Twitter has announced they will begin deleting tweets at the request of certain countries.  This has caused an uproar from free speech advocates.  In reality, it simply brings Twitter in line with other major social media sites whose content interacts with the borders and laws of other countries who may not view free expression the same way we do here in the United States.

Note that in my title I used the phrase, “Free Expression” instead of “free speech” or “freedom of speech.”  I did this because there is a major difference in application.  Whether Twitter does or does not censor content in this country is  not a First Amendment  issue.  The First Amendment only applies to goverment restrictions on speech. Twitter is a private company and can restrict speech in any way it sees fit.   It is frankly surprising that Twitter has taken so long to recognize that speech does not occur in social media in a “free expression vacuum”

Prior to this announcement and after, Twitter will continue to be the most liberal platform in terms of free expression. It has virtually no restrictions on speech in it’s Terms of Service. Users are  allowed to be as racist, hateful and to a degree threatening as they like as long as the tweet does not constitute a “true threat” as defined by Twitter.

Conspicuously missing are the rules against certain types of “hate speech” that you see on Facebook, YouTube and other major sites even under the most vague definition of such content.  This has lead to a wild west atmosphere of ethnic, racial and pretty much any type of vile speech that can be imagined allowable as long as no U.S. laws are being broken and no true threat is made.  The problem Twitter  faces is that what is legal and allowable here may not be allowable if the tweet originated from another country that has hate speech laws in effect.  The must now strike a balance between growth in these countries and free expression. This is not a new dilemma.

eBay and Yahoo banned the buying and selling of Nazi memorabilia world wide even though it is not illegal in the United States but illegal in several countries in Europe.   For the last few years Facebook has blocked Holocaust Denial and other content in countries which such expression is illegal even though it is not illegal in this country under First Amendment principles

This was not a morality move nor a judgment on the nature of hate speech or other expression that may be illegal in other countries.  Twitter did not care about that before the decision and does not care now.  Twitter  simply wants worldwide growth and for it’s executives to stay out of foreign courts.   In order to accomplish that they have to take world wide morality and legal standards into account.  This move was inevitable and necessary to achieve that.  Welcome to the “Free Expression Establishment.”

Anyone who lives in the North Texas area is aware of the tragic loss of life that took place in Grapevine, Texas on Christmas day.  Azizolah “Bob” Yazdanpanah, who is reportedly Muslim,  dressed as Santa Claus,  fatally shot six family members on Christmas Day before killing himself.  A terrible tragedy.  My heart goes out to the Yazdanpanah family and all affected by this senseless act of violence.

Upon opening up my Facebook news-feed yesterday, there were numerous references to the shooting.  One of the story-lines that seemed to be taking on a life of it’s own were people posting that this was an “honor killing”.  I was surprised as nothing had been reported as such. The police had issued a statement that day stating that no motive had been developed.  Many of the Facebookers grabbing on to the honor killing angle also accused our local media of engaging in a “coverup” of that fact.

Where did this honor killing story come from?  How did it go from a tragic event still being investigated to a stereotyped event devoid of factual basis meant to degrade and dehumanize the family and the tragedy because they were Muslim?  It was clear from the posts that the predominate response  was catering to the stereotype with an “it figures.” type response.  “It figures” because stereotypes tell us that all Muslim husbands are abusive and when a Muslim father is unhappy with who his daughter is dating he kills her right?  So where did this “honor killing angle” come from?   The story appeared to have  originated with these  fringe”sources”:

Jihad Watch:  A far right blog that spends  much of it’s time proving that all Muslims are evil people. The blog claims to have interviews with friends/classmates of one of the victims. They talk about how strict the father was and how upset he was at his daughter’s dating situation.  The blog is  vague on whether the author did the interviews or got them from another source.  I can find no mainstream reference to any of the alleged quotes from classmates.  In fact, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the closest major newspaper vicinity wise, did in fact interview friends of the victims, one of whom stated that this was not an honor killing:

“This was not an honor killing,” Jessica Toumani, a friend of the Zarei family’s, said in a statement e-mailed to the Star-Telegram.”We are not sure of much at this point, but we are sure that is not a viable theory. Aziz was never religious, nor were any of the victims. They left Iran to escape the Islamic regime, which is why most Iranians left.”

Atlas Shrugged:  This lady who runs this blog,  Pamela Gellar is one of the biggest hate mongering, Islamaphobic, bigots on this planet.  I won’t give her any link love.   She grabbed onto the  Jihad Watch story and put her own Anti-Muslim spin on it.

The International Business Times:   If you read their story, they cite Jihad Watch as their source on the honor killing angle.

I confronted one Facebook poster who maintained that the tragedy was an Honor killing.  He cited the IBT story.  When I pointed out that the police had not released a motive and that the story was citing blogs and not legitimate reporting sources he then stated that he had also heard a local Dallas news station report it as an honor killing.  I contacted the reporter he named. She stated that no such report had ever been broadcast as the police had not stated a motive.  When I confronted the person with her denial, he reverted to his first source insisting that it was a legitimate original source for the story.  It of course is not but it was enough for him because it validated his fears and stereotypes well as  allowing  him to spread the canard to validate everyone else’s.

Before writing this blog, I Googled the search term “Grapevine Honor Killing” There were 118, 000 potential hits.  Of course, not all will be relevant to the story but it seems clear that as of the writing of this blog, the Honor Killing theory has spread  from three fringe sources, two of which make it their business to stir up anti-Muslim hatred to pretty much the entire far right-wing Islamaphobic Bogosphere, Facebook and Twitter.

That, my friends, is how hate goes viral.

The Confederacy is rising again in Texas.  At least in the form of specialty license plates.  The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has filed a lawsuit in Texas federal court arguing that the Department of Motor Vehicles violated its it’s First Amendment rights  by refusing to issue a license plate featuring a Confederate flag.  As a point of clarification, vanity plates are plates in which you pick the license plate symbols.   Specialty plates are plates the state issues with various organizations.   For instance, here in Texas, we now have a Dallas Mavericks specialty plate.  The Sons Of Confederate Veterans would be a Specialty Plate.  If my license plate read “CUBES”, that would be a vanity plate.

When I think of the Confederate flag I think of rednecks, racism and NASCAR not necessarily in that order.  Before you hang me from the nearest Texas Motor Speedway light-pole,  I have admittedly not watched many NASCAR races.  In the one race I did attend at Las Vegas Motor Speedway, there were many confederate flags draped from RV’s in the parking lot with the occupants engaging in activities that would simply be drunkenly boorish in any other venue but adding in the Confederate flag screamed redneck.  I don’t think I am going out on a limb in opning that some of them would not know the Battle Of  Fort Sumter from Bunker Hill.

NASCAR aside, this is a case in which the Sons will probably prevail or the DMV will relent and issue the plate before it gets that far. Regardless of the varied meanings the flag embodies and that the state actually owns the plates, it can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.  Nine other states have approved Sons Of Confederate Veterans’ specialty plates, several only after being sued.  There are other issues that could come in to play such as the fact that the plates are actually the property of the state and therefore  constitute a non-public forum or whether the plates constitute  goverment speech as compared to private speech.  This could change the standard of review more in favor of the state.  I however, don’t see those issues affecting the constitutionality of the Sons Of Confederate Veterans plates.

As Jeff Foxworthy would say:  “You might be a redneck if…”   Having confederate flag plate would certainly make my list.  If it does not make yours and you want one in Texas you will have to wait a bit before branding yourself one to the motoring public.   Never fear however,  you will get to  do it.  It’s your constitutional right to be a redneck.

Should Penn State have declined a bowl invitation to play in the Ticket City Bowl  against the Houston Cougars  in Dallas on January 2?  The pro opinion is pretty much the same rhetoric that has been spouted since the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke.  People are rightly outraged at the failure to act by those who are accountable  and the specter of a institutional coverup. Many believe that the the declining of a bowl invitation is a “just punishment” to those who have failed to act and surely covered up these awful events. Some believe it will deter similar future conduct. There are those who  believe it is simply the “moral” thing to do.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball.  Who are we punishing and for what reason?  What future conduct are we trying to deter and for what reason? Whose  morality are we trying to satisfy?  We all agree that the conduct Sandusky is accused of is sickening and heinous.  If convicted, the legal and “moral” thing is that he live out his life behind prison walls. That’s the easy one.  The failure to act by Grahm Spanier, Joe Paterno and others is troubling.  Those who did not act have either been held or are in the process of being held accountable.  Despite the trend towards inserting our own facts to satisfy our immediate blood lust, the bottom line is that there is still many questions unanswered of who knew what and what they did with the information.  These questions will be answered as the wheels of justice slowly turn.

How does this extend to young adults who had absolutely nothing to do with the scandal?  What legal, deterrent or moral high ground is established by punishing these kids by denying them one of their dreams.   Are we deluding ourselves into thinking that this is something the alleged victims want?  That prohibiting innocent kids from playing in a bowl game will somehow alleviate their  pain to any degree?  Is the goal of punishing those who had no involvement in the scandal meant to accomplish something positive or is it simply punishment for punishments sake. Generalized hatred so intense and all consuming.  Hatred for hatred’s sake.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball.  This is not about kids and coaches having nothing to do with any of this playing in a bowl game.  Let them enjoy the moment they worked so hard for.  If you think that the alleged victims would not be in agreement with this, you are deluding yourself with your own “moral’ righteous anger.  No need to create  innocent villains and victims out of hatred.  There is enough of that in this world already.