Tuesday, July 31, 2012

All A-twitter

I thought that freedom of speech means that anyone who feels compelled to express whatever is protected for doing so as long as the words do not slander or libel, pose a direct threat, or create a harmful situation that puts others in immediate danger. If a female athlete wants to tweet a racist joke, recipients have the right to deny a public reaction that validates the message. I know that in other countries, with other forms of government, public speech is both controlled and censored, but in America, we are supposed to have the right to speak our minds without fear of reprisal.

Thus, I'm not sure why the top echelon of Twitter people shut down accounts for people whom they deem have offended/upset/dismayed someone somewhere for something. I also don't understand why athletes are being kicked out of the Olympics based on their "inappropriate" tweets. Who decides what's inappropriate? If it were up to me, the 4-hour long, horrifically tedious and boring opening ceremony for this year's Olympics was inappropriate. I also think the skimpy "penis pouches" worn by male swimmers and divers are inappropriate. And, do we even need to hear yet another male commentator discuss the itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-bikinis worn by the women's volleyball players as if they are critiquing the new Playmate of the Month centerfold?

Sure, I'd think twice before I shared my personal pettiness with anyone outside my immediate circle of friends, but if a tweeter is willing to be judged by others for inappropriate thoughts, who am I to tell him/her not to send an ill-advised tweet? Obnoxious tweets speak volumes about the person who sends them and we more effectively deal with the individual by not providing feedback. It's the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there any sound" approach.

Today, verbal graffiti is spread through Twitter and text messages. If you get something you don't want, delete it, rather than send it to everyone on your friends' list. If you are appalled by a tweet or text message, chances are others also will be appalled, so spare them that experience!

If you send it on, you exacerbate the issue, rather than stopping it before it goes viral, and are, therefore, guilty as an accessory to poor decision-making.

2 comments:

John said...

That's a common miss-perception. The Constitution only guarantees that the federal gov't cannot infringe on an individual's freedom of speech. However, businesses and individuals have every right to restrict the speech that they find egregious at/in their own business.

In this case, Twitter, a non-gov't company, has every right to restrict what can and cannot be said while using its services. If you do something against its End User License Agreement, you can legitimately have your account banned or axed. Racism, sexism, hate speech, and religious intolerance are frequently parts of any EULA for any online community.

Think about any standard business agreement you sign when hired or fired; most have clauses in them about non-competition, not being able to talk with former customers, etc. Or any of the major pro sports have contractual/CBA clauses that restrict the players from saying bad things about the referees and sometimes management. These are all examples of perfectly legal restrictions to a person's freedom of speech that are agreed to when you sign that contract or when you click "OK" to sign up for and use a particular piece of software.

Liza said...

You make a good point and a strong case for users to stop and think before they hit the send button.