Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

There is no New Public Square that I know of. Just because you heard something called something , and especially if you made up yourself, does not mean it has any actual existence. Twitter and Facebook are businesses, they exist to make money from the people who advertise on them NOT to disseminate political opinion or for any other reason other than to make money from their advertisers, that is not complicated either and i cannot understand why you simply keep ignoring this very basic fact. I don't really understand how I can put it more simply. Is there something about being a business that exists for making money for their owners and nothing else that you don't understand or what?

 

I looked it up, which I should have done from the beginning. Sorry

The New Public Square is a website, It is NOT a part of either Facebook or Twitter that i can see. I don't think it is correct to conflate the two which it appears to me you are doing.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

That's the extent of your argument? Oh dear.

 

So how did Loomer attack her on the basis of being from Ethiopia?

Do you think that there is a widely recognised connection between Jews and termites?

You are correct about all of this, but the Civil Rights Act only defends against services discrimination in places of PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION! Again, you might want to look up what 'public accommodations' are considered to be before you embarrass yourself any further! Perhaps you are also under the impression that the Civil Rights Act defends against discrimination even if it is NOT on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Perhaps you think that it is illegal for a shop keeper to refuse service to EVERYONE, even a racist!

 

No.

The NPS must be a free speech zone.

 

Are you saying that they successfully manipulated the 2016 election?

 

No conflation intended or should be inferred.

The NPS is the NPS; a sacred zone in which free speech must be honored.

 

I had similar thoughts about yours.

If you ever want to educate yourself, I hope you do.

 

It is NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY it is NOT A TOWN SQUARE.

There is no good analog I can think of existing, as it is electronic not paper, but think of a magazine of EXTREME size where nearly ALL the contributors are also readers and subscribers. (and it is only available by subscription but subscriptions are free).

Now do you require a magazine to give you free speech? It may or may not have a letters sections but I don't think anybody is arguing that is the same.

Do you require the National Review or American Spectator to publish articles by liberals?

And the real problem here is you are requiring conservative articles not from HuffPo but from fracking Ladies Home Journal or Coronet, (if anyone remembers that) which is pretty much what Facebook was envisioned to be like, if it was envisioned as anything like it is now.

 

Or People, Facebook is sort ot the People of.....uh.....people, or regular people, not celebrities.

 

In a way it is

Imagine a real town square in colonial America that happened to be privately owned and the private owner was strictly a royalist

So no dissenting opinions were allowed to be expressed within the city limits of that town

Which means the royalists were all unaware that there were dissenting opinions at all and believed everything the celiberty royalists told them

Technically the royalists have a legal right to deny dissenting opinions on their private property but is it wise?

I dont think so

 

Are you under the impression that social media companies are classified as publications?

 

This is a matter of opinion. A different way of looking at it from magazines or publishers is to look at it like an airport. Airports are privately owned but they cannot ban people from exercising the right of free speech there, per the Supreme Court ruling that the airport is similar to a public square. If the new media (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.) are indeed the new public square, then it is wrong of the corporate entities that operate them to discriminate among users based on their political viewpoints. Up until recently, I was of the opinion that this was the way to go and the way the courts should rule. Now, however, Facebook is suffering from a loss of users and a loss of revenue as a consequence, making me suspect that it is on the way out, much like MySpace before it. What will replace it, I don't know, but that being the case, it may not be so important to resort to the courts to force it to be less discriminatory. It may be possible for a more neutral entity or perhaps even a conservative one to rise up and take its place. Same for Twitter and any other outfit that wants to go full SJW. Get woke, go broke.

 

No, technically they're net sites aren't they? Very involved and complex net sites with lots of interactive features but still really just net sites in the end.. There are valid comparisons between magazines and net sites and most big magazines run net sites too, don't they?

 

There is 4chan /pol/ but I'm not a suicidal gay so I don't use it much. Or maybe Alex Jones has one?

I do think you are correct in one sense. Social media are no longer going to be licenses to print money, and I think lots of them are going to ban politics of any kind. It's too much trouble and they have other proven ways to make money.

 

Okay, so it is your understanding that there is a widely recognised connection between Muslims and terrorism but it is NOT your understanding that there is a widely recognised connection between Jews and termites. This would seem to conflict with what you said earlier:

What's funny is, you tell me to not "play dumb" with regard to Loomer's tweet, when that is EXACTLY what you are doing here with regard to Farrakhan's tweet.

Insulting? How do you know that Omar was insulted?

He could have been making a racist statement? You mean anti-Semitic or bigoted? Judaism is not a race, just like Islam.

Yes, because Loomer herself sees Omar's beliefs as negative. Omar would see her beliefs as POSITIVE! Why can't you say how saying that someone is "pro-Sharia" is making "negative assumptions about an individual on the basis of [their] religion?"

 

It doesn’t matter whether anyone else made the connection, only if Farrakhan did. The very fact I don’t know is the point though; because I don’t understand his statement, I can’t declare it as being racist or not. I do understand Loomer’s tweet so can take an opinion on that.

How do you know anyone was insulted by Farrakhan’s? Anyway, rightly or not, Twitter’s rules will largely be about intent. Even if you think she should be free to do so, I don’t see how you could deny Loomer’s intent was to insult Omar.

A complex side issue given the various definitions of the Jewish people, especially in relation to Israel, and the complexity that “Semite” is a cultural/racial term rather than a religious one. I was using racism as a shorthand. If there was a similar short term for anti-religious discrimination, I would use that too. I’m also not a huge fan of a having a special term for discrimination against a specific group. I don’t like the term “Islamophobia” for similar reasons.

Words can have very different meanings in different contexts. I doubt Omar actually believes what she is being accused of believing. She may well consider herself pro-Sharia but not by the definition suggested by Loomer’s tweet, where it automatically implies supporting FGM, killing homosexuals and abusing women. That’d be especially ironic in the context of a married yet independent and educated Muslim woman who has stood for democratic election.

 

No. I don't believe and see nothing to indicate manipulation of social media (the so-called fake news) determined the outcome of the election.

But while "fake news" has been around for centuries (also called propaganda, psychological warfare, information manipulation, etc), the platform and scope of the platform is new. Also the huge amount of data available allows tailoring of propaganda to the individual, and the response time (real time reaction to events and responses to the propaganda) is extremely powerful.

And social media monitoring combined with govt databases opens new doors for govt abuse.

Ballot harvesting is possible because of centralization of govt and social data.

The 2016 result was totally unexpected and forced the "progressives" to look outside the box. This past election (Nov 201 was a sample bite of what is to come in 2020. The censorship and silencing and harassment of any who oppose "progressives", the ballot harvesting and "recounts" and fraud during the election, are just baby steps.

 

I think you're missing the point, and it's incredibly chilling.

Free speech n the New Public Square MUST be honored & protected.

 

Some excellent points, and the airport example a good one.

Courts have repeatedly held that PRIVATELY owned space open to the public CANNOT discriminate against free speech.

 

So then how do you know that "it allows them to manipulate elections and manipulate people?"

 

You don't NEED to identify it as being racist! Something doesn't need to be racist in order for it to be considered offensive speech or hate speech. So you seriously don't think that he was calling Jews "termites?" Sorry, you are just playing dumb, or else you actually ARE dumb! However, you don't strike me as a dumb person.

How would you like to be labelled as a "termite" for being who you are?

Loomer's INTENT was to call out what she sees as bad beliefs. She believes that Omar is dedicated to her beliefs, so why would she think that Omar would be insulted? She might think that Omar would be CHALLENGED by having to defend herself in defending Sharia law, but not insulted; that's just stupid to think that.

You mean a word like "BIGOTRY?" How about that word? Is there a better word to describe anti-religious discrimination?

All that Loomer did was list two of the things that fall under Sharia and she was 100% correct! She did NOT say that Omar supports killing homosexuals and abusing women, even if it seemed that she was trying to imply it. Intent to offend is not 100% clear with Loomer's tweet, yet you think that it is, but you don't think that the intent is clear from Farrakhan's tweet. That is most telling! And even if Loomer clearly said that Omar supports killing homosexuals and abusing women, the worst that could be said about it is that it is 100% false with no evidence to back it up.

What would be stopping a "married yet independent and educated Muslim woman" from believing in punishments against women under Sharia?

 

Not all "net sites" are publishers obviously. Social media sites are not publishers. You seemed to be referring to them as such. Were you?

I'm sure that in the US, magazines and their accompanying websites would be treated exactly the same. I'm sure that both would be subject to the same libel laws for example.

 

No. I’m saying that taking the sentence alone without context, it isn’t entirely clear what the intended meaning was. It could have been an attack on all Jews, it could have been an attack on all Israelis or it could have been distinguishing some unidentified group of bad actors as being distinct from the whole. With context of other posts and wider behaviour (I gather it was posted with a video of speech) a definitive conclusion might be reached but that isn’t how it was presented in the OP (I didn’t even know who wrote it when I first saw it).

Bigotry is more generic and there is no commonly used word for anti-religious discrimination (I wonder why that might be). It doesn’t really matter, we both know what we’re talking about.

The term isn’t anything like as simple. It essentially just means being Muslim and there is obviously a massive range of opinions, beliefs and practices within that faith (like any other). Even if a Muslim said they’re “pro-Sharia”, you’d need more information to know what that actually implied for that individual. It’s like saying you support a sports team; that could mean anything from checking the scores each weak and being happy if they won through to travelling to every away game and painting your house in the team colours.

She did imply that. She also explicitly accused Omar of being pro-FGM and anti-Jewish.

Correct, and I’m apparently not alone. You don’t have to agree to acknowledge that some people could have a different view on those two tweets without having an entirely political bias behind it. We could even be factually wrong but still not politically biased.

And that is ultimately all I’m saying; the different decisions made by Twitter in response to these two induvial tweets is not implicit evidence of political bias. Everything else is side issues.

Because the form of Islam Loomer is implying wouldn’t permit a Muslim woman to get an education or take an active role in politics. She accused Omar of following a set of beliefs that implicitly includes the subjugation of women that would render Omar’s current position literally impossible.

 

No, I'm saying they're analogous for our purposes