twitter's terms. "Everything I said is 100 percent true and factual. It's not malicious, it's not mean, it's not hateful," she said.

I bolded what her tweet was about. She isn't lying or making stuff up. It's known facts. So, did she deserve to be banned?

 

[lawgator1]

Twitter bans far-right activist Laura Loomer



I bolded what her tweet was about. She isn't lying or making stuff up. It's known facts. So, did she deserve to be banned?

Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.

This is about free speech. You dodged my question but thanks for playing.

 

[Velo Vol]

Twitter rules are weird. It's a site which has stated goals that are basically impossible to maintain.

An open site or a "safe" site. Pick one.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's weird that free speech that defends homosexuals, women and minorities is shut down by Twitter.

 

[TheDeeble]

Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.

You think people that criticize Westboro Baptist Church are banned from Twitter?

 

[utvolpj]

So, did she deserve to be banned?

She did deserve it according to Twitter and that's all that matters. This isn't a free speech issue

 

[Weezer]

Seems like anything critical of anyone could be considered hateful conduct. Twitter needs to better define their rules and definitions.

 

[Weezer]

She did deserve it according to Twitter and that's all that matters. This isn't a free speech issue

I agree it's not a free speech issue, but more a question as to the responsibility a company such as Twitter owes its users. Certainly, they have a right to create their own rules, but they also have a responsibility to enforce those rules equally and without discrimination.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I agree it's not a free speech issue, but more a question as to the responsibility a company such as Twitter owes its users. Certainly, they have a right to create their own rules, but they also have a responsibility to enforce those rules equally and without discrimination.

It's the responsibility of the user base to stop using the platform of they disagree.

 

[utvolpj]

I agree it's not a free speech issue, but more a question as to the responsibility a company such as Twitter owes its users. Certainly, they have a right to create their own rules, but they also have a responsibility to enforce those rules equally and without discrimination.

If their users disagree they're free to quit using the service. They really don't owe the users much of anything. Plenty of others have been banned from websites and they probably felt it was unfair too.

 

[Weezer]

If their users disagree they're free to quit using the service. They really don't owe the users much of anything. Plenty of others have been banned from websites and they probably felt it was unfair too.

Twitter isn't a simple website though. It's a publicly traded company. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same expectations as a brick and mortar business? If Twitter announced tomorrow they had decided to exclude a certain ethnic group, would that be allowed and okay? Yes, people have the choice to quit, but, IMO, companies do have some obligations to their consumers.

 

[Septic]

Twitter isn't a simple website though. It's a publicly traded company. Why shouldn't they be subject to the same expectations as a brick and mortar business? If Twitter announced tomorrow they had decided to exclude a certain ethnic group, would that be allowed and okay? Yes, people have the choice to quit, but, IMO, companies do have some obligations to their consumers.

Serious? Blue font?

 

[Weezer]

Serious? Blue font?

To a degree serious. I'm obviously exaggerating the point, but I don't think it's as clear cut as some want to make it.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

She did deserve it according to Twitter and that's all that matters. This isn't a free speech issue

Why isn't it? What did she say that was hateful?

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

If their users disagree they're free to quit using the service. They really don't owe the users much of anything. Plenty of others have been banned from websites and they probably felt it was unfair too.

Again, I see a bunch of facts in her post. Not hate. If this is what gets you banned why isn't posters banned for calling someone a racist. This is more an opinion and a hate post.

 

[utvolpj]

Again, I see a bunch of facts in her post. Not hate. If this is what gets you banned why isn't posters banned for calling someone a racist. This is more an opinion and a hate post.

Why isn't it? What did she say that was hateful?

It doesn't matter. It's Twitter's call based on how they interpret their own TOS. Don't like it? Don't use it

She isn't being prosecuted for anything she said so your free speech argument is irrelevant

 

[BowlBrother85]

She did deserve it according to Twitter and that's all that matters. This isn't a free speech issue

Absolutely right... if I go on Vandymania and say that Dudley Field is a run down high school stadium and the only real purpose their school serves is to keep ugly girls out of UT, they are well within their rights to ban me. It doesn't violate my right to free speech - I violated their terms of service, which don't have to be fair or consistently applied to all users. I am still free to post the same things over here. Laura Loomer just needs to find another place to post her opinions - and there are many options.

 

[1972 Grad]

Absolutely right... if I go on Vandymania and say that Dudley Field is a run down high school stadium and the only real purpose their school serves is to keep ugly girls out of UT, they are well within their rights to ban me. It doesn't violate my right to free speech - I violated their terms of service, which don't have to be fair or consistent to all users. I am still free to post the same things over here. Laura Loomer just needs to find another place to post her opinions - and there are many options.

....and CNN can send someone in Acosta's place.

 

[tumscalcium]

Twitter is a hardcore left-wing social media platform. You start posting facts that don’t line up with the ultra-liberal agenda and you won’t be on much longer.

 

[C-south]

Careful. There are those who call themselves Christian who oppress homosexuals, force people to wear certain items, and subjugate women. There are people in all religions, it seems, that do that to various degrees.

But it’s ok for Muslims. Terrorists of peace...

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

It's weird that free speech that defends homosexuals, women and minorities is shut down by Twitter.

Only matter of time before they dump Trump's acct.

 

[utvolpj]

Only matter of time before they dump Trump's acct.

If they cared about the USA it would have been done already

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

She did deserve it according to Twitter and that's all that matters. This isn't a free speech issue

Interesting that Twitter is allowed to pick and choose who can use its service based on terms of agreement, yet the WH isn't allowed to kick out Acosta based on the WH's terms of agreement.

 

[Velo Vol]

the responsibility a company such as Twitter owes its users

All Twitter cares about are its inflated user stats (due to bots) and ad money.

Twitter is a hardcore left-wing social media platform.