Thread by @sundersays

In principle, a right to "routes of appeal" when social media companies remove hateful content seems fine, if they are allowed to remove content when it violates platform rules (including ruling some extreme content that is legal, such as holocaust denial, anti-semitism, racism)

These are Twitter examples of tweets they now ban. ("Dehumanising"). A route to appeal decisions is fine, but these type of decisions should be able to be made for legal but extreme speech of this nature.

An stupidly unworkable version of this idea was published by @SpeechUnion in their local elections manifesto, which proposed fining Twitter/Facebook if they deleted & refused to restore tweets saying "the Jews are vermin" or "deport all the blacks" etc

It seems an incoherent, illogical and workable proposal that academics should be prevented (in the name of free speech) from publicly praising/criticising the work of Professor Nigel Biggar or the work of Professor Gopal or the work of Professor David Miller

Here is the letter cited. The question is what would happen differently, under the govt proposals. (Would this letter be allowed or prevented? Would Biggar's responses be allowed? Would responses to his responses be allowed? Could people/instns be fined?)
google.co.uk/amp/s/theconve…

A former DfE Spad comments on the apparent tensions here

I would be keen to have wide boundaries (reflected in Cardiff Uni standing up for Germaine Greer being heard) but there are good reasons too for boundaries on the campus presence of eg Anjem Choudary and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Britain First racists, David Irving's holocaust revisionism

It may be that judge's verdict in lost libel case that Irving brought (voluntarily) is useful evidence for a reasoned decision to exclude. Or would advocates of this new law insist that universities must host holocaust revisionism or denial (both are legal, but extreme, speech)?

This section of the @SpeechUnion local election manifesto would establish new legal rights to have holocaust denial and neo-nazi content published on Facebook and private platforms. I can not see the government following that (given it is insisting universities sign up to IHRA)