Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

O.J. Simpson and Bill Cosby on Twitter - should they be allowed or banned?

Recommended Posts

O.J. Simpson has made his debut on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/TheRealOJ32

And in the video at the above link says:

“Hey Twitter world this is yours truly, Now coming soon to Twitter, you’ll get to read my thoughts and opinions on just about everything. Now there’s a lot of fake O.J. accounts out there so this one — @TheRealOJ32 — is the only official one. So, it should be a lot of fun. I got some gettin’ even to do. So God bless. Take care.”

Twitter has recently banned the accounts of right wing figures such as Alex Jones and James Wood because of the posting content. However many people will find that Simpson just being allowed to post at all is just as inflammatory and offensive as anything posted by someone on the alt right.

Twitter is a private company, so this is not a first amendment issue (however it is a free speech issue). In any event, it doesn't sit well with me that he is being given this platform.

Thoughts?

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this is political 

 

 

btw would be a great FFA thread, here not so much.

Edited by HellToupee
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a political issue is it? 

I think they should let him stay unless or until he says something completely offensive. Isn’t that why they banned the others? (Of course somehow this doesn’t apply to President Trump)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Not a political issue is it? 

I think they should let him stay unless or until he says something completely offensive. Isn’t that why they banned the others? (Of course somehow this doesn’t apply to President Trump)

How is OJ on Twitter a political issue?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Wrong forum.

No, he should not be banned.  Why should he?

Agreed. If he starts tweeting vile disgusting things then he should be banned. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Not a political issue is it? 

I think they should let him stay unless or until he says something completely offensive. Isn’t that why they banned the others? (Of course somehow this doesn’t apply to President Trump)

Of course it is. Freedom of speech falls under the topic of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Osaurus said:

He does have a lot of followers...IF he posted it

The account has not been officially verified by Twiiter yet, but it obviously him in the video and speaking about his new Twitter account, so he must have posted it.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

The account has not been officially verified b Twiiter yet, but it obviously him in the video and speaking about his new Twitter account, so he must have posted it.

It was a play on his infamous book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the OP would move this to the FFA where posters that loathe the PSF could chime in

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Osaurus said:

It was a play on his infamous book

He’s following 6 other accounts and one is his son Justin and another is his lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, squistion said:

Twitter is a private company, so this is not a free speech issue

Wrong.  It's not a first amendment issue, but it's definitely a free speech issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I wish the OP would move this to the FFA where posters that loathe the PSF could chime in

Agreed, he hasn’t been banned from Twitter. No free speech issues so far. It’s not political. He’s a scum bag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Wrong.  It's not a first amendment issue, but it's definitely a free speech issue.

You are right, I will correct that in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. not a political topic.

2. nothing bannable about what he wrote.

3. it's important to recognize that social media companies (for the most part) don't ban people simply because other people are offended by their existence. The bans are based on interpretations of the person's posts -- either because the posts are believed to be verbal attacks on others, threats to others, or because the posts are believed to promote or incite violence. If we're going to extend the definition of "hate speech" to "other people are offended by your existence", then the SJWs have truly won.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

1. not a political topic.

2. nothing bannable about what he wrote.

3. it's important to recognize that social media companies (for the most part) don't ban people simply because other people are offended by their existence. The bans are based on interpretations of the person's posts -- either because the posts are believed to be verbal attacks on others, threats to others, or because the posts are believed to promote or incite violence. If we're going to extend the definition of "hate speech" to "other people are offended by your existence", then the SJWs have truly won.

Sorry, but the issue of free speech is a political topic. If Twitter closes his account, as many people are calling for, then his ability to express himself in that venue has been denied, which unquestionably IMO would be a denial of his freedom of speech (irrespective of anything he has tweeted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

Sorry, but the issue of free speech is a political topic. If Twitter closes his account, as many people are calling for, then his ability to express himself in that venue has been denied, which unquestionably IMO would be a denial of his freedom of speech (irrespective of anything he has tweeted).

They haven’t closed his account. This thread doesn’t belong here. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:
6 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

1. not a political topic.

2. nothing bannable about what he wrote.

3. it's important to recognize that social media companies (for the most part) don't ban people simply because other people are offended by their existence. The bans are based on interpretations of the person's posts -- either because the posts are believed to be verbal attacks on others, threats to others, or because the posts are believed to promote or incite violence. If we're going to extend the definition of "hate speech" to "other people are offended by your existence", then the SJWs have truly won.

Sorry, but the issue of free speech is a political topic.

Then how about we wait until O.J.'s Twitter account is affected by any free speech issues?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Then how about we wait until O.J.'s Twitter account is affected by any free speech issues?

People are talking about it now on social media, with many being outraged that his account is being allowed.

https://twitter.com/search?q="OJ Simpson"&src=tren

I was not aware that something that has potential political overtones has to actually happen first before it can be discussed on this forum.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Twitter is a private company,

 1.Twitter is a public company.
2. People get banned for offensive content, not for being offensive people.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, squistion said:

Of course it is. Freedom of speech falls under the topic of politics.

Only if it’s (a) political speech or (b) falls under first amendment/censorship issues. This is neither. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Only if it’s (a) political speech or (b) falls under first amendment/censorship issues. This is neither. 

That isn't true. I don't recall the wording of first amendment restricting itself to political speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, squistion said:

That isn't true. I don't recall the wording of first amendment restricting itself to political speech.

But this isn’t a first amendment issue as you pointed out yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow, he’s not worth banning but on the other hand, I can’t imagine being interested in what he has to say. He’s not very bright, he’s a wretch, a murderer, and basically a really bad guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

1.Twitter is a public company.
2. People get banned for offensive content, not for being offensive people.

No, it is not privately owned, but its content is not regulated by the government and they are free to allow or not allow anyone to post on their site, similar to Facebook. I should have phrased that better.

Since Twitter is not accountable to anyone for their actions (except ultimately to their shareholders) they could well ban someone for being an offensive person, rather than posting offensive content - and that's what the debate is about.

 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, squistion said:
22 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

1.Twitter is a public company.
2. People get banned for offensive content, not for being offensive people.

No, it is not privately owned, but its content is not regulated by the government and they are free to allow or not allow anyone to post on their site, similar to Facebook. I should have phrased that better.

It is privately owned (but not privately held).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, it is not privately owned, but its content is not regulated by the government and they are free to allow or not allow anyone to post on their site, similar to Facebook. I should have phrased that better.

Since Twitter is not accountable to anyone for their actions (except ultimately to their shareholders) they could well ban someone for being an offensive person, rather than posting offensive content - and that's what the debate is about.

 

OJ is a despicable person. I wish he was in prison for the rest of his life. However, he served his time and is a free man. He should be allowed to post on a Twitter or any other sites. If we posts offensive content then let them ban him. You are offended at almost everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It is privately owned (but not privately held).

OK, it is a public company that is privately owned by the shareholders, not that it makes a difference as to the discussion topic which is whether or not Twitter should ban this account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, squistion said:

OK, it is a public company that is privately owned by the shareholders, not that it makes a difference as to the discussion topic which is whether or not Twitter should ban this account.

Why should they ban his account right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

OJ is a despicable person. I wish he was in prison for the rest of his life. However, he served his time and is a free man. He should be allowed to post on a Twitter or any other sites. If we posts offensive content then let them ban him. You are offended at almost everything. 

They want to give jailed felons the right  to vote but want to ban OJ . Bad guy but he served his time for the crime he was convicted for

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

They want to give jailed felons the right  to vote but want to ban OJ . Bad guy but he served his time for the crime he was convicted for

They are so easily triggered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

They want to give jailed felons the right  to vote but want to ban OJ . Bad guy but he served his time for the crime he was convicted for

Good point here

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suggestion is to quit Twitter if you are bothered that Simpson is on Twitter 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HellToupee said:

My suggestion is to quit Twitter if you are bothered that Simpson is on Twitter 

Good suggestion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be disappointed if his first tweet was not "The Juice is loose!"

 

Or, maybe: "If anyone has seen the real killers, DM me!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Or join Twitter just to block OJ there.

I am not so good on the twitter - but I don't block OJ, and I have never seen his tweets.  Why would you need to block OJ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Or join Twitter just to block OJ there.

I don’t have anyone blocked but if someone you follow retweets a blocked account does it come through?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Or join Twitter just to block OJ there.

Why would someone join Twitter for the sole purpose of blocking someone? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

My suggestion is to quit Twitter if you are bothered that Simpson is on Twitter 

But how would we all stay informed without squistion regurgitating his Twitter feed on this forum?

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of a slippery slope, don't you think?  If they ban double-murderers today, tomorrow they'll be banning regular single-murderers.  Where will it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

They want to give jailed felons the right  to vote but want to ban OJ . Bad guy but he served his time for the crime he was convicted for

There’s no “they” here. The guy who most prominently wants to give felons the right to vote is Bernie Sanders. I very much doubt Bernie would favor banning OJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.