Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Sorry pastor but freedom of speech does not pertain to Twitter

Former pastor Craig Stellpflug wanted to hawk his vanity published book via Twitter. The tome is titled: “One Man One Woman, God’s Original Design for Marriage.” Twitter rejected the ad on the basis of hate.

According to Doug Mainwaring, LifeSiteNews' house faggot:
He went on to say, “My book is not hate! It highlights conservative Christian marriage values — therefore it is 'hate.' Have we stooped so low in our country that my freedom of speech is squelched because I promote my Christian beliefs? I'll tell you where the hate is. It is flaunted against the majority by the few as a tool to promote liberal agendas.”
Stellpflug is confused in several ways. Just because something aligns with someone's religious beliefs does not mean that it is not an expression of hate. Seen any cross burnings lately? Marriage is a settled issue. A book that would seek to resurrect discrimination could easily be viewed as hate in the broad sense of the word. There's more to this. It's not the book. Please bear with me.

Additionally, Stellpflug does not have freedom of speech in a private venue. Our Constitution only bars government from infringing on expression. Furthermore, it would appear that it is Stellpflug who is in the minority. About two-thirds of the public supports same-sex marriage. That is not to imply that popularity is meaningful in a discussion of constitutionality.
The out-of-bounds ad banished by Twitter reads, "One Man One Woman is about God's original design for marriage carried from Adam and Eve in the garden through today."  The tweet is accompanied by a photo of the book and a link to the publisher’s online bookstore.
Mainwaring omitted an important detail — the link (I have excluded the image of the book from the tweet):
I know from personal experience (see below) that the landing page is more important than the tweet. Included on the page that the tweet points to is this text:
In this book, we explore how pornography, adultery, homosexuality, and judging one another breaks the oneness relationship and distracts us from focusing on what we should be focusing on—that is, spreading the Gospel and calling others to repentance and a turning away from sin.

One Man One Woman is also about learning how to handle some of the many relationship challenges we face as imperfect beings living in an ever-corrupting world. While Christianity seemingly slumbers on, sexual identity is becoming a matter of subjective preference and choice rather than birthright and blessing.
Subjective preference? I find it quite easy to understand how one might judge that to be hate speech.

Now Twitter is entitled to determine what ads they will, and will not, accept. Indeed, After receiving a number of emails from Twitter that used the phrase “for as little as $10,” I explored the possibility of increasing my followers. I have never been fully committed to Twitter so I have the followers that I deserve. Twitter rejected my little campaign because of profanity, not in tweets, but on the site. What fucking profanity are they referring to anyway? Twitter would require my deletion or edit of every expletive.

Mainwaring babbles on:
Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, told Tucker Carlson in an recent TV interview, “Planned Parenthood, the nation’s biggest abortion chain, is advertising on Twitter, but Live Action, which is the leading pro-life platform for the pro-life movement, is not allowed to. Rose continued, “And the kind of tweets that they’re flagging, Tucker – that they’re calling violation of their hate and sensitive policy – show ultrasound images; they’re fact-checks of Planned Parenthood; they’re discussing the prenatal life and its beauty. These are the sorts of tweets that Twitter is trying to block.”
Actually, as Rose and Mainwaring later admit, it's not the tweets but the content on the website that creates the issue:
Live Action posted on their website that “Twitter asserted that Live Action would need to revamp its entire website, deleting foundational material, or create a brand new website before it would be allowed to advertise. 
Rose doesn't tell us the specifics of the content that Twitter objected to. That information is necessary to fully evaluate this situation. The bottom line is that this is Twitter's game in Twitter's arena using Twitter's ball. If we want to play we must follow Twitter's rules. They obviously take this seriously because they are turning away money. Before someone gets cute in the comments, Twitter is not engaging in religious discrimination. The criteria for what constitutes hate or vulgarity is quite neutral.

The difference between me and them is that I never posted an essay about how Twitter victimized and persecuted me with their obsession over political correctness. They, on the other hand, …

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.