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

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:
Because this is political 

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

 
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)

 
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)
Click to expand...
How is OJ on Twitter a political issue?

 
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)
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Freedom of speech falls under the topic of politics.

 
Osaurus said:
He does have a lot of followers...IF he posted it
Click to expand...
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.

 
[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.
Click to expand...
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).

 
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).
Click to expand...
They haven’t closed his account. This thread doesn’t belong here. 

 
squistion said:
[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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the issue of free speech is a political topic.
Click to expand...
Then how about we wait until O.J.'s Twitter account is affected by any free speech issues?

 
[scooter] said:
Then how about we wait until O.J.'s Twitter account is affected by any free speech issues?
Click to expand...
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. 

 
Mystery Achiever said:
1.Twitter is a public company.
2. People get banned for offensive content, not for being offensive people.
Click to expand...
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:
squistion said:
Mystery Achiever said:
1.Twitter is a public company.
2. People get banned for offensive content, not for being offensive people.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
It is privately owned (but not privately held).

 
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.
Click to expand...
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. 

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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?

 
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
Click to expand...
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. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Twitter Senior Engineer Admits That Platform "Does Not Believe in Free Speech” (5/21/22 23:45 PST)
Replies
29
Views
983
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
Libs Of TikTok (Teachers): Locked Out From Twitter Over Posting About Kids At Drag Shows (4/24/22 5:19PST)
5 6 7
Replies
300
Views
11K
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Should Minors Be Legally Banned/Restricted From Using Social Media? (6/11/22 17:47 PST)
Replies
20
Views
864
moleculo
moleculo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top