Katie Hopkins Back On Twitter?

[andy-hughes]

It's advised that Elon Musk may remind Katie Hopkins' lifetime ban from Twitter.

Any thoughts?

[andy-hughes]

YMB - sorry, that should be 'not' the issue.

I must stop writing on my phone!!

[bednobs]

if it was not the issue, that would make a triple negative in your sentence, which would give me a headache :)

[andy-hughes]

bednobs - Apologies - my post was correct the first time - I actually mis-read and mis-corrected my own post!!

I am going for a lie-down ....

[naomi24]

She’s controversial but so often tells it as it is - which is bound to upset. I’ve no objection to her.

[emmie]

me neither, she is the female equivalent of Nigel Farage...

[davebro]

I know so little of Ms Hopkins or Twitter that I am unqualified to comment - oh wait.....

[emmie]

don't know anything about twitter, but do know something of Katie Hopkins, tends to tell it like it is.... made lots of enemies that way

[Peter Pedant]

Who? He won't have time. There are more important ijiuts such as the last corrupt and possibly criminal POTUs

the POTU has had his rights restored and done a Groucho ( who he den? thousands ask) - I wont be a member of a club that votes me in

spurmed Elon is, spurned! - - - trump ed even - by Trump!

AH: Elon Musk may remind Katie Hopkins'
DTC er remind me who she is ! - - - - -I like that

is she the one that married Kanye West - OK fella until he opens his mouth

[emmie]

no...

[emmie]

that was Kim Kardashian. i think they are now divorced.

[Peter Pedant]

me neither, she is the female equivalent of Nigel Farage...

oh I see.... she says something like Nigel Farage ( I am thinking of so many million to be spent on the NHS)
and then when called to account, clarifies it with:
"oh ! I shouldnt have said that !"

very AB - where opposite clarifications abound - yes andy I am thinking of your "oops I put in a "not" - no I didnt!"

[emmie]

she is outspoken then... gets her into trouble...

[Mozz71]

I don't much care, I wouldn't sign up for Twitter if they paid me (nothing to do with Musk, I just think the place is a cesspit.

Everyone should have a right to be heard, but if that right is abused, it should be reviewed.

[drmorgans]

Isn't that the contradiction though? Some people have (to me) deeply offensive views but if they are sanctioned then their right to free speech, "to be heard", is denied.

[ZebuSanctuary]

//she is the female equivalent of Nigel Farage...//

If you mean they have both had libel charges filed against them, then yes!

[perseverer]

You could argue Katie Hopkins just says (or types) the first idea that comes in to her head, or far more likely, that her provocations are totally deliberate, but I can see that if you like extreme right wing, racist trolls, then you would be for her.

[naomi24]

Peserverer, That's precisely the sort of thing the liberal left (who are, in fact, far from liberal) use to try to silence any opposition they may encounter. Call them nasty names. That'll shut them up. :o)

[perseverer]

Naomi, not bad, 5 minutes to find something I posted and object to it.

[naomi24]

Perseverer, if I'm contributing to a thread and disagree with you or anyone else, I will say so. Don’t kid yourself you're special. You’re not.

[andy-hughes]

To address Ms Hopkins first -

I believe that she has always held strong opinions, but that she latched onto the simple notion that, if you express an extreme opinion with the mantle of the 'voice of the silent majority', and add a snapppy media tagline like "I say it like it is ... just saying ... sorry but .." and so on, you can parlay a lucrative media career. All you need is a thick enough skin to withstand the hostility that goes with behaving like that, which Ms Hopkins clearly possesses.

The problem is, unless you are really careful, you get carried away with your desire to find even more outrageous views to express - whether they are personally hers or not ceases to be the issue - and you trip over libel and slander protections, as Ms Hopkins has, and the bubble bursts, with attendant legal proceedings, and loss of platforms, and income.

And to address the thorny issue of free speech, which the behaviour Ms Hopkins and similar raise -

Free speech is an enshrined right, but like all rights, it comes with responsibilities.

Having a view is not the same as having the right to express your view, to the detriment of society as a whole - that way likes anarchy.

This means, if I believe that all black people should be crucified in rows down Oxford street, covered in tar and set alight for Christmas illuminations, that's a viewpoint.

Is it a viewpoint that should be expressed publicly simply because there is a minority of people who would entirely agree with it - and I should be paid by a newspaper for writing it?

I my view, no it is not.

Yes that is an extreme example of the point I am making, but when Ms Hopkins started stirring up racial hostility against perfectly innocent people, it's clear that she was on that slippery slope, and accelerating down it at speed before due process shut her up.

I would not call Ms Hopkins names, and advocate that she is routinely blocked from speaking, that would be wrong.

But equally wrong is the simple process of advocating any and all poisonous and irredeemably horrific notions be expressed simply in the name of 'free speech'.

Because, as I said, with that freedom comes responsibility, and stirring up hatred and malice is in no-one's interest, especially if it abuses the right of free speech to do it.