Jump to content

If Ebola Reached Scotland...


Recommended Posts

A couple of times by myself

Although her tweets are read by far more people, she is a public figure that makes a living off being in the public eye and has a history of saying of anti Scottish posts.

So basically one law for some and one for others?

Glad we've got that cleared up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

People who have a scottish/football orientated taste in life

Ah, I see, so by your reckoning , Scottish football supporters and " the likes" can post what they want about each other and not get offended ?

So going by your theory , if I refer to you as a thick, pond dwelling f**k-piece, that's not Breach Of The Peace, but if Katie Hopkins called you it, it would be !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

throbber, on 04 Jan 2015 - 11:13, said:

To add to my point this is a notice board for a football forum and i post here anonymously so for all you know i could be something different to what i say i am

Hopkins has 310 k followers on twitter and knows her comments are going to get recognised so her intentions are far more sinister than the ones on here, plus a lot of people on here get banned for offending other posters

So again, Hopkins should be punished more than someone else based on Twitter followers?

Where is the line being drawn on how many followers you need to have in order to be prosecuted for what you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

throbber, on 04 Jan 2015 - 11:26, said:

Hoopkins hasn't been punished though and a lot have for similar sort of offensive comments so why not her?

Matters need to be investigated when she is offending that many people on a regular basis, fair enough you can un follow her but you keep getting people re tweeting her so its impossible to hide away from her shite.

The first question is a fair point, but not really what I'm pressing at.

What I'm trying to get at is that they shouldn't be getting punished no matter who's saying it. It's very easy for people to be offended. I could say something completely harmless and someone could decide that I've offended them and that's it?

And where are you wanting to draw the line between one extreme and another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

throbber, on 04 Jan 2015 - 11:35, said:

I know what you are getting at and i don't have the answers for you. If a comment causes so much upset and people complain / sign petitions then the mods at Twitter need to investigate this further and can then ban the person from using that form of social media.

That's fair enough. Then it's up to Twitter to do something in this case. Not the police. Much the same with this very forum. You actually agree with that with your next sentence...

Fair enough people say stop reacting to her tweets but she is a person in the public eye who won't go away and the easiest way to f**k her off would be to ban her from twitter as that would hurt her.

And I'd absolutely agree with that. Social networking sites aren't democracies. They can get rid of anything they like and if you don't like it, then tough titties. The problem is that they're not willing to do that with Katie Hopkins, but that's their problem. Not anyone else's.

And the reason you don't have the answers to my other questions is because there isn't really an answer for them, and I can't imagine many others coming up with a good one. Because it's a very dangerous line to draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...