Conservative Actor James Woods Quit Twitter Over Censorship but has returned to Twitter with a scathing blog post that detailed the reason he originally left the platform.
“Twitter is a dangerous place for the faint of heart,” he admitted.
“Gang thuggery can devastate a delicate sensibility and even damage professional reputations beyond repair.”
Bizpac Review reports,
But, about a month after he left the social media network after it decided to wipe out what it considered alt-right accounts, Woods said it is not Twitter’s place to intercede in the matter.
“I now find Twitter’s latest jihad against those who don’t tow the political line more dangerous by far,” he said, noting that he took a case to court and won after a Twitter user called him a “cocaine addict.”
Woods fears that Twitter’s decision to take a more proactive approach to rooting out alt-right accounts could stifle free speech.
“Deciding that thousands of their clients’ opinions are not to Twitter’s political taste, they banged their corporate noggins together and virtually silenced those voices by terminating the “offending” accounts permanently,” he wrote.
And, he opined, it could land Twitter is legal trouble that could lead to its extinction.
… Twitter and other huge corporate social media “portals” basically enjoy immunity from litigation for republishing defamatory comments made by their users. The argument is quite simple. In order to preserve the hallowed American right of free speech, having to “vet” every sentiment expressed by every user, from the POTUS down to the “pajama boy” hurling grenades from his mommy’s rumpus room, would place an undue burden on these “outlets of free expression.”
Twitter, FaceBook, etc. in turn are then obligated by law to remain objective providers of free speech and not purveyors of news. News providers are explicitly NOT protected in this way. News organizations are expected to be objective and apolitical in their news reportage, yet ironically granted the luxury of editorial opinion, where expressly identified as such (editorial pages, commentary pieces).
Now the Rachel Maddows of this arena, for example, while good for a chuckle, clearly disappoint by these standards to an alarming degree. They are actually bitter entertainers masquerading as journalists, and are recognized as such by all but their most ardent and slavish acolytes. Germane to this discussion are actual purveyors of journalistic “fact,” as responsible as they can reasonably be. If they mess up or fail in their due diligence, they often end their careers in disgrace (Dan Rather comes to mind as a biased embarrassment even Hollywood couldn’t resuscitate).
I have had many thoughtful words of wisdom offered by followers on the merits of silence versus activism. Silence is just not in my nature. https://t.co/yuM5RFVe6r
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) December 28, 2016
Why I struggle with @Twitter‘s poisonous assault on free speech… https://t.co/KwKmAWK5jq
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) December 28, 2016
Read more at Bizpac Review
