Sentences with phrase «to free speech»

But free speech is a red herring in this context.

These objectionable users are a result of Twitter's well - intentioned desire to allow total free speech and anonymity on the service, but they consistently drive out others, including influential users like actress Leslie Jones, who temporarily quit the service after a bombardment of racist tweets.

The right to free speech simply means that when you attempt to speak (or write) no one may rightly take action to forcibly stop you from doing so.

That's not what «free speech» implies.

Is there a billionaire who wants to go head - to - head with Thiel or who feels a passionate commitment to free speech and freedom of the press and is willing to put his or her money on the line?

Twitter has often boasted about its commitment to the principles of free speech, sometimes leading to criticism from those who felt the company was more interested in tolerating all forms of speech than in trying to ensure a harassment - free experience for its users.

He knew that the instinctive response from journalists would be to cry foul, and to mount our horses in defense of free speech, truth, and justice.

«Balancing free speech and safety is a challenge both on and off Facebook,» Zuckerberg added.

Google is now positioning itself as a champion of free speech, a tricky claim for Microsoft to make as it continues to censor search results.

A court in San Francisco ruled last week that Google search results are protected by free speech laws under the First Amendment, which means that the company can order its search results any way it sees fit.

Google then filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which under California state law, can move to throw out lawsuits that have the intent to suppress free speech.

«They're being punished for the exercise of free speech by CNN.

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, publications in Russia, China and Malaysia — all of which have been criticised for suppressing free speech — said the magazine was wrong to lampoon Islam.

One user from California noted,» [It's] not cool to sue customers simply for writing a review,» while another from Massachusetts said, «When you sue your customers for voicing their dissatisfaction in a public setting, you're attempting to stifle free speech.»

And Google has no intentions of curtailing the free speech of its users.

The case involves free speech issues related to whether public - sector unions can collect fees from non-union members.

Since his identity as Hogan's backer was revealed, Thiel's crusade against Gawker has been decried by a number of prominent journalists and defenders of a free press, who note that a billionaire bankrupting a media outlet as part of a personal vendetta raises serious questions about free speech.

Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.

Public discourse and free speech mean you can still provide a clear counter-argument.

The very threat of a lawsuit has a chilling effect on free speech.

It's not a question of safety or of free speech.

«Such a disclosure could cause people to lose jobs and insurance, and also cause a chilling effect against free speech and association.»

One is the risk that it might be forced to pay more attention to issues like free speech and censorship and journalistic integrity than it really wants to, which would be a huge hassle.

To block very hurtful comments that do not use hate speech (something like «why don't you step in front of a truck») could be perceived as limiting free speech.

«I'm tried of giving them this free [free speech] waiver over what is happening... The platforms are not built with human users in mind.»

China, of course, needs to keep authoritarian control of its society and that means stopping access to the outside world where free speech can threaten its grip.

Because if money is free speech, so is horse shit.

In Twitter's case, and to some extent YouTube's as well, the company has made a commitment to free speech, and to distributing content regardless of whether it is disturbing (although in Twitter's case that seems to be weakening).

Today's misguided FCC action represents a radical departure that risks erosion of the biggest free speech platform the world has ever known.

While the terrorist attacks in France have dominated the headlines this week, advocates for free speech are fighting a war on multiple fronts.

«We've had enough of the lies, the sanctimony, the arrogance, the hatred, the pettiness, the fake news,» Loesch said in the minute - long video, calling out «every lying member of the media,» «every Hollywood phony,» «the role model athletes who use their free speech to alter and undermine what our flag represents,» and «politicians who would rather let America burn than lose one ounce of their personal power.»

The last few years have seen a huge move towards more democracy and free speech, with the theater and arts scene blossoming because of it.

Some of those responding to the memo are trying to defend its authorship as an issue of free speech.

Fuchs said UF is dedicated to free speech and public discourse, but that the First Amendment does not require risk of imminent violence to students.

«Free speech is not as free as all that in the real world, where there are numerous social repercussions for behaving in a rude, obscene and appalling manner,» she writes.

This would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the free speech that's expressed every day on social media,» the group said in a statement.

That decision, rooted in constitutional arguments about free speech, removed certain limits on corporate political donations.

Meanwhile, other big digital newcomers to the media scene, including BuzzFeed and Business Insider, have also been slow to take up the public interest banner long carried by the likes of the New York Times and the Press - Enterprise (a small California paper that, as Liptak explained, took two free speech cases all the way to the Supreme Court in the 1980s).

As Adam Liptak has explained, these older media companies financed many of the major free speech fights of the 20th century; they saw paying for litigation as part of their business model, and as a public duty.

For all his talk about principles like openness and free speech, his leadership is better viewed as a balancing of constituencies, a reality familiar to any politician.

But part of my fascination with representing activists and organizers is really about free speech.

In acting this way, Chick - fil - A is setting an example for other companies, and contributing to an overall pattern that is liable to have a chilling effect on free speech and entrepreneurship.

Jacobs: You've talked a lot about free speech, civil rights, the principles of that.

Law professor Eugene Volokh, who blogs about free speech issues at the Washington Post, has made the same point in the past to argue that Google's (GOOG) choice of search results are a form of free speech.

While it speaks volumes that many Americans value their right to free speech, this does not mean that we have to pay for their vitriol.

But Carlson told Business Insider that believing victims of sexual harassment fit a theme of his show: championing total free speech.

And, yes, the case turns on whether Gawker's free speech right should extend to publishing a video that showed Hogan's ding - a-ling (albeit a grainy version of it).

The tabloid is fighting for an important free speech principle and is pointing out, correctly, that celebrities like Hogan should not be able to use the media when it suits them and shut it down when it doesn't.

This comedy became a beacon for free speech advocates and even President Barack Obama.

Some right - wing websites have already started criticizing the company's latest move as a crackdown on free speech, and an attempt to enforce «politically correct» behavior.