Hateful harridan Hopkins. Formerly on Twitter.

[Seventy]

Locked out of Twitter and all tweets, except one, deleted.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co....

[Chimune]

Who?

[Tankrizzo]

Good.

[anonymous-user]

She's a really unpleasant individual.

Was delighted to see her made insolvent.

This will no doubt be spun as trying to shut her up.

[Woody John]

Really shameful to ban her.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our society.

[robbieduncan]

Woody John said:

Really shameful to ban her.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our society.

She still has freedom of speech. No one is preventing her saying anything. But she does not have the right to demand a private platform carry her views. She can’t force twitter to carry her tweets and more than I can force the Daily Mail to carry reasonable and non-racist viewpoints

[Woody John]

robbieduncan said:

Woody John said:

Really shameful to ban her.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our society.

She still has freedom of speech. No one is preventing her saying anything. But she does not have the right to demand a private platform carry her views. She can’t force twitter to carry her tweets and more than I can force the Daily Mail to carry reasonable and non-racist viewpoints

Very dangerous when twitter can control the narrative.

If i think someone is an idiot it dosent matter what they say, it is meaningless.
If people dont like katie why can they not do the same?

[robbieduncan]

Woody John said:

Very dangerous when twitter can control the narrative.

If i think someone is an idiot it dosent matter what they say, it is meaningless.
If people dont like katie why can they not do the same?

In what way? Is it dangerous that the editor of the Telegraph controls the narrative in that paper?

Anyway she has not been banned for her views or because “people don’t like what she said”. She has been banned for hate speech. Which was explicitly against the rules. Stick within the rules and don’t get banned. Basically like these forums

[Woody John]

robbieduncan said:

Woody John said:

Very dangerous when twitter can control the narrative.

If i think someone is an idiot it dosent matter what they say, it is meaningless.
If people dont like katie why can they not do the same?

In what way? Is it dangerous that the editor of the Telegraph controls the narrative in that paper?

Anyway she has not been banned for her views or because “people don’t like what she said”. She has been banned for hate speech. Which was explicitly against the rules. Stick within the rules and don’t get banned. Basically like these forums

Hate speech is censorship and very dangerous.

[Norfolk B-roads]

Woody John said:

Very dangerous when twitter can control the narrative.

If i think someone is an idiot it dosent matter what they say, it is meaningless.
If people dont like katie why can they not do the same?

Twitter use is not compulsory. It's not dangerous when they control what appears on their platform unless you choose to use it as a news source.

Actually, choosing Twitter as a source of news or opinion is not dangerous either, just bloody foolish.

[robbieduncan]

Woody John said:

Hate speech is censorship and very dangerous.

In what way? Do you not think her viewpoint could be reasonably put forward in a way that is not hate speech? If not is it a viewpoint that she should be broadcasting on Twitter. Free speech always has limits: can you should bomb on a plane and expect no repercussions?

[Sophisticated Sarah]

The likes of a Twitter and Facebook do need to have better control of the hate preachers and agitators using their platforms. Nice to see them making a start.

[Woody John]

robbieduncan said:

Woody John said:

Hate speech is censorship and very dangerous.

In what way? Do you not think her viewpoint could be reasonably put forward in a way that is not hate speech? If not is it a viewpoint that she should be broadcasting on Twitter. Free speech always has limits: can you should bomb on a plane and expect no repercussions?

Because it is another step towards totalitarianism.

[Countdown]

Woody John said:

Very dangerous when twitter can control the narrative.

If i think someone is an idiot it dosent matter what they say, it is meaningless.
If people dont like katie why can they not do the same?

Ideal opportunity for her to start her own Social media platform.

She could call it “ttter”

[Down and out]

Why anyone uses Twitter I don't know, home of the offended.

[robbieduncan]

Woody John said:

Because it is another step towards totalitarianism.

Way to ignore almost all the questions and points

[mikal83]

she is a vile piece of st.

[98elise]

Woody John said:

robbieduncan said:

Woody John said:

Really shameful to ban her.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our society.

She still has freedom of speech. No one is preventing her saying anything. But she does not have the right to demand a private platform carry her views. She can’t force twitter to carry her tweets and more than I can force the Daily Mail to carry reasonable and non-racist viewpoints

Very dangerous when twitter can control the narrative.

If i think someone is an idiot it dosent matter what they say, it is meaningless.
If people dont like katie why can they not do the same?

Twitter control Twitter, they don't control free speech.

She is free to say whatever she wants, and Twitter are free choose if they want it on their website.

[thebraketester]

Finally........ what an appalling women. I blocked her on twitter ages ago as I was sick of seeing her poisonous drivel. She shouldn't be given the time of day by the media.

[Woody John]

robbieduncan said:

Woody John said:

Because it is another step towards totalitarianism.

Way to ignore almost all the questions and points

I focused on the key point.