from the this-is-a-problem dept
Somehow, well meaning people seem to think that "bad" speech is just obvious. But it's not. Speech is speech, and whether or not it's "good" or "bad" may very much depend on an individual's context, sense of humor, situation in life or a variety of other issues. To think that Twitter, or any company, should be in a position to make decisions about a person's ability to speak based on such amorphous concepts is a recipe for disaster -- and basically runs counter to everything that a service like Twitter is about. Vallaud-Belkacem's logic follows the standard censor's argument -- claiming that freedom of expression is important... except for speech she doesn't like.
For what it's worth, I agree 100% that the tweets she's complaining about are offensive and disgusting. But to pin the blame on Twitter is to totally misplace it. It actually serves to take the focus off of those who actually posted the controversial posts, and suggest that if only we hid speech we didn't like, it would go away. That's not what happens. Instead, those who are censored tend to believe that they're being persecuted by a government (or company) that "can't handle the truth" and wants to shut them up. It doesn't encourage the ignorant to be taught why they're ignorant. It doesn't encourage important discussions on why such statements are ridiculous and offensive. Instead, it just tries to sweep everything under the rug.