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: 3937
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 72

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#141 Post by barkingmad » Thu Jan 07, 2021 6:38 pm

So if we’re not careful, the only source of info will be MSM presenting those masters of truth and science, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson, fronted by our figures of speech champion BoJo;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the ... n-sceptics

Remember the 4,000 cases/day prior to Lockdown 2.0, since discredited?

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3937
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 72

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#142 Post by barkingmad » Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:23 am

I suppose we’re already walking around wearing the gag, whose medical qualities are under serious doubt regarding their supposed efficacy but the symbol is sooh powerful for the megalomaniac leaders wallowing in their new found ‘power’;

About the Big Tech free speech disaster that has unfolded over the last week or so.

“Free speech isn’t having a good year. In the UK, we naively thought we’d won a significant victory on January 5th when Google reinstated the YouTube channel of a right-of-centre, anti-lockdown radio station it had banned 12 hours earlier. This was after a chorus of protest by free speech supporters. But any hope that Big Tech would rein itself in was short-lived.

The riot in Washington, D.C. 24 hours later, when Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capital, was the excuse that Facebook and Twitter had been waiting for. Within days, the President of the United States had been suspended from both platforms – permanently in the case of Twitter – as had many of his most passionate supporters.

The rationale for this act of censorship was a familiar one. According to Twitter, Trump had posted two messages that could be “mobilized by different audiences… to incite violence”.

So what had the President said? Had he called on his supporters to storm the Capital building again? Encouraged people to assassinate Joe Biden? No, the tweets which had incited violence were as follows:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Not much incitement going on there. No, this was an act of censorship, following a demand issued by hundreds of Twitter employees. A private corporation had decided to silence a man to whom 74 million Americans had given their vote.

But if you thought liberal-left civil rights defenders in the United States would be up in arms about this, you’d be mistaken. On the contrary, this reversal of the usual banana republic pattern, in which a populist President was “disappeared” by a cabal of left-wing agitators, was largely welcomed by the liberal elite and mainstream media”.

Incoming!... :-w

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3054
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 74

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#143 Post by FD2 » Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:09 am

Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line at 'free speech' then? That's for any political persuasion btw.
Runways are for beauty queens. 8-|

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#144 Post by llondel » Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:44 am

That's not free speech, that's a commercial enterprise making a business decision. They have decided that their brand would be harmed more by one course of action than another, due to a change in circumstances, and so have altered a previous policy.

They provide the service free to people provided you stick to their rules, to which you agree when you sign up. If you don't like their rules then go elsewhere, and if you break them you will be invited to go elsewhere.

One would think that such a great businessman, with his astounding negotiation skills, would be able to set up a successful competing network.

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3054
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 74

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#145 Post by FD2 » Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:14 pm

This is an article on 'free speech' from the Daily Telegraph's Janet Daley, an American journalist who has lived in England for years.

I think she usually sums things up well, but we are all entitled to hold different opinions, because that's the way civilised debate should be conducted.

I apologise for the size and testing of some attention spans, but it's because of the pay wall, so anyone on here can read it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... edia-hate/

Why are free societies sinking into an anarchic pit of social media hate?

Big Tech’s legal obligations are a sideshow: the bigger question is where the bile and venom come from

Janet Daley
16 January 2021 • 1:00pm
Janet Daley

Is it right to deny people who incite violence a public platform? You bet it is. All free societies do this to a greater or lesser extent. Open democracies which guarantee freedom of expression have always drawn lines. You cannot attend a civic meeting, or even stand on a street corner, and shout death threats without being arrested. The obvious charge would be of threatening behaviour or causing an affray. Scarcely anyone would be likely to dispute this. So that’s the easy one. There are far more difficult questions to examine in what is becoming a major political issue for our time. So while we wait to see if the Trump mob will turn up at Joe Biden’s inauguration on Wednesday to test the principle once again, perhaps we can examine the more difficult problems, some of which are new and others of which are not new at all in spite of their technological dimension.

This is not really a debate about “free speech”. What that properly entails was established long ago and is (or was) accepted by general consensus: it involves respecting the rule of law and the rights of others to hold differing views – which is to say not threatening the safety of people you disagree with. But something peculiar has happened to public discourse in the last few years. It now has a dimension – or an arena – in which participants expect to ignore all the previous understandings of what constitutes acceptable conduct.

The hot topic has become: are the Big Tech outfits, which make available wildly irresponsible messages, publishers or simply platforms? If the former, then they are liable for what appears, if the latter they are not. The tech giants are clearly terrified by this debate since a judgment that they are, in fact, publishers would involve them in an enormous and hugely expensive extension of their duties to monitor everything that appears on their sites.

Add to this that it is precisely the uninhibited lawlessness of these venues that is part of their appeal, and a decision to classify them as publishers would pretty much put them out of business – or at least, not make it worth their while to carry on. So they are now attempting to make some concessions to these demands for social responsibility which will almost certainly end in an unsatisfactory dog’s dinner of compromise.

But this is the less interesting problem, being simply a matter of legal definition. What really needs to be asked is, where on earth has all the hatred and murderous intent come from? Why should the appearance of a new, uncontrolled medium have produced this peculiarly ugly thing? Has it always been there – vicious and bloodthirsty – simmering away in secret corners, unable to find an outlet for its frustrations?

There are those who would claim that indeed it has – and that social media performs a useful function in revealing its existence by permitting to be said what was once socially unacceptable. Established governing classes can no longer take their smug assumption of moral authority for granted. Many apologists for the Trump riots argue in this way. The assumption here is that, however wicked or criminal an impulse may be, it is better to have it out in the open than hidden.

But until very recently we believed something quite like the opposite of this: that it was the proper business of responsible government to teach people to restrain their most malignant, destructive inclinations for the sake of the greater good. That was the basic requirement of a civilised, tolerant society. Have we changed our minds about this? If so, why? Is there a complacent post-Cold War belief that the world is no longer perilous, and that the future of Western democratic values is no longer tenuous – so why not cut loose? That would, of course, be a very dangerous delusion. The threat from social disruptors has arguably never been greater now that they are nihilistic and indiscriminate rather than coherent.

There may be a significant historical point here about the anarchic forces of hate and division which proliferate on social media. Many of them (particularly the conspiracy theory merchants) make use of the techniques of Cold War political subversion. But back in the day, political activism was a quasi-professional occupation strictly controlled and disciplined by the Communist party or its dissident tributaries like the Trotskyist movements.

Now the tactics are unfettered by any need for clear objectives or understanding of arguments. And their purveyors do not even have to identify themselves: I am convinced that the anonymity (or pseudonymity) of social media has a great deal to do with the miasma which has overwhelmed it. Not only is it impossible to know who is responsible for any statement: it is impossible to determine whether that individual actually exists, or whether an apparent army of commenters is just one person posting under a great number of different identities.

What seems to be a large popular movement can actually be a small number of very busy agitators providing (as the old Cold War activists used to do) a sense of momentum that draws the discontented or confused into their orbit. Coupled with the legitimising of violent action, this weaponising of inchoate grievance is terrifying in its possibilities: it may be the greatest threat to political stability that the West has encountered.

What of the otherwise rational people who go along with this fashion? We all know of sensible people who take on a persona of gratuitous venom in their social media guise. A high profile figure on the Guardian recently tweeted a demand that all Telegraph columnists be buried alive. As you might expect, I took this rather personally – especially as not long ago, I defended the Guardian to the death over the Edward Snowden affair even though the paper’s political orientation was very different from mine.

When the then-editor wrote to thank me, he began by saying, “We may not agree on many things…” That was how grown-ups, especially in our contentious trade, used to talk. They might exchange accusations or insults in the heat of debate, but they did not call for each other to die – not even as a puerile joke. Whatever happened to that?
Runways are for beauty queens. 8-|

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12701
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#146 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:30 pm

FD2 wrote:
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:14 pm
This is an article on 'free speech' from the Daily Telegraph's Janet Daley, an American journalist who has lived in England for years.
Janet Daley is a thoughtful commentator and an interesting person who started out on the left of the political debate and has moved right but maintained an elegant, clear and yet almost academic understanding of the rights and duties associated with freedoms in society. A very good article despite the fact I tend to come at these things more left of centre.
Depressed, feeling a slump, then remember Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x ρ x V-squared X S!

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12701
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#147 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:33 pm

Depressed, feeling a slump, then remember Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x ρ x V-squared X S!

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12701
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#148 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sun May 09, 2021 6:11 pm

Laurence Fox!
Laurence Fox, the former actor and self-style “anti-woke” campaigner, has lost his deposit in the London mayoral election after receiving less than 2 per cent of votes.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 44481.html

Jeez does this mean he is going to try and bamboozle us with his tuneless dirges that masquerade as a musical career again?
As a result, he has lost his £10,000 deposit paid to London Elects, the Greater London Authority team responsible for organising the election of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.

Mr Fox is not the only candidate to lose his deposit. Liberal Democrat Luisa Porritt, Piers Corbyn, Count Binface, Mandu Reid of the Womens’ Equality Party, and Peter Gammons of Ukip also waved goodbye to their £10,000.

Mr Fox had sought to wage a culture war against Mr Khan during his election campaign, saying: “Someone needs to unlock London now, and I can tell you one thing: Sadiq Khant. And Sadiq Won’t. Sadiq Khan is ashamed to be British.”

The Lewis actor finished in sixth place behind Niko Omilana, whose manifesto included ideas such as “all racists will have their teeth removed”, “to have to price of Fredos lowered back to 5p” and “to introduce stop and serve, which will include free school meals”.

Fox took to Twitter to say he is “profoundly moved” by those who voted for him, and congratulated both Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey.
Depressed, feeling a slump, then remember Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x ρ x V-squared X S!

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12670
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#149 Post by Boac » Sun May 09, 2021 6:15 pm

The Lewis actor finished in sixth place behind Niko Omilana, whose manifesto included ideas such as “all racists will have their teeth removed”, “to have to price of Fredos lowered back to 5p” and “to introduce stop and serve, which will include free school meals”
Says it all, really! Mind you, some here liked him. :))

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12701
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#150 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sun May 09, 2021 6:17 pm

Boac wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 6:15 pm
The Lewis actor finished in sixth place behind Niko Omilana, whose manifesto included ideas such as “all racists will have their teeth removed”, “to have to price of Fredos lowered back to 5p” and “to introduce stop and serve, which will include free school meals”
Says it all, really! Mind you, some here liked him. :))
It takes all sorts I suppose! ;))) =))
Depressed, feeling a slump, then remember Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x ρ x V-squared X S!

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12670
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#151 Post by Boac » Sun May 09, 2021 6:19 pm

Like liquorice, then.........

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12701
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#152 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Sun May 09, 2021 6:23 pm

Boac wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 6:19 pm
Like liquorice, then.........
Zoethout, I like muchly (although it is so bad for your BP) but Laurence not so much! ;)))
Depressed, feeling a slump, then remember Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x ρ x V-squared X S!

PHXPhlyer
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: PHX
Gender:
Age: 66

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#153 Post by PHXPhlyer » Sun May 09, 2021 6:25 pm

Red Yes :-bd
Black No :-q

PP

G-CPTN
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Tynedale
Gender:
Age: 77

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#154 Post by G-CPTN » Sun May 09, 2021 6:35 pm

Red licorice isn't really licorice at all, except in name. It's just a red candy, which can be made with many different flavorings, including strawberry, cherry, raspberry, and cinnamon.

PHXPhlyer
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: PHX
Gender:
Age: 66

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#155 Post by PHXPhlyer » Sun May 09, 2021 6:44 pm

Any flavor as long as it is not anise, fennel, or liquorice. :-q
That goes for liqueurs, as well. [-X

PP

G-CPTN
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5403
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Tynedale
Gender:
Age: 77

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#156 Post by G-CPTN » Thu May 13, 2021 7:42 pm

If you can no longer introduce an announcement with "Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls" for fear of excluding Non-Binary souls, what do you suggest - "Listen up everybody" ?

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#157 Post by llondel » Fri May 14, 2021 2:53 am

"OI! You lot!"

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12701
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: Little-Storping-in-the-Swuff

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#158 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Fri May 14, 2021 5:21 am

G-CPTN wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 7:42 pm
If you can no longer introduce an announcement with "Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls" for fear of excluding Non-Binary souls, what do you suggest - "Listen up everybody" ?
You have to be inclusive G-CPTN. I suggest the following additions to your introduction...

"My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls, gypsies, mendicants, presdigigators, dipsomaniacs, diabolists, and ops-normalisers"...


There, you have captured the essence of so many more people. One mustn't stint, but be open to all sorts, even ops-normalisers!
Depressed, feeling a slump, then remember Lift = Coefficient of Lift x 1/2 x ρ x V-squared X S!

User avatar
Bob
Capt
Capt
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:38 pm
Location: Here

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#159 Post by Bob » Mon May 17, 2021 6:42 am

Capetonian wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:32 pm
When I was at Uni in the 70s a friend and I royally pissed off the entire lefty brigade.

They published a student 'rag' railing against capitalism etc. A friend and I brought up the entire stock which had been laboriously printed on an Adana hand press, bar the few that had been sold, negotiated a discount for the bulk purchase, poured some petrol (2/6d a gallon in those days) over them and struck a match.

My son left Uni a couple of years ago and now that he earns a salary and pays taxes and social charges, suddenly sees that socialism is not such a great idea!
Burning books, a great way to suppress views you don't agree with........ another fascist favourite beloved of cunts like you the world over :-bd
I hereby declare the U.S.A. a Pariah state.
All U.S. Citizens or persons arriving from the U.S.A. will be denied access

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12670
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: The Price of Free Speech : Unaffordable?

#160 Post by Boac » Mon May 17, 2021 6:53 am

Bob - who is Capetonian? Do you expect a reply?

Post Reply