compo 5,952 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 It appears to to me that these social media platforms have now decided to be the self appointed moral compass of what people can and cannot say ,and that is unacceptable censorship. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,692 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 At 9am this morning a 48 hour boycott of Twitter began. The apparent aim of this is to protest against twitter's lack of impartiality when it comes to applying its own censorship rules. Not, mind you, to protest against infringing free speech but to ensure free speech is infringed uniformly on all sides. You couldn't make it up. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 13,355 Posted July 27, 2020 Author Share Posted July 27, 2020 That's what gets me about this - it is understandable that government would want to supervise and regulate what we say but every day citizens are not only adhering to this, some are actively encouraging it. There are thousands of mini -Mary Whitehouse's and they all want to decide what is and isn't acceptable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaBoy 2,196 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 16 hours ago, MacK1950 said: Don't know what it is now but soap and water used to wash it off. Apparently its not as hard core as Drill!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,715 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 On 26/07/2020 at 22:24, Gonzo79 said: I see Priti Patel is demanding answers from Twitter as to why grime artist Wiley's anti-Semitic tweets were allowed to remain on the site for so long. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53544902 His Tweets don't display much intelligence and align with centuries old stereotypes and it looks like he'll have to answer for them in court. But demanding social media sites immediately remove 'hate speech' seems to be a common trend amongst mainstream politicians. Who decides what constitutes 'hate speech'? Females have been removed for stating biological facts recently. Is that hateful? It's a dangerous path and as a supporter of free speech, I have concerns about where this is all heading. Surely it's better to let people make fools of themselves and engage them than to drive these things underground? I think I'm right to say that there can be no positive protection for free speech under our present political system. We can only have prohibition of certain types of speech. At present it is probably far more common to find Twitter removing tweets rather than waiting for the U.K. government to express an opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,715 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Has anybody been paying attention to the free speech union ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 5,952 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Keep it simple just call it as you see it and if it offends anyone then they can leave . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malangsob 1,158 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell Prison for saying a meany word...LOL! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,692 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 Pretty soon in Sturgeon’s madhouse it will be prison for thinking a hurty word. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malangsob 1,158 Posted July 28, 2020 Share Posted July 28, 2020 1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said: Has anybody been paying attention to the free speech union ? It's a good idea, but aren't the speech, and hate speech laws written in such a way in GBR to prevent true free speech? For instance, I can call the cops on you for harmful speech if we have a conversation, and your opinion differs from mine. The logic of the law is that through our communication, I find your ideals 'threatening'. Your ideals, have manifested threats in my psyche. Only I, the subject, can determine what is or is not a threat. Therefore, you are guilty of harmful speech, because I feel you are. However, the ultimate arbiter is the state. In that, the political whims of the time drive court decisions as there is a gray area you could fit Texas...err...GBR in...because... "I felt threatened'...gets people imprisoned, fined... Especially If that 'threatened' party finds a sympathetic ear in the system...so yeah...you better work on changing those asinine 'speech' laws. So...basically what you have over there is the perfect tool for the STATE..not the people. Change your dumb laws first. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.