Twitter stirs debate after banning editor for insults

WASHINGTON

Twitter found itself embroiled in controversy Wednesday after banning an editor at the conservative Breitbart website for fuelling a stream of abuse that drove "Ghostbusters" star Leslie Jones to quit the social network.

The move banning Milo Yiannopoulos, the website's tech editor known for provocative posts, sparked protests from his supporters but praise from others, while sparking debate over free speech rights for social media users.

The move by Twitter sparked a hashtag war with Yiannopoulos supporters using #FreeMilo and his critics #LoveForLeslieJ.

Yiannopoulos wrote after the ban that "Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives."

The suspension came a day after Jones, who is African American, said she was leaving Twitter after being bombarded by Internet trolls likening her to an ape and making other racist insults.

"I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very sad heart. All this cause I did a movie. You can hate the movie but the shit I got today... wrong," the "Saturday Night Live" comedian and actress said late Monday.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded with a tweet back to Jones saying he was "following" and asking her to contact him directly.

Yiannopoulos's Twitter account, which had more than 338,000 followers, was later blocked.

CORPORATE FASCISTS

"People should be able to express diverse opinions and beliefs on Twitter," the company said in a statement.

"But no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others." 

Critics of Yiannopoulos said he incited his followers to bombard the actress with racial comments, while his supporters claimed he was being targeted for his views.

Jones announced that she was fed up with the hateful comments around the release of "Ghostbusters," an all-female remake of the 1984 classic.

One slur referred to the death of Harambe the gorilla, who was shot dead in May at the Cincinnati Zoo after a young boy fell into its enclosure.

The fuming 48-year-old Jones responded to the abuse by taking screenshots and retweeting many of the slurs, saying they had made her "numb."

One Twitter user, Sara Levine, welcomed the move to ban Yiannopoulos, tweeting, "Racists shouldn't be allowed to silence others. Twitter did right to ban him."

But Twitter user John Nolte responded, "Basically, the corporate fascists at @Twitter silenced someone for criticizing and mocking a rich and powerful movie star." 

Twitter's actions were likely to intensify a simmering debate on how social media platforms regulate offensive or inappropriate conduct.

Both Twitter and Facebook have banned thousands of suspected jihadists for seeking to incite or celebrate violence, and also have targeted users for certain kinds of harassment and insulting commentary.

Matthew Ingram, a Fortune magazine writer who also blogs for the Nieman Journalism Lab, however suggested that this time, Twitter may have gone too far.

"I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I don't think Milo said anything to Leslie Jones that deserves a permanent ban," Ingram tweeted.

Twitter and Facebook have been navigating a fine line, seeking to remain open to controversial views while keeping out violent or abusive commentary.

LEGAL RIGHTS

Some analysts have argued that social media platforms need to develop a code that mirrors constitutional free speech rights.

"Corporate platforms have, in many ways, taken on the role of the town square, or public sphere," said a blog post this year from Jillian York, a writer and activist who works with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"While, indeed, the legal right to free speech does not apply to these spaces, it is impossible to ignore the effect corporate limitations on speech can have on societies."

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which seeks to counter racism, argued however that social media firms have a right to set their own standards.

"These aren't First Amendment (constitutional) questions at all. Twitter and others are private corporations that have no obligation to allow these kinds of speech," Potok told AFP.

Potok said the lack of any policy led to chaos at the online service Reddit, which he said "turned into a hellhole for anyone who wasn't a hater" before it implemented guidelines on abusive speech.

"If these organizations say they have a no-hate policy, they ought to enforce it," he said.

Jennifer Lambe, a University of Delaware professor of communications specializing in free speech and free press issues, said there is no easy answer for social networks.

Lambe said the legal system can only deal with "immediate threats of physical violence" but that online harassment can be harmful as well.

"I feel there should be some recourse if you are being attacked online, but I don't know what that is," she told AFP.