Because defamation is a good pace to draw the line when you set your free speech boundaries.
And we all have our lines. You, for example think it’s okay to “punish” people for shit talking the boss in public. And so do I.
But you don’t think people like Alex Jones should be “punished” for systematically tormenting the parents of murdered children for years. I OTOH do.
What explains your position that shit talking the boss can not be tolerated but tormenting the parents of murdered children must be tolerated by social media companies in the name of free speech?
If you shit talk your boss, your boss fires you. This is in the context of a Slack conversation, right? At *work*, you insult the person you *work* for. So they give you the classic *work* punishment, a firing. You broke the boss' rules in the boss' jurisdiction.
If you do something *illegal*, the *law* punishes you. That's their jurisdiction.
If you break the rules of a *social media* company, it makes sense that you get banned from the *social media* website. It's their jurisdiction.
But if you break the *law*, why would you get punished by a *social media* company? It's not their jurisdiction. If Alex Jones was making posts about the kids on Twitter, it makes sense to ban him. But AFAIK it was through his website, so it shouldn't have any standing on his Twitter account.
Why should Twitter be granting access based on their character judgements of individual users? That's the problem with Musks' decision here, it's not based on any objective rule, it's just that whoever commits a crime that he personally finds offensive, he bans. That's giving unaccountable social media companies a lot of power
He was banned for "abusive behaviour", not defamation. I can't find anything in Twitter's rules that specifically bans defamation - although it could be included under categories like "abusive behaviour."
In any case, Elon's justification for maintaining the ban was because he has "no mercy" for what Alex did, not because of an appeal to any established rule.
His legal battles seem to have nothing to do with his banning in the first place or its continuation.
As far as I’m concerned, Twitter can ban him for abusive behaviour or for defaming the parents of murdered children. Both work for me and there’s a lot of overlap in the Jones free speech Venn diagram.
Since he wasn't banned for defamation, and Twitter has no such rule explicitly banning defamation, I am not sure why you implied Alex Jones was banned because of defamation, then.
My point was that having a rule that says you're going to ban potentially defamatory commentary would (edit: added word "would" for clarity) make a lot of sense. And given that Jones has been found liable for defamation, it's most certainly a valid reason to ban him after the fact.
You seem to be trying to make the point that there shouldn't be any limits on free speech because it's difficult to set limits on free speech. I don't agree with that position. Life is difficult.
I also noticed you haven't said what you actually believe about Alex Jones. So please tell us your opinion. Was it okay to ban him before the defamation verdicts in your opinion? And, if not, would it have been okay to ban him after as a result of those verdicts?
And while we're at it, is it okay to fire employees for publicly shit talking the boss?
“Jones broke Twitter’s rules. That’s why they banned him”
In the next sentence you said
“Why shouldn’t social media companies be able to set a rule saying we don’t permit defamatory speech”
That implied, to me, that you were saying Alex Jones was banned because of defamation. It sounds like what you are actually saying is: Alex Jones was banned for other reasons, but Twitter should make a rule so that people like Alex who have said “potentially defamatory” or defamatory things can be banned. You can let me know if I have that right or not, I don't want to mischaracterize you.
Let’s get back to two of the questions that started this conversation.
1) Did Alex Jones tweet defamatory statements about the kids and their families on Twitter?
2) If not, is it justifiable to ban him on Twitter because of defamatory statements he made elsewhere? In other words, would your hypothetical Twitter rule banning “potentially defamatory” statements extend to statements made outside of Twitter?
I’m saying it’s perfectly reasonable for Twitter to identify and ban the the potentially defamatory behaviour. It does not have to wait years for the courts to rule.
We’re talking about civil proceedings not criminal. Two juries decided Jones was liable for his actions and ordered the maximum damages.
I’m not sure why you think that “just defamation” is fine. The law has protected people against libel and slander for centuries for very good reasons.
Defamatory speech is, by its very nature, untrue.
Right, and the law should. Why should a social media company punish somebody for breaking the law?
Because defamation is a good pace to draw the line when you set your free speech boundaries.
And we all have our lines. You, for example think it’s okay to “punish” people for shit talking the boss in public. And so do I.
But you don’t think people like Alex Jones should be “punished” for systematically tormenting the parents of murdered children for years. I OTOH do.
What explains your position that shit talking the boss can not be tolerated but tormenting the parents of murdered children must be tolerated by social media companies in the name of free speech?
If you shit talk your boss, your boss fires you. This is in the context of a Slack conversation, right? At *work*, you insult the person you *work* for. So they give you the classic *work* punishment, a firing. You broke the boss' rules in the boss' jurisdiction.
If you do something *illegal*, the *law* punishes you. That's their jurisdiction.
If you break the rules of a *social media* company, it makes sense that you get banned from the *social media* website. It's their jurisdiction.
But if you break the *law*, why would you get punished by a *social media* company? It's not their jurisdiction. If Alex Jones was making posts about the kids on Twitter, it makes sense to ban him. But AFAIK it was through his website, so it shouldn't have any standing on his Twitter account.
Why should Twitter be granting access based on their character judgements of individual users? That's the problem with Musks' decision here, it's not based on any objective rule, it's just that whoever commits a crime that he personally finds offensive, he bans. That's giving unaccountable social media companies a lot of power
Jones broke Twitter’s rules. That’s why they banned him just like an employer fires employees who break their rules.
In both cases, the companies were operating within the law.
The only difference is you like the employers’ rules and you don’t like the social media companies’ rules.
Why shouldn’t social media companies be able to set a rule saying we don’t permit defamatory speech? Traditional publishers have done it for years.
No, if he broke Twitter's rules, of course ban him.
His legal battles have nothing to do with that
He was banned for "abusive behaviour", not defamation. I can't find anything in Twitter's rules that specifically bans defamation - although it could be included under categories like "abusive behaviour."
In any case, Elon's justification for maintaining the ban was because he has "no mercy" for what Alex did, not because of an appeal to any established rule.
His legal battles seem to have nothing to do with his banning in the first place or its continuation.
As far as I’m concerned, Twitter can ban him for abusive behaviour or for defaming the parents of murdered children. Both work for me and there’s a lot of overlap in the Jones free speech Venn diagram.
Since he wasn't banned for defamation, and Twitter has no such rule explicitly banning defamation, I am not sure why you implied Alex Jones was banned because of defamation, then.
I didn't imply any such thing. You inferred it.
My point was that having a rule that says you're going to ban potentially defamatory commentary would (edit: added word "would" for clarity) make a lot of sense. And given that Jones has been found liable for defamation, it's most certainly a valid reason to ban him after the fact.
You seem to be trying to make the point that there shouldn't be any limits on free speech because it's difficult to set limits on free speech. I don't agree with that position. Life is difficult.
I also noticed you haven't said what you actually believe about Alex Jones. So please tell us your opinion. Was it okay to ban him before the defamation verdicts in your opinion? And, if not, would it have been okay to ban him after as a result of those verdicts?
And while we're at it, is it okay to fire employees for publicly shit talking the boss?
You said:
“Jones broke Twitter’s rules. That’s why they banned him”
In the next sentence you said
“Why shouldn’t social media companies be able to set a rule saying we don’t permit defamatory speech”
That implied, to me, that you were saying Alex Jones was banned because of defamation. It sounds like what you are actually saying is: Alex Jones was banned for other reasons, but Twitter should make a rule so that people like Alex who have said “potentially defamatory” or defamatory things can be banned. You can let me know if I have that right or not, I don't want to mischaracterize you.
Let’s get back to two of the questions that started this conversation.
1) Did Alex Jones tweet defamatory statements about the kids and their families on Twitter?
2) If not, is it justifiable to ban him on Twitter because of defamatory statements he made elsewhere? In other words, would your hypothetical Twitter rule banning “potentially defamatory” statements extend to statements made outside of Twitter?
I am interested to know your thoughts on this.
The issues are not unrelated. I’m not sure why you are so intent on arguing that they are.
Well were the legal cases about his Tweets? I thought they were about what he said on his show
Are you saying that Twitter has a rule banning people who have been found in a court of law to have committed defamation?
No
I was replying to Ann, sorry. I am not sure if Ann is saying Twitter should be able to set that rule or if that is the rule.
I’m saying it’s perfectly reasonable for Twitter to identify and ban the the potentially defamatory behaviour. It does not have to wait years for the courts to rule.
It should be able to set that rule.