Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday October 14 2017, @07:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the jumping-to-conclusions dept.

The actress, who has emerged as a Hollywood voice in the Harvey Weinstein sexual-assault scandal, revealed that Twitter had locked her account on Wednesday night.

Rose McGowan had a hold placed on her Twitter account Wednesday night, an act that quickly sparked outrage among the many users who have been following her posts ever since news first broke of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

The actress, who has emerged as a Hollywood voice after finding herself thrust into the center of the developing story of sexual misconduct, harassment and assault allegations against the movie mogul, took to her Instagram and Facebook accounts to relay the news of her temporary suspension, writing cryptically that "TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED ME. THERE ARE POWERFUL FORCES AT WORK. BE MY VOICE. #ROSEARMY."

She added a screenshot (below) from a message from Twitter telling her that she had violated their terms of service and that she would be locked out for 12 hours once she deleted certain tweets. She posted the message late Wednesday night.

As of 7:20 a.m. PT on Thursday, Twitter had unlocked McGowan's account, telling THR the temporary lock was due to the actress tweeting out a private number, which falls under the private information violation under Twitter Rules. McGowan deleted the post to regain access.

Are social media platforms common carriers, or not?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by http on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:08AM (1 child)

    by http (1920) on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:08AM (#582443)

    It's the exact central issue. Attempts to derailing the discourse like that is, I dunno, weak and obvious? It doesn't matter what the threshold for guilt is if it never gets to the courtroom. Woman are simply disbelieved on this subject by default, and even when they are exceptionally compelling, they're actively discouraged from seeking redress - both in the legal system and socially.

    If you're actually curious about feasible actions (which you've given good reason to doubt), the solution is for all of us to look in the mirror and ask, "why do I discredit women's statements about rape?" No matter how "rational" you might think you are, you have a bias. We are not immune to society's programming, fighting it requires constant hard work, and even then we will still slip up on occasion.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @12:46AM (#582452)

    It doesn't matter what the threshold for guilt is if it never gets to the courtroom

    Yes it does.
    One of the reasons why people do not even attempt to take things to the courtroom is because of the low probability of winning the case. Also, people are far more willing to move forward with a case when there are multiple claimants (another positive about the "allegation escrows").

    Thankfully, societal perceptions of women, sex, sexual harassment and assault is changing for the better. However, institutional barriers (presumption of innocence, reliability of testimony, and evidentiary standards) will remain in place and will prevent success in court no matter how supportive society becomes.