What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

O.J. Simpson and Bill Cosby on Twitter - should they be allowed or banned? (1 Viewer)

squistion

Footballguy
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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)

 
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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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).

 
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. 

 
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?

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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).

 
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. 

 
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

 
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!"

 
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?

 
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. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top