"Why People Shouldn't Crucify Twitter for It's Censorship by Carl Pierre/@carlpierre Have you ever purposefully parked in a handicap spot without a permit? How about shoplift from a department store? Maybe hold up a liquor store on the way to work? Casually shoot heroine in your office? No to all of the above you say? Well that makes sense, considering that all of those things are illegal in America. If people aren't balking at the US enforcing the laws on these particular crimes, then why are people up in arms about Twitter respecting the laws and rules of a foreign nation? Lately the internet landscape has been a mire of complaints and tirades against the mobile social media company Twitter, persecuting them for purposefully censoring tweets at the behest of local governments that request they be taken down. Twitter's new censor policy claims that only posts and tweets that contravene local laws will be flagged and taken down. For most internet users, the recent bout of protests against the online privacy bill in CongressSOPA has brought about a new ideological climate. After many websites participated in the ""Black Wednesday"" protests, the majority of people on the web now believe that any form of internet censorship is a slippery slope to heavy breaches of First Amendment rights. With wounds still raw from SOPA, people viewed the idea of Twitter blocking tweets as reprehensible as putting duct tape on a protester's mouth. In Twitter's defense, I fully support their new policy of censoring tweets that are flagged as breaking local laws, and here are 3 reasons why: Twitter is still a business that must respect the regulations and practices of foreign nations they wish to operate in. Sometimes business is just business, and pushing an ideological agenda is incredibly inappropriate, particularly upon another country. Most Americans are oblivious to the idea that not all countries run on the same ideology that the United States was founded on, so any sort of law in another country that is perceived as even slightly undemocratic elicits waves of protest from ignorant Americans. Using the banner of free speech is not a political vehicle that allows you to claim immunity to foreign laws. The censored tweets can still be viewed in any other country by any other user, just not in the country of origin. It's not complete censorship, only within the body of government that the tweet violated laws in. Most people who are railing against this new policy are not the most informed, and don't understand that the tweets can still be read by other people in other countries. Admittedly it's not the most ideal method of broadcasting thoughts, but it's still a way for those voices to be heard. Don't blame the rules, blame the rule-maker. Why are we vilifying Twitter for abiding by laws they clearly didn't create? If people have a real beef with this censorship, take it up with the local governments that created and enforce these laws. If your country's legislation is rubbing you the wrong way, write to your government or even protest if you want, but don't blame Twitter for respecting the rules. Dick Costolo, CEO of Twitter, has taken a great deal of heat on these issues and responded to recent criticisms with this:  It's a super complex issue. It takes a while for the scholars and the people who study these matters to weigh in and start to say, 'Wait, this is actually a thoughtful and honest approach to doing this and it's in fact being done in a way that's forward-looking.' So we wait for that to happen .  I empathize with Costolo for the position he was put in, a position many leaders of booming businesses find themselves: A rock and a hard place."
{}