Social media and governments on free speech

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,680
There is a fairly big event (DAY OF FREEDOM) taking place this Sunday 6th May 2018 at 3pm in London concerning free speech.... organised by the activist Tommy Robinson. For those of you unaware of it, its purpose seems to be to highlight the gradual suppression of free speech, and is a call for those against this to come together and protest and start a street movement against it.

Obviously people will try label it an "alt right....far right", but be assured many at this will be from the political left, including labour supporters, possibly one of the very few times people from the left and right are going to try come together.

Its hard to gauge just how big it will be, but has the potential to be very big. Antifa have made it clear they are going to oppose the gathering, with members traveling from as far as Germany!....maybe further. So these far lefties could try bring violence to the event.

There is supposed to be many speakers, music, and videos. They have liaised with police (in the presence of a barrister) for clarity on everything, police are said to be supportive.

In light of the whole count Dankula fiasco, and with the regular closing of accounts by twitter/youtube/facebook etc for views "they" dont like, not to mention the increased presence of the police trolling the internet for same. Many are not happy with these developments, and feel its becoming a little bit silly really.

Anyway I was surprised no thread was running on it, as I believe its going to start a major discussion on the issue.

[video=youtube;ZKkXNQNo4tA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKkXNQNo4tA[/video]

[video=youtube;oudgaaBxYl0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oudgaaBxYl0[/video]
 


Sheeple_Waker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
388
I don’t like Yaxley-Lennon and disagree with his views, but this highlights a contradiction at the heart of platforms like Twitter & Facebook and is worthy of discussion. Lennon hasn’t been prosecuted for hate speech, ipso facto his tweets can this be considered free expression, regardless of your opinion on his views. The question here is whether the right of companies like Twitter to enforce their own business policies takes precedence over individuals using their platform (whose code of conduct they’re obliged to agree to in signing up) to express their personal opinions- a right protected by law. that
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,680
I don’t like Yaxley-Lennon and disagree with his views, but this highlights a contradiction at the heart of platforms like Twitter & Facebook and is worthy of discussion. Lennon hasn’t been prosecuted for hate speech, ipso facto his tweets can this be considered free expression, regardless of your opinion on his views. The question here is whether the right of companies like Twitter to enforce their own business policies takes precedence over individuals using their platform (whose code of conduct they’re obliged to agree to in signing up) to express their personal opinions- a right protected by law. that
Taking just the count Dankula thing as one example. Apparently that video had over 3 million views, and not ONE viewer made a complaint. Police Scotland took it upon themselves to find some Jew within the force, who himself hadnt complained, until they put it to him it surely was offensive, he basically ended up agreeing......and this was the case. So effectively, no complained and the police took it upon themselves to find a victim of sorts...

What then happened in the courts was even scarier. A judge then told count Dankula the context of count Dankulas joke and found him guilty. Its getting a bit too silly...
 

GabhaDubh

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
2,523
I don’t like Yaxley-Lennon and disagree with his views, but this highlights a contradiction at the heart of platforms like Twitter & Facebook and is worthy of discussion. Lennon hasn’t been prosecuted for hate speech, ipso facto his tweets can this be considered free expression, regardless of your opinion on his views. The question here is whether the right of companies like Twitter to enforce their own business policies takes precedence over individuals using their platform (whose code of conduct they’re obliged to agree to in signing up) to express their personal opinions- a right protected by law. that
My hope is that these behemoth websites shall be adjudicated as “town squares” under American First Amendment guidelines and cannot be manipulated by corporations.
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,680
My hope is that these behemoth websites shall be adjudicated as “town squares” under American First Amendment guidelines and cannot be manipulated by corporations.
Personally I believe freedom of speech should be absolute, with the exception of incitement to violence. Where are you on the issue? I feel a poll on the issue would be informative (if any Mod wants to help out), maybe with options ranging from absolute to "hate speech"??

And on that topic.....should speech that is factually accurate be allowed to be labelled hate speech?
What say you all?
 

Sheeple_Waker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
388
My hope is that these behemoth websites shall be adjudicated as “town squares” under American First Amendment guidelines and cannot be manipulated by corporations.
I’d agree with you that they should be counted as such given their ubiquity, but the Supreme Court seems to take a stronger line on protecting corporate rights than individual liberties and fighting a corporation like Facebook or Twitter in court would be a fools errand for any legal entity given their wealth and power.

Ironically the best method of allowing such interaction on the grounds of individual good would be for the state to take a stake in these platforms, perhaps something similar to the Irish governments 25% stake in Aer Lingus on public good grounds. That would take one hell of a brave Congress & President to argue such a position in the US.
 

Sheeple_Waker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
388
Personally I believe freedom of speech should be absolute, with the exception of incitement to violence. Where are you on the issue? I feel a poll on the issue would be informative (if any Mod wants to help out), maybe with options ranging from absolute to "hate speech"??

And on that topic.....should speech that is factually accurate be allowed to be labelled hate speech?
What say you all?
That depends on the context of the speech I suppose. If such speech is for the purpose of restricting the rights of a group of people, I.e. as African-Americans are more likely to have a criminal record than White Americans that they should be barred from certain citizens rights, e.g the 2nd amendment. It depends too on the individual in question, such speech would be less offensive and dangerous in some regards from the Klan (the pig/grunt rule) than it would be from say a state governor who was using such rhetoric to support the case for restricting individual rights.
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,680
That depends on the context of the speech I suppose. If such speech is for the purpose of restricting the rights of a group of people, I.e. as African-Americans are more likely to have a criminal record than White Americans that they should be barred from certain citizens rights, e.g the 2nd amendment. It depends too on the individual in question, such speech would be less offensive and dangerous in some regards from the Klan (the pig/grunt rule) than it would be from say a state governor who was using such rhetoric to support the case for restricting individual rights.
Barring people from events is very different to speech. To suggest it....might be offensive....but that would be discrimination.
 

GabhaDubh

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
2,523
Personally I believe freedom of speech should be absolute, with the exception of incitement to violence. Where are you on the issue? I feel a poll on the issue would be informative (if any Mod wants to help out), maybe with options ranging from absolute to "hate speech"??

And on that topic.....should speech that is

factually
accurate be allowed to be labelled hate speech?
What say you all?
Must cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, relative to the First Amendment are on behalf of individuals or organizations whose beliefs are on the periphery of society. The old adage “I don’t believe in what you are saying but, I believe in your right to say it” holds true. The defense of the First Amendment rights are at this murky spear point. These mega social media sites should not be allowed to control contributors using the shield of the corporation, which in itself raises a whole argument of Government interference, that balance of a Democracy thing.
If you you can defend the facts of a speech in a court of law and of course prevail, how can it be construed as Hate.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,371
Oh I’m sure an event organised by recidivist criminal and racist Tommy Robinson will attract all sorts of top quality people.

“Has the potential to be very big”. Idiot.
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,680
Oh I’m sure an event organised by recidivist criminal and racist Tommy Robinson will attract all sorts of top quality people.

“Has the potential to be very big”. Idiot.
Your entitled your view. Would you have Mr Robinson murdered is it? He has nothing to contribute to society? I'm sure there will be many thousand people at this event who would love to hear how you pigeon-hole them .......inaccurately.
Regarding the size of the event?....lets you wait and see.
 

cunnyfunt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
6,680
All in all a successful day. Ignored of course by the MSM....
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top