Should anyone who incites violence, intimidation, or bullying be removed permanently or temporarily from social media websites regardless of their standing in society?

The problem is who decides?
What is bullying and what is a strong opinion?
Is it my fault if someone uses my opinion to justify their own violence?
I understand your thoughts but I don't see how this could be done. It comes close to censorship which I oppose.

Violence. Intimidation. Bullying. We know the dictionary definitions, and most of us find such acts abhorrent. But who gets to draw the line that separates nearly unacceptable from unacceptable? Rush Limbaugh? Bill Maher? Congress? Mark Zuckerberg?

Let's just prosecute those who break the law and leave the social media alone.

Clearly it would be those that run the social media site.

I say if it crosses the line into illegality, let the police deal with it. Don't get every Tom, Dick, and Harry involved in deciding whether a simple "I hate you" is intimidation or bullying.

I get you, but if your running a business like Facebook or Twitter, would you really want people using your business to possibly incite criminal activity?

::shrug::

If I own a phone company, is it my responsibility to ensure that no one's using it to harrass someone else? I don't know your answer, but my answer is No.

Who gets to determine what constitutes inciting violence, intimidation, or bullying? Blocking people from access to public websites can become just another form of bullying

That's true. It can be tough, but would you agree that if there were a clear cut case that they should? Social media sites may seem like they are public, but they aren't. People do not have the fundamental right to post whatever they want if it violate the rules and regulations of that media site.

Yes, the owners of the site are free to do as they please. And I do believe that in cases where it can be shown that an individual is being repeatedly targeted for abuse that the sites exercise their prerogative, or should. But there is an inherent problem with expulsion, there is nothing to prevent the removed person from simply returning under another moniker.


There is a real problem in 'drawing a line in the sand', for everyone has a different opinion of where that line should be drawn. Take for instance "inciting violence". From my perspective, anyone who speaks in support of military action against Iran's nuclear program is in fact advocating violence. Should anyone speaking this point of view rhetoric be expunged from a social media site?

I think that is a bit broad. My thoughts were more directed at individuals towards individuals, but I see your point.

What are your thoughts on the 'block' mechanism in place here as a means of preventing individual on individual persecution? I'm not a fan of blocking anyone, but I would rather see people allowed to 'censor' individuals rather than having that individual's voice squelched out completely