Spray paint stunt prompts Twitter to increase censorship

Fifteen other tweets, including some containing anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and anti-black comments, were still online.

Shapira said he doesn't advocate mass censorship, but wants Twitter to take the issue of online abuse seriously. A study commissioned by the German government found that Twitter lagged behind other social networks such as Facebook and YouTube in responding to complaints about hate speech.

"It would be nice if Twitter had reacted," said Shapira, whose previous work includes questioning the way young people confront the Holocaust. "What I want is that these flagged posts are reviewed the way Facebook does. What Facebook does isn't perfect, but at least they are making an effort."

Under pressure after Germany passed a law last month that could see social networks fined up to 50 million euros ($58.6 million) if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content, Facebook announced plans this week for a second office in Germany to review posts for illegal content. Free speech advocates have criticized the law, saying social networks may err on the side of censorship to avoid hefty fines.

Twitter refused to publicly comment on the stunt after first being contacted by the AP about it on Monday. Instead, the company cited its guidelines which include a ban on promoting "violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity."

Among the spray-painted tweets that remain online is one directed at Shapira from a user who references the artist's Jewish identity and expresses hope that he should bump into a group of criminals on a dark evening.

Charge these anti-free speech faggots with aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States.

>>166330
A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

>>166327
That's actually really clever.

Honestly, seeing what kind of shit and fake information people spread in the name of free speech is very damaging to the whole concept. Some kind of censorship is coming and honestly no one else except these people who enjoy spreading false information and rally hate speech are to blame.
Basically, it's all fun and games until someone ruins it.

>>166337
>Honestly, seeing what kind of shit and fake information people spread in the name of free speech is very damaging to the whole concept. The whole idea of free speech is that you can express whatever you want. How is that "damaging to the concept"?

>Basically, it's all fun and games until someone ruins it.
Are you okay with this?

>>166332
Treason isn't protected by the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, it is the only crime mentioned and condemned by the United States Constitution.

>>166342
Yeah, but trying to twist anti-free speech advocates' words and define them as treason is the same thing that they do to anyone who isn't liberal (ie calling people nazis or terrorists and saying that it's hate speech). Sounds hypocritical.

>>166345
But the anti-free speech authoritarians do not stick to words. And their actions are treasonous.

>>166328
>Shapira said he doesn't advocate mass censorship, but wants Twitter to take the issue of online abuse seriously.

Why do people who push for censorship always precede their call for censorship with a claim that they aren't in favor of censorship? It's pathologic, I swear.

>>166347
If you're referring to twitter's actions here, they are a private company and are thus legally allowed to control the content of their service. That's not to say that I agree with what they're doing - just to say that you can't charge them with a crime for it.

>>166353
Is this the new "I'm not a racist / sexist, but ..."?

>>166354
How is acting against free speech, one of the fundamental pillars of the United States, not aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States?

>>166356
>How is acting against free speech, one of the fundamental pillars of the United States, not aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States?
Treason is a rare charge, and while it may be broadly defined it is narrowly applied, generally only to those assisting a foreign power the United States is at war with. In this case, removing what is ostensibly hate speech from your platform can't really be defined as "aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States" - who is the enemy of the US, and in what way is Twitter aiding them? I can already see your response, so I'll save us some time.

>anti-free speech advocates are the enemies of the US
According to whom? It's enough to say that because free speech is one of the fundamental parts of the constitution that anyone against it is against the US, but that could easily be applied to any political belief. Are people against socialized healthcare enemies of health? Are non-religious people enemies of society? "Enemies of the US" refers to wartime.

>>166357
Just realized something. I used the term "hate speech", but I don't believe in or agree with that concept. A better term there would have been "what is ostensibly content that would bring twitter's public image into disrepute"

>>166357
>Are people against socialized healthcare enemies of health?
No, they're defending Article 1, Section 8 of and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
>Are non-religious people enemies of society?
No.

>>166360
So, (assuming you are the same person I was replying to), can you see how anti-free speech advocates (even if I disagree with them) should not be labeled as enemies of the state and tried for treason?

>>166359
What's wrong with the term hate speech

>>166361
Yes.

>>166363
It's a SJW meme used to silence any dissent. Plus the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it does not exist and that it is protected by the First Amendment.

>>166370
I mean in the context of why is calling something that calls for violence against a person or group based on prejudices or racism hate speech bad

>>166378
It's not a legal term and it's a slippery slope.

>The Israeli-born artist
goldface.jpg

>>166382
Half the terms we use aren't legal

>>166363
It just wasn't the phrase that got my point across most optimally. In a more general sense I think it creates a false division between itself and free speech (a division that does not exist)

>>166327
Holy shit, Nazi Germany on the rise again?

>"Twitter Gestapo Wannabe Finally Noticed by Senpai, Gets Multiple Accounts Banned"

My hero...

>>166327

Here's a guy with some free time.

>>166330
Germany isn't part of USA.

>>166630
Twitter is an American company.

Regardless of whether this was "right" to do or not vandalizing private property like that is definitely a crime in Germany and the perpetrator shouldn't go unpunished for it.

>>166674
It's only a crime if you're not an SJW or a sandnigger.

>>166353

It's a way to soften rhetoric and make the audience believe you're the good guy and whatever you're fighting against is for a good cause

>>166674

You can literally rape women and children, murder people, and commit acts of terrorism with no response.

>>166382
What does legal have to do with this instance? Twitter is a private company, free speech in a legal sense only applies if the government is trying to censor your speech.

>>166713
Twitter is stifling free speech in name of a foreign government.

>>166353
>doesn't advocate MASS censorship

There's your answer right there. You can post what you want, but like it or not, someone's going to disagree with it. And if enough people do, it's going down and it's the company's prerogative, whether you agree with it or not.

Besides, why are we having this debate anyway? Just what branch of government is Twitter again?

>>166720

The problem is that Twitter sells itself as a free speech platform

Trump tweeting is one of the best things for the company, since it attracts more people, and more people equals more revenue.

The best way to handle a company like Twitter is just do a full conservative boycott of it and let it be a liberal echo chamber

>>166327
>hate speech

The worst part of censorships is [CENSORED]

> The Israeli-born artist

Golly, that’s a surprise…

>>166724
So let me get this straight; if you run a bar, and you have a customer who tips generously but is a complete asshole to other clients, do you not have a right to kick his drunk ass out? Are you that entitled, or just that ignorant?

>you are only allowed to complain about censorship if it's the government

>>166720
>only people who like to censor should have an opinion on censorship
Fuck off commie

>>166732

Nice strawman

>>166719

That is very much allowed and in no way treasonous.

If you write a blog about Tiananmen Square then google will go out of its way to ensure that people in mainland China can't see it.

>>166755

How is that a strawman? It's entirely in the realm of possibility that an internet troll is as disruptive as a bar drunk. The bar can kick you out if it thinks you are being that kind of disruptive, even if you are not.

>>166743

You better reorient yourself to this post >>166330.

That is not "complaining".

>>166790

Because you're comparing someone being drunk and possibly violent with someone voicing an opposing opinion in a text based forum

>>166800

I'm not him, and your comment there is the strawman right there.

Someone being drunk is less disruptive than someone screaming niggers for attention, by the way. They both should get kicked out.

>>166810

Your bar analogy is shit and so is your reasoning

>It's okay to censor people as long as they're conservative

>>166724
>The problem is that Twitter sells itself as a free speech platform
Someone didn't read terms and conditions...
Where does twitter sells itself as a free speech platform again? I thought it was an infinichan exclusivity.