The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

A place to discuss politics and things related to Govts
Message
Author
User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#281 Post by barkingmad » Sun Mar 12, 2023 10:24 am

And fill yer boots with this lot;

https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=Lo ... &tbs=#ip=1

Hypocrisy knows no bounds in these febrile days.

But at least it all distracts from the prospect of another Chernobyl style nuclear meltdown in Ukraine... ~X(

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#282 Post by barkingmad » Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:50 am

Scenario # 1:- - -“What, you’ve been burgled and threatened with violence? Here’s a crime number and someone will maybe call round in a couple of weeks time to investigate the allegation and to gather evidence”.

Scenario # 2:- - -“We understand you have posted a comment on social meeja which has been reported as offensive by a member of the public. Remain in your home because officers will visit within the hour and interview you under caution and remove for forensic investigation any electronic devices which may provide evidence for a possible non-crime hate crime crime which may be registered against you in perpetuity”.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/20/pol ... -training/

So which scenario is the one most likely to be authentic? Answers on a grain of GM rice only please. =))

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17203
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#283 Post by Boac » Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:28 am

Did you or sceptic notice viewtopic.php?f=64&t=4694&p=363068#p362563 ?

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#284 Post by barkingmad » Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:56 pm

Boac wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:28 am
Did you or sceptic notice viewtopic.php?f=64&t=4694&p=363068#p362563 ?
Your reference fails to raise any information on your reply... :-w :-? ~X(

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17203
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#285 Post by Boac » Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:24 pm

Sorry 'bout that

Did you or sceptic notice viewtopic.php?f=64&t=4694&start=5560#p362563

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#286 Post by barkingmad » Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:41 am

At this rate the Concise Oxford Dictionary will become just that, a pocket-sized tome containing the few words remaining in the English Language which we will be “permitted” to use by these Lefty woke fanatics;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/ ... t-fad.html

I do have a number of Anglo-Saxon expressions I would use with these nutters but alas the forum algorithm will not permit reproduction*... :-ss

* O M G! Am I even allowed to use that word or is it representative of a phobia against some minority group who are even now composing a ‘hate-crime’ e-mail reporting me to their nearest police force?

I’m going out for a little while, I may be some time... :-h

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#287 Post by barkingmad » Sun May 14, 2023 6:50 pm

Signs of active resistance at long last?

- - - -:VICTOR J BLUE/BLOOMBERG
Will Pavia, New York
Friday April 28 2023, 5.35am, The Times
More than a hundred academics at Harvard University have joined an effort to defend free speech on campus and protect colleagues who face harassment because of their work, scholars leading the initiative have said.

The founders of the Council on Academic Freedom said they were acting in the face of mounting threats to free expression at universities all over the country.

“In some institutions, the threat to academic freedom is from an illiberal left that wants to shrink the boundaries of acceptable discussion,” the council declared in a mission statement. “At others, it is from right-wing politicians who want a single version of history taught as orthodoxy.”

Conceived at a dinner of academics in November, during a debate about free speech, its formation was announced more broadly by Bertha Madras, a professor of psychobiology, and Steven Pinker, the psychologist, in an editorial in the Boston Globe.

Free speech in academia was threatened on the one hand by activists “who command an expanding arsenal of asymmetric warfare, including the ability to disrupt events, the power to muster physical or electronic mobs on social media, and a willingness to smear their targets with crippling accusations of racism, sexism or transphobia in a society that rightly abhors them,” they wrote.

On the other, there was “an exploding bureaucracy for policing harassment and discrimination,” led by university officials whose interests, in minimizing bad publicity, “are not necessarily aligned” with the pursuit of knowledge, they said.

“When an individual is threatened or slandered for a scholarly opinion . . . we will lend our personal and professional support,” they wrote. “When activists are shouting into an administrator’s ear, we will speak calmly but vigorously into the other one, which will require them to take a reasoned rather than the easy way out.”

Janet Halley, a Harvard law professor and an expert on feminist legal theory, who has joined the council, said that “university administrators are caving to pressure and initiating these disciplinary investigations of people for saying things that, for instance, students find offensive or too triggering or controversial or shocking or whatever.”

She added: “The fact that the membership of the council has expanded so rapidly after the group went public tells me that it is addressing a broader sense among many, many faculty that there is a problem.”

The council was formed after a series of controversies over free speech on campus. Last month a conservative judge appointed by President Trump with a record, as an attorney, of opposing the expansion of gay and transgender rights was shouted down by protesters during an address at Stanford Law School.

As Judge Stuart Duncan struggled to make his opening remarks, an associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion named Tirien Steinbach, who was apparently seeking to restore order, said: “This event is tearing at the fabric of this community that I care about and I’m here to support, and I don’t know, and I have to ask myself...: Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is this worth it?” She added, looking at the judge: “For many people here, your work has caused harm.”

Steinbach has since said that she was using “de-escalation” techniques to get “the parties to look past the conflict,” but a video of her intervention caused an outcry for its implication that the judge ought not to be making a speech on campus at all.

Steinbach was later placed on leave and in a ten-page memo widely hailed as a reaffirmation of free speech at the law school, Jenny Martinez, its dean, apologized to the judge and said she wished to set out “how I believe our commitment to diversity and inclusion means that we must protect the expression of all views.”


“ students have argued that the disruptive protest of the event was itself constitutionally protected speech,” she wrote. This was incorrect, she wrote, citing a First Amendment scholar who wrote that: “Freedom of speech does not protect a right to shout down others so they cannot be heard”.:- - - -

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#288 Post by barkingmad » Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:50 am

Seems like the ould country, Republic of Oireland, is hurtling down the road to a CCP style repressive state as are some other countries which feature in the pages of O-N;

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/29/ire ... peech-law/

And this from the country which led with the infamous and cruel “Mother & Baby” homes, facilitated under the auspices of religion.

I trust there are still many rusty pitchforks hidden away on the farms where they’re being bribed to get rid of the cattle at approx €5,000 per head.

And then what...?

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#289 Post by barkingmad » Mon Jul 03, 2023 8:37 pm

The issue of Free Speech and the UK banks has been aired over in WTF UK, but maybe best to post this one here as it involves more than Nigel Farage and will doubtless surface in other jurisdictions in the "Free World";

:---"Government Tells Banks to Uphold Free Speech as Blacklisting Scandal Deepens.
Banks are to be told by the Treasury that they must protect free speech amid an escalating scandal involving the blacklisting of customers who hold views that are deemed verboten among corporate elites. The Daily Telegraph has the story (behind paywall).

Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, is understood to be “deeply concerned” that overzealous lenders are closing down accounts because they disagree with customers’ opinions and has asked City minister Andrew Griffith to investigate the issue.

Whitehall sources said that results of a consultation on the subject will be published within weeks, after it was launched earlier this year in the wake of PayPal blocking the accounts of free speech groups.

The controversy flared up again last week after the leading Brexiteer Nigel Farage revealed his account had been closed by his bank. A vicar was also dropped as a customer after criticising his lender’s stance on LBGTQ+.

The Treasury is poised to recommend a more rigid notice period if payment providers, including high street lenders, want to close a customer’s account as well as requiring banks to provide more information about why they have decided to shut accounts. Regulators will be able to take action against banks that break the rules.

Officials believe that the recommendations can curb excessive behaviour by banks.

A senior Treasury source said: “It is absolutely a concern. No one should have their bank account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks.”

Ministers are increasingly worried that there is a trend of closures affecting customers who hold controversial [sic] political views.

Mr. Farage last week said his bank accounts were closed “without explanation” and other high street lenders refused to allow him to transfer his funds to them.

Anglican vicar Reverend Richard Fothergill claimed that his Yorkshire Building Society account was shuttered days after writing to the bank to complain about its public messaging during Pride month.

A spokesman for Yorkshire Building Society said the company never closes accounts based on different opinions or beliefs, adding an account was only ever closed if a customer is “rude, abusive, violent or discriminates in any way”.

Government sources stressed that even people with extreme views should be entitled to hold a bank account if they have not broken the law.

The Treasury source added: “Banks and payment providers occupy a privileged place in society and it would be a concern if financial services were being denied to those exercising the right to lawful free speech.” …

Treasury ministers last week responded to concerns raised by Conservative MPs about customers who convey minority views having their accounts closed.

It came after Mr. Farage said his personal and business accounts with a major retail bank were closed because of a “commercial decision”, and other high street lenders have refused to allow him to transfer his funds to them.

Several former Brexit Party MEPs have also said their bank accounts were shut after they were elected to the European Parliament.

Meanwhile, in June, Barclays was forced to pay over £20,000 compensation to Christian ministry groups, after closing their accounts due to pressure from LGBTQ+ activists, who were concerned about conversion therapy practices.

The Treasury has also given the City watchdog ‘marching orders’ to review the operation of its politically exposed persons (PEPs) regime amid concerns that its application has been heavy handed.
Toby told the Telegraph:

I’m pleased this issue is on Jeremy Hunt’s radar, but I hope the investigation won’t take too long. There is no doubt that thousands of people are being penalised by banks and payment services providers for exercising their right to lawful free speech.

Indeed, the Free Speech Union has been lobbying the Treasury to change the payment services regulations for the last nine months and submitted reams of evidence about the scale of the problem. Since then, it has only got worse. The Treasury urgently needs to change the regulations to prohibit this new and sinister form of cancel culture.

Toby Young (Free Speech Union) told the Telegraph:

I’m pleased this issue is on Jeremy Hunt’s radar, but I hope the investigation won’t take too long. There is no doubt that thousands of people are being penalised by banks and payment services providers for exercising their right to lawful free speech.

Indeed, the Free Speech Union has been lobbying the Treasury to change the payment services regulations for the last nine months and submitted reams of evidence about the scale of the problem. Since then, it has only got worse. The Treasury urgently needs to change the regulations to prohibit this new and sinister form of cancel culture---:"

One wonders who will be next for dissenting from the official view(s) of the current insane World...?

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#290 Post by barkingmad » Mon Aug 14, 2023 8:03 pm

As the electoral Hamster Wheel of US politics starts to slowly revolve in preparation for the 2024 bunfight, this is not a good look for Sleepy Joe's team as he prepares for the battles ahead;

https://nypost.com/2023/08/13/biden-cen ... -showdown/

So if that's both prospective candidates involved in court proceedings, to whom do the US electors look to next for effective leadership and respect for the First Amendment?

Candidates in the exam are not permitted to propose more than 94 different hopefuls and in your own words please... (-|

:---"First Amendment
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."---:

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#291 Post by barkingmad » Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:56 pm

Roll on 1984 and all that, the noose is tightening around our necks;

https://brownstone.org/articles/you-sho ... vices-act/

But few here in O-N seem to be concerned... :-?

Post Reply