NY Times Asks Twitter To Shut Down Retweeting Feed

WesternActor writes "According to PCMag.com, the New York Times has asked Twitter to shut down the FreeNYT Twitter feed that basically retweets all of the Times' articles. Is this really possible? After all, the feed just points to a list of Times Twitter accounts, all of which can also be found on the Times' website. If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't people just create replacements using lists?

If NYT doesn't want their material tweeted, then maybe they should stop tweeting them.

shut out NYT

[fermion]

Just like the WSJ, and FT, this simply means that I won't be pointing any tweets to the NYT. No traffic driven to the site, no ad revenue. Maybe the $300 a year they want for an ipad subscription will generate sufficient revenue.

erm

[cyberfin]

"it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general".

Eh, no. Just no. Stop it.

The Times can ASK

[commodore6502]

That doesn't mean Twitter has to comply with the request to not share public information.

And this is a bad thing - why?

[Third Position]

If the Times succeeds in shutting this down, it could have a chilling effect for Twitter and online free speech in general."

Anything that has a chilling effect on Twitter can't be all bad!

Re:erm

[0100010001010011]

"Free Speech" only applies TO THE GOVERNMENT. If the government tried to force Twitter to stop tweets about the war, that would be a free speech issue.

Here it is in the original text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I have no problem with people actually standing up for their rights, but people most people that do stand up have no clue what is going on.

A big news story from my alma mater was when the police tried to force a photographer to stop filming. [boywithgrenade.org] THAT did violate his rights. Numerous people who defended the cop pointed to HIIPA. [hhs.gov] Which makes no sense what so ever. HIIPA only prevents providers from releasing *identifying information* about a patient.
Asking someone getting medical care their name: No Violation.
Asking the medic their name and getting it: Violation.
Talking about a patient with another doctor using no identifying information: No violation.
Talking about a patient with another doctor using identifying information: Violation.

NYT (company) asking Twitter (company) to stop something is no way shape or form a 'censorship' or 'freedom of speech' issue.

A Bit Overdramatic Aren't We?

[mackai]

That a commercial entity requests that Twitter not automatically feed all of their news articles to the world hardly seems like an affront to free speech. You or I may not care for that policy but I must admit, the NYT isn't making much money off of me either way. The news reporting business in general is struggling to find a way to stay afloat and the cry that they owe it to us gratis doesn't help.

Free speech?

[girlintraining]

Speech isn't free, slashdot. It has a cost: Stop using Twitter. But that's not convenient, is it? And that, right there, is how freedom dies.

Re:erm

[kidcharles]

Who even mentioned the 1st Amendment? Free speech as a principle is bigger than just the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just because something isn't technically in violation of that particular clause doesn't mean it isn't undermining the freedom of speech. As a hypothetical example, if Comcast decided not to allow any discussion of FCC regulatory policies to flow through their network infrastructure it wouldn't technically be a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it would quite clearly be a blow to free speech.

Re:erm

[Junior J. Junior III]

"Free Speech" only applies TO THE GOVERNMENT.

No, free speech is free speech. The constitutional protections of free speech are applicable to the government.

There is still plenty of sound argument and valid reasoning to want to have free speech that is protected from the actions of individuals and corporations.

In the real world, this becomes difficult or impossible to enforce. Hence the saying that free speech is not without consequences.

Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the people to advocate for a broad reaching, maximized freedom of speech, subject to practical limits of enforcement, and reason (let's avoid stupid logical paradoxes and fallacies in the pursuit of freest speech). There's some wiggle room for weasels in the concept of "practical limits" but clearly the guiding principle should be that the limits on speech should be kept as minimal as possible.

Corporate censorship may not be illegal, but it is still wrong and the good and righteous still ought to fight the good fight against it.

Twitter NEEDS to stop the re-tweet

[ChronoFish]

By stopping it at its source. So shutdown the NYTimes twitter account - that way there will be no way to re-tweet it.

-CF