[shyamz]

After what seemed like barely five minutes, he's back:

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/g ... bangriffin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Twitter wants to pussy out of its responsibilities and ignore its own rules out of fear instead of dealing with him, let's make them deal with him.

At the very least it will show him, Twitter, and the world that most British people are fully against him and do not share his views like he keeps insisting we do via this and various other online methods.

[George Tait]

I am one of them gays and I didn't like what Nick Griffin said. However, I'm just not into banning things and, frankly, would prefer it if Griffin stayed on Twitter just to continue proving what an arse he is.

[Esqui]

Just looking through his timeline and pretty much appalled by everything (though I'm now worried because I agree with him on the election of Police Commissioners )
"Have you seen advert 4 Police Commissioner elections? Isn't it shocking to see them discriminating by refusing to employ any black actors to play the typical criminals?"
"Christian lobby groups running scared of leftist media bullying & saying they think pederasty apologist Tatchell is lovely. What would Jesus do? He recommended a millstone and some deep water."
"Savile's youngest victim 9 years old. So he wasn't a paedo after all, as Mohammad consummated marriage when wife Aisha was that age."

And while I hate what he says, I feel even more strongly that we should have freedom of speech - even if that means twats like Griffin can spout that crap. He did cross a line by publishing the address of the couple, but that's now been removed. Twitter have done what they need to by taking the address off. But I'm not signing to get him off Twitter because he says offensive things.

[oboogie]

And while I hate what he says, I feel even more strongly that we should have freedom of speech - even if that means twats like Griffin can spout that crap. He did cross a line by publishing the address of the couple, but that's now been removed. Twitter have done what they need to by taking the address off. But I'm not signing to get him off Twitter because he says offensive things.

I too support his right to freedom of speech. If he wishes to use that right to post homophobic rants then he is entitled to do so and he can be as offensive as he likes. HOWEVER, there is a clear difference between that and posting their address and suggesting that his supporters (who have a reputation for violence) go round there and do something unspecified.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's also a distinction between banning Griffin from Twitter and stopping his freedom of speech altogether.

Esqui would rightly ban Griffin from here. Why shouldn't Twitter do the same?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I wouldn't ban Griffin from here. I've never asked for a Troll to be banned, and I won't. Take 'em on, tell them how they are wrong, bang their head on a metaphorical pavement. Banning them cedes the moral ground. I don't have the right to.

[oboogie]

Well said.

There's also a distinction between banning Griffin from Twitter and stopping his freedom of speech altogether.

Has anyone suggested that?

Why would Griffin be banned from here? Because he might say something someone doesn't like?

If the police decide that he's done nothing wrong then he shouldn't be banned from Twitter either.

[Abernathy]

bang their head on a metaphorical pavement

Or in Griffin's case, an actual, non-metaphorical pavement.

[Projective Unity]

I'm not in favour of banning - all it would do is feed their martyr complex. I say let them have a platform whether it's online or BBC or whatever, as they usually show themselves to be the absolute morons they are.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well said.

There's also a distinction between banning Griffin from Twitter and stopping his freedom of speech altogether.

Has anyone suggested that?

Why would Griffin be banned from here? Because he might say something someone doesn't like?

If the police decide that he's done nothing wrong then he shouldn't be banned from Twitter either.

Twitter can do what they want. It's their thing. I don't think the worse of them whatever they decide to do, but if they think he's making them look bad, they can ban him.

I'd suggest banning Griffin from here.

[Abernathy]

I was always brought up on the "no platform for racists and fascists" principle and I've always stuck to it. Seems to me that not banning a fascist like Nick Griffin on here would go against that principle.

[ezinra]

I was on youtube earlier and one of the 'featured videos' suggested to me was The true face of immigration by 'WalesBNP'. Okay, it might be automated, but it illustrates why I don't believe the big web corporations are taking enough of a stand against the far right. It's one thing to defend 'free speech' (though I'm not frankly too bothered about protecting Griffin's, or Le Pen's, or anyone else with a record of hate speech, holocaust denial, etc), quite another to offer the far right a platform in the media, or indeed to promote it by 'featuring' its videos.

[oboogie]

Whether we like it or not, the BNP is a legal political party. The fact that we find them abhorrent does not alter that fact. Do we really want to go down the road of denying such a party access to social media? What's special about Twitter? If don't want them to be able to communicate with the electorate then, logically we need to ban them from Facebook, YouTube etc. What about the 'traditional' media. Should it be illegal to publish their words? As no political party could survive for long without a means of getting their message out there, we might as well just ban them outright then. And when we do that we turn into the very thing which we hate.

[davidjay]

The far right exploit social media much better than the decent people do. We shouldn;t be looking to ban him, we should be shouting him down at every opportunity.

[oboogie]

The far right exploit social media much better than the decent people do. We shouldn;t be looking to ban him, we should be shouting him down at every opportunity.

Exactly.
Put the spotlight on him, let him spout his filth as much as possible. Then we can rip his arguments apart and show him to be the ridiculous, vile fuckwad he really is. Banning is the worst possible response, it makes him a martyr and gives credence to his claims that 'the Left' are opposed to freedom of speech and democracy and 'we' are in fact the fascists.