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

[Mystery Achiever]

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.

Can they without cause? How is that different from refusing to serve someone in a restaurant (who hasn't done anything bad in the restaurant)?
And, what is the "pro ban" side of the debate? 
 

 

[squistion]

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

I never said that I was bothered by Simpson being on Twitter, just pointing out that a good number of people seem to be outraged that he is allowed to have an account.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

People get banned for offensive content, not for being offensive people.

Bingo.

 

[John Blutarsky]

I never said that I was bothered by Simpson being on Twitter, just pointing out that a good number of people seem to be outraged that he is allowed to have an account.

I believe you edited your original post. You did write you wanted him banned.

 

[squistion]

I believe you edited your original post. You did write you wanted him banned.

That is not true, I never wrote that I wanted him banned.

The edit in the original post was due to Ivan pointing out I had stated something incorrectly.

In the original OP I said:

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

Which was changed to:
 

Twitter is a private company, so this is not a first amendment issue (however it is a free speech issue)

which was the only edit made in the OP

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I never said that I was bothered by Simpson being on Twitter, just pointing out that a good number of people seem to be outraged that he is allowed to have an account.

I haven't seen anyone outraged.  Other than you bringing it up

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can they without cause? How is that different from refusing to serve someone in a restaurant (who hasn't done anything bad in the restaurant)?

Restaurants can ban people without cause.

Just like customers can decide not to frequent a particular restaurant without giving a reason.

The general rule is that you don't have to do business with people you don't want to do business with. The exceptions involve race, sex, age, and other stuff specified in anti-discrimination laws.

 

[HellToupee]

I haven't seen anyone outraged.  Other than you bringing it up

Most likely his Twitter feed is littered with outrage over this. Just a hunch, I could be wrong, a hunch.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Restaurants can ban people without cause.

Just like customers can decide not to frequent a particular restaurant without giving a reason.

The general rule is that you don't have to do business with people you don't want to do business with. The exceptions involve race, sex, age, and other stuff specified in anti-discrimination laws.

Appreciate the clarification.
Still don't see any reason Twitter would consider it in the absence of specific content. 

 

[ren hoek]

https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=YMOS15GR4MKK

There's compelling evidence that OJ wasn't the killer.  I think it was Jason Simpson, not OJ.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

I never said that I was bothered by Simpson being on Twitter, just pointing out that a good number of people seem to be outraged that he is allowed to have an account.

Lets take this a step further - Lets say, hypothetically, a good number of people were outraged that you are allowed to have an account on FBGs.

A.  Should I start a thread about that?

2.  Should FBGs ban you?

Discuss.

 

[squistion]

Lets take this a step further - Lets say, hypothetically, a good number of people were outraged that you are allowed to have an account on FBGs.

A.  Should I start a thread about that?

2.  Should FBGs ban you?

Discuss.

Let's not. Let's keep the discussion about the subject matter of this thread.

If you wish to start a thread about me, feel free to do so and the issues you raise can be discussed there.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

O.J. Simpson‏ @TheRealOJ32 8m8 minutes ago

More

Thanks to all my new followers. Love learning how to use Twitter.

 

[squistion]

O.J. Simpson‏ @TheRealOJ32 8m8 minutes ago

More

Thanks to all my new followers. Love learning how to use Twitter.

Here is the accompanying video. He is looking forward to setting the record straight and talking about sports and fantasy football among other things.

I just can't wait for his hot takes on dynasty leagues...

https://twitter.com/TheRealOJ32/status/1140076529478594561

 

[Snorkelson]

One of the many fake OJ Twitter accts

 

[Ruffrodys05]

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

Again, facts elude you.

The proposal would give felons who have served their time and have been released the right to vote again. Restoring the same voting rights they had prior to being incarcerated, where that right was taken away. Jailed felons won't ever be permitted to vote. It's part of the punishment of being removed from society.

HTH.

 

[AAABatteries]

Lets take this a step further - Lets say, hypothetically, a good number of people were outraged that you are allowed to have an account on FBGs.

A.  Should I start a thread about that?

2.  Should FBGs ban you?

Discuss.

2. Yes

 

[Da Guru]

No, OJ should not be banned.   Hopefully he will use Twitter to help find the real killers of Nicole and Ron.

 

[Apple Jack]

Did he violate the terms of service? If not, why should he be banned. Weird thread.

 

[Henry Ford]

why isn’t he in prison?

Lance Ito

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, facts elude you.

The proposal would give felons who have served their time and have been released the right to vote again. Restoring the same voting rights they had prior to being incarcerated, where that right was taken away. Jailed felons won't ever be permitted to vote. It's part of the punishment of being removed from society.

HTH.

I’m in favor of felons losing the right to vote while serving their sentences, but as I understand it most industrialized democracies do allow incarcerated prisoners to vote. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No, OJ should not be banned.   Hopefully he will use Twitter to help find the real killers of Nicole and Ron.

I mean, he might not succeed but at least he could take a stab at it.

 

[NREC34]

I saw a new video he posted today and it looks like he’s gonna give insights on fantasy football!!!

 

[HellToupee]

Again, facts elude you.

The proposal would give felons who have served their time and have been released the right to vote again. Restoring the same voting rights they had prior to being incarcerated, where that right was taken away. Jailed felons won't ever be permitted to vote. It's part of the punishment of being removed from society.

HTH.

Again, facts elude you

incarcerated felons can & do vote in Maine & Vermont

HTH.

 

[zoonation]

His shtick of only doing videos so far is killer.  

Nice entry into Twitter for the two timer.  

 

[jon_mx]

No, OJ should not be banned.   Hopefully he will use Twitter to help find the real killers of Nicole and Ron.

Finally a reason to join the world of twits. 

 

[Henry Ford]

I mean, he might not succeed but at least he could take a stab at it.

You’re killing me. 

-Nicole Brown Simpson

 

[squistion]

O.J. now has over 500,000 followers on Twitter.

Makes one wonder if Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive and given internet access, how big of a following would they have?

 

[jonessed]

I think companies like Facebook and Twitter are going to tread lightly when it comes to free speech issues.  Regulation will come eventually, but I suspect they would like to put it off as long as possible.

 

[timschochet]

O.J. now has over 500,000 followers on Twitter.

Makes one wonder if Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive and given internet access, how big of a following would they have?

Pretty big. Lots of freaks out there. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

O.J. now has over 500,000 followers on Twitter.

Makes one wonder if Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive and given internet access, how big of a following would they have?

You act like he's the only felon on twitter

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think companies like Facebook and Twitter are going to tread lightly when it comes to free speech issues.  Regulation will come eventually, but I suspect they would like to put it off as long as possible.

What kind of regulation would be consistent with the First Amendment?

 

[jonessed]

What kind of regulation would be consistent with the First Amendment?

I’m not sure I completely understand your question, but I will try to answer.

I think regulatory scrutiny would come under looking into how they gather personal data and what they do with it, their processes for preventing the distribution of obscene material (like live feeding mass murder), examining them as monopolies, etc.

Beginning  to ban people because “they” don’t like them would bring unwanted attention with regard to how they run the business and how much power they have.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I’m not sure I completely understand your question, but I will try to answer.

I think regulatory scrutiny would come under looking into how they gather personal data and what they do with it, their processes for preventing the distribution of obscene material (like live feeding mass murder), examining them as monopolies, etc.

Beginning  to ban people because “they” don’t like them would bring unwanted attention with regard to how they run the business and how much power they have.

Oh, I thought you meant regulating their decision to ban certain people.

 

[John Blutarsky]

Why is this thread here and not in the FFA? What staff member is Squistion related to?

 

[badmojo1006]

Hey Justin Bieber, call out O.J.. 

I would definitely root for you.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Lance Ito

also

Marcia Clark

Chris Darden

Mark Furman

Dennis Fong

The ignorance of the American juror.

 

[Zow]

Lance Ito

Or reasonable doubt. 

 

[Zow]

also

Marcia Clark

Chris Darden

Mark Furman

Dennis Fong

The ignorance of the American juror.

Or, you know, reasonable doubt. 

(To me the OJ case/situation is the best example of a case easily being proved by a preponderance of the evidence but legitimately falling short of prove beyond reasonable doubt due to the likelihood that police manipulated evidence). 

 

[supermike80]

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

LAUGHED HARD at that one...Totally agree..this sure better be his first tweet!!!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Or, you know, reasonable doubt. 

(To me the OJ case/situation is the best example of a case easily being proved by a preponderance of the evidence but legitimately falling short of prove beyond reasonable doubt due to the likelihood that police manipulated evidence). 

Likelihood.  I did not perceive it to be likely.  I did not perceive it to be more than a remote and hypothetical possibility.  I do acknowledge that they did not, in all instances, follow all established protocols, and that such left room for hypotheticals.  I just happen to believe that the hay which was made in the case was not because of great defense lawyering, or actual conspiracy by the cops, but by incredibly bad Prosecution .  Still, I understand the case was also a litmus test for persons attitudes and perceptions, mine included, and mine no doubt include preconceptions and biases, I would be a fool to think anything else.  I know I have no pipeline to the truth.  In my experience, however, folks always think they are reasonable no matter how ####house rat crazy and stupid they may be.  Jurors and defense attorneys as well, to an extent, think any wild hypothetical, raised not on evidence, but on open possibility must be absolutely refuted or there is a reasonable doubt.  I disagree, a mere whiff of a scintilla of a speculative hypothetical raised on hope rather than evidence is not reason or reasonable. (Now when I worked the other side of the fence I might have phrased this differently and might have taken a different stance)

 

[knowledge dropper]

Let him tweet.  He’s dumb enough to lose his cool on some trolls and admit to the crime.  

 

[supermike80]

Let him tweet.  He’s dumb enough to lose his cool on some trolls and admit to the crime.  

Not sure he knows how absolutely brutal Twitter can be.  It's the most "angry" social media platform where everyone just loses their minds.   I see him canceling his account within 6 months.

But it's gonna be fun while it lasts.

 

[Black Box]

Not sure he knows how absolutely brutal Twitter can be.  It's the most "angry" social media platform where everyone just loses their minds.   I see him canceling his account within 6 months.

But it's gonna be fun while it lasts.

Sounds like OJ might just fit right in with the Twitter crowd. Like a glove.

 

[supermike80]

Sounds like OJ might just fit right in with the Twitter crowd. Like a glove.

9.3

 

[Zow]

Likelihood.  I did not perceive it to be likely.  I did not perceive it to be more than a remote and hypothetical possibility.  I do acknowledge that they did not, in all instances, follow all established protocols, and that such left room for hypotheticals.  I just happen to believe that the hay which was made in the case was not because of great defense lawyering, or actual conspiracy by the cops, but by incredibly bad Prosecution .  Still, I understand the case was also a litmus test for persons attitudes and perceptions, mine included, and mine no doubt include preconceptions and biases, I would be a fool to think anything else.  I know I have no pipeline to the truth.  In my experience, however, folks always think they are reasonable no matter how ####house rat crazy and stupid they may be.  Jurors and defense attorneys as well, to an extent, think any wild hypothetical, raised not on evidence, but on open possibility must be absolutely refuted or there is a reasonable doubt.  I disagree, a mere whiff of a scintilla of a speculative hypothetical raised on hope rather than evidence is not reason or reasonable. (Now when I worked the other side of the fence I might have phrased this differently and might have taken a different stance)

I'm pretty confident Dr. Lee would disagree with what appears to be your dismissal of the forensic evidence which strongly suggested improper police conduct. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Or reasonable doubt. 

Ito's the one who wanted the glove charade.  It was ridiculous and should never have been allowed.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sounds like OJ might just fit right in with the Twitter crowd. Like a glove.

He might.  But if he does not fit, he might just quit.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm pretty confident Dr. Lee would disagree with what appears to be your dismissal of the forensic evidence which strongly suggested improper police conduct. 

" I do acknowledge that they did not, in all instances, follow all established protocols, and that such left room for hypotheticals."

 I would submit that such a statement by me indicates that I have not dismissed the irregularities in following procedure, procedure established to assure the integrity of evidence.  Without that assurance there is an opening to explore.  That said, the opening is not itself evidence of action, just stupidity and laziness.  Opportunity is not evidence.  It is some evidence of carelessness, it is no evidence of a conspiracy to frame or to manipulate physical evidence.  Stupidity and laziness are not tantamount to design and execution.

Take O.J.'s blood.  the supposition is that since they did not control the blood evidence by the book, neither in collecting droplets from gates, gloves, and O.J. that they could have placed his blood on the bronco, or elsewhere at the scenes.  One could have done this or more if it be a conspiracy.  the opportunity was there.  Of course there were a million cameras recording every bit of minutia in the case from the Bronco chase on.  In addition there were a million neighbor eyes and scores of cops presumably not yet brought into the conspiracy who would have had to see nothing.  Nope, no evidence, just opportunity, oversold to a gullible jury and endorsed in the sale by Judge Ito who  exercised no gatekeeper function at all. 

 

[Henry Ford]

" I do acknowledge that they did not, in all instances, follow all established protocols, and that such left room for hypotheticals."

 I would submit that such a statement by me indicates that I have not dismissed the irregularities in following procedure, procedure established to assure the integrity of evidence.  Without that assurance there is an opening to explore.  That said, the opening is not itself evidence of action, just stupidity and laziness.  Opportunity is not evidence.  It is some evidence of carelessness, it is no evidence of a conspiracy to frame or to manipulate physical evidence.  Stupidity and laziness are not tantamount to design and execution.

Take O.J.'s blood.  the supposition is that since they did not control the blood evidence by the book, neither in collecting droplets from gates, gloves, and O.J. that they could have placed his blood on the bronco, or elsewhere at the scenes.  One could have done this or more if it be a conspiracy.  the opportunity was there.  Of course there were a million cameras recording every bit of minutia in the case from the Bronco chase on.  In addition there were a million neighbor eyes and scores of cops presumably not yet brought into the conspiracy who would have had to see nothing.  Nope, no evidence, just opportunity, oversold to a gullible jury and endorsed in the sale by Judge Ito who  exercised no gatekeeper function at all. 

Yup.