Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.