Not a fan of threads like these, not because I like the thought of stifling free speech in anyway, but the direction of thread normally goes route one and it’s a quick way of people falling out who may not have fallen out. Which is the opposite for what you want when trying to maintain an online community as they are different from real life ones.
So there has to be a balance and some form of guidances to keep things ticking over nicely. All the things we ask to steer clear from are based on learning from how those topics and impacts previously evolved when covered on here.
If I could take it in a slightly different direction, it’s ironic that in an era where introduction of social media has led to an avalanche of largely unregulated amateur journalism, professional journalism has gone the other way and it now seems completely stifled by fear of law and litigation. Exposees are a rare thing these days and it was massively telling during the Southall / dodgy lawyers period just how few professional journalists we’re prepared to dip a toe in, even with all the hard work being done for them. Bold and fearless professional journalists seem a thing of the past.
I'm a massive believer in free speech. It should separate us from dictatorships.
Hate speech is a different thing
I think what's going back and forth is speech is free until the wrong person doesn't like it, twitter is a swirling abyss of people second guessing, guessing and then a lot of hop, skips and jumps.
Some people get put in prison for exposing truths, some people don't, especially if they are a councillor in the greater London area.
I don't like what a fair chunk of prominent speakers in the media have to say, I'm glad they can say it thoigh and I dont have to agree with it, like it or even listen to it, thats a good system and that system should be protected. The less the government interferes in lives the better.
Edward Snowden, Tommy Robinson, Julian Assange all have been jailed for non-violent offences in high category prisons and whatever i personally think of them I do not agree with them being jailed for speaking about things politicians don't like
They need to find a way on social media platforms to find an equivalence to good old fashioned pub free speech.
Say what you want - but every now and again you might get a smack in the mouth for what you said.
Come on Zuck and Elon etc. you are smart guys. You can do it.
Having accounts linked and verified to real ID's would be a damn good start, they don't need to be publicly displayed, but having that information available to the authorities would definitely help.
Social media is full of misinformation, conspiracy theories and outright lies, it cannot be right that this is allowed as 'free speech', as a lot of it is downright dangerous.
I'm a massive believer in free speech. It should separate us from dictatorships.
Hate speech is a different thing
I think what's going back and forth is speech is free until the wrong person doesn't like it, twitter is a swirling abyss of people second guessing, guessing and then a lot of hop, skips and jumps.
Some people get put in prison for exposing truths, some people don't, especially if they are a councillor in the greater London area.
I don't like what a fair chunk of prominent speakers in the media have to say, I'm glad they can say it thoigh and I dont have to agree with it, like it or even listen to it, thats a good system and that system should be protected. The less the government interferes in lives the better.
Edward Snowden, Tommy Robinson, Julian Assange all have been jailed for non-violent offences in high category prisons and whatever i personally think of them I do not agree with them being jailed for speaking about things politicians don't like
They need to find a way on social media platforms to find an equivalence to good old fashioned pub free speech.
Say what you want - but every now and again you might get a smack in the mouth for what you said.
Come on Zuck and Elon etc. you are smart guys. You can do it.
I liked the ending of Jay and Silent Bob strike back, spending their life travelling round the USA tracking down Internet forum users who slagged them off and giving them a slap
I'm a massive believer in free speech. It should separate us from dictatorships.
Hate speech is a different thing
I think what's going back and forth is speech is free until the wrong person doesn't like it, twitter is a swirling abyss of people second guessing, guessing and then a lot of hop, skips and jumps.
Some people get put in prison for exposing truths, some people don't, especially if they are a councillor in the greater London area.
I don't like what a fair chunk of prominent speakers in the media have to say, I'm glad they can say it thoigh and I dont have to agree with it, like it or even listen to it, thats a good system and that system should be protected. The less the government interferes in lives the better.
Edward Snowden, Tommy Robinson, Julian Assange all have been jailed for non-violent offences in high category prisons and whatever i personally think of them I do not agree with them being jailed for speaking about things politicians don't like
They need to find a way on social media platforms to find an equivalence to good old fashioned pub free speech.
Say what you want - but every now and again you might get a smack in the mouth for what you said.
Come on Zuck and Elon etc. you are smart guys. You can do it.
Could do no worse than look at the old Flag system we used to have on here. Far worse than any smacks in he mouths I've ever had 🏴
I'm a massive believer in free speech. It should separate us from dictatorships.
Hate speech is a different thing
I think what's going back and forth is speech is free until the wrong person doesn't like it, twitter is a swirling abyss of people second guessing, guessing and then a lot of hop, skips and jumps.
Some people get put in prison for exposing truths, some people don't, especially if they are a councillor in the greater London area.
I don't like what a fair chunk of prominent speakers in the media have to say, I'm glad they can say it thoigh and I dont have to agree with it, like it or even listen to it, thats a good system and that system should be protected. The less the government interferes in lives the better.
Edward Snowden, Tommy Robinson, Julian Assange all have been jailed for non-violent offences in high category prisons and whatever i personally think of them I do not agree with them being jailed for speaking about things politicians don't like
They need to find a way on social media platforms to find an equivalence to good old fashioned pub free speech.
Say what you want - but every now and again you might get a smack in the mouth for what you said.
Come on Zuck and Elon etc. you are smart guys. You can do it.
Having accounts linked and verified to real ID's would be a damn good start, they don't need to be publicly displayed, but having that information available to the authorities would definitely help.
Banning bot accounts would be a great start too. Mention certain politicians and you get replies straight away, likewise mentioning not being able to get into your account.
The problem with "free speech until it turns into hate speech or incitement of violence" is that it takes someone's subjective opinion to determine what hate speech or incitement is.
The Lucy Connelly case for example for me is Britain at its worst. She's been put away for inciting violence, but for me the test for that should be much higher than an angry facebook post that didn't name any person, place or time.
The problem with "free speech until it turns into hate speech or incitement of violence" is that it takes someone's subjective opinion to determine what hate speech or incitement is.
The Lucy Connelly case for example for me is Britain at its worst. She's been put away for inciting violence, but for me the test for that should be much higher than an angry facebook post that didn't name any person, place or time.
Not going to repeat what she said, but it certainly was an invitation to cause violence.
I'm a massive believer in free speech. It should separate us from dictatorships.
Hate speech is a different thing
I think what's going back and forth is speech is free until the wrong person doesn't like it, twitter is a swirling abyss of people second guessing, guessing and then a lot of hop, skips and jumps.
Some people get put in prison for exposing truths, some people don't, especially if they are a councillor in the greater London area.
I don't like what a fair chunk of prominent speakers in the media have to say, I'm glad they can say it thoigh and I dont have to agree with it, like it or even listen to it, thats a good system and that system should be protected. The less the government interferes in lives the better.
Edward Snowden, Tommy Robinson, Julian Assange all have been jailed for non-violent offences in high category prisons and whatever i personally think of them I do not agree with them being jailed for speaking about things politicians don't like
They need to find a way on social media platforms to find an equivalence to good old fashioned pub free speech.
Say what you want - but every now and again you might get a smack in the mouth for what you said.
Come on Zuck and Elon etc. you are smart guys. You can do it.
Having accounts linked and verified to real ID's would be a damn good start, they don't need to be publicly displayed, but having that information available to the authorities would definitely help.
Banning bot accounts would be a great start too. Mention certain politicians and you get replies straight away, likewise mentioning not being able to get into your account.
The problem with "free speech until it turns into hate speech or incitement of violence" is that it takes someone's subjective opinion to determine what hate speech or incitement is.
The Lucy Connelly case for example for me is Britain at its worst. She's been put away for inciting violence, but for me the test for that should be much higher than an angry facebook post that didn't name any person, place or time.
Not going to repeat what she said, but it certainly was an invitation to cause violence.
Yeah it was a disgusting thing to post, but the idea it met the test of inciting violence is insane to me.
I don't understand how society is being protected by having her in prison, especially when actual criminals are being released to make space.
The problem with "free speech until it turns into hate speech or incitement of violence" is that it takes someone's subjective opinion to determine what hate speech or incitement is.
The Lucy Connelly case for example for me is Britain at its worst. She's been put away for inciting violence, but for me the test for that should be much higher than an angry facebook post that didn't name any person, place or time.
Not going to repeat what she said, but it certainly was an invitation to cause violence.
Yeah it was a disgusting thing to post, but the idea it met the test of inciting violence is insane to me.
I don't understand how society is being protected by having her in prison, especially when actual criminals are being released to make space.
She and her legal team accepted the charges and the arguments made by the CPS in court. She then plead guilty, so I'm struggling to see what the issue is, other than, nice white women should go to prison.
Yes she plead guilty on the advice of her lawyer who thought she would get a more lenient sentence and would be able to get back to her kids sooner. I don't think anyone thought she would get 31 months and effectively become a political prisoner.
I'm very interested in seeing what sentence (if any) is opposed on Labour Councillor Ricky Jones in August.
The problem with "free speech until it turns into hate speech or incitement of violence" is that it takes someone's subjective opinion to determine what hate speech or incitement is.
The Lucy Connelly case for example for me is Britain at its worst. She's been put away for inciting violence, but for me the test for that should be much higher than an angry facebook post that didn't name any person, place or time.
Not going to repeat what she said, but it certainly was an invitation to cause violence.
a) officers are investigating social media posts from people of no influence when they won't even show up to a burglary (i.e. an actual crime) b) Judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and wouldn't even have been investigated in other western countries.
For context, Lucy Connolly admitted inciting racial hatred after using social media to post about setting fire to hotels housing asylum seekers. In my opinion, any sympathy for her is entirely miss-placed.
The difference between being racist and inciting violence is that one is merely unpleasant, while the other is illegal. She moved from one to the other and, happily, is paying the price.
People should be able to post racist comments or make racist jokes on social media if they want to. And they oughtn't to be offended if their posts stimulate commensurate opprobrium. (If you're a racist, I think you're a dick).
But people shouldn't be allowed - nor are they - to incite violence.
I'm a massive believer in free speech. It should separate us from dictatorships.
Hate speech is a different thing
I think what's going back and forth is speech is free until the wrong person doesn't like it, twitter is a swirling abyss of people second guessing, guessing and then a lot of hop, skips and jumps.
Some people get put in prison for exposing truths, some people don't, especially if they are a councillor in the greater London area.
I don't like what a fair chunk of prominent speakers in the media have to say, I'm glad they can say it thoigh and I dont have to agree with it, like it or even listen to it, thats a good system and that system should be protected. The less the government interferes in lives the better.
Edward Snowden, Tommy Robinson, Julian Assange all have been jailed for non-violent offences in high category prisons and whatever i personally think of them I do not agree with them being jailed for speaking about things politicians don't like
They need to find a way on social media platforms to find an equivalence to good old fashioned pub free speech.
Say what you want - but every now and again you might get a smack in the mouth for what you said.
Come on Zuck and Elon etc. you are smart guys. You can do it.
Having accounts linked and verified to real ID's would be a damn good start, they don't need to be publicly displayed, but having that information available to the authorities would definitely help.
Banning bot accounts would be a great start too. Mention certain politicians and you get replies straight away, likewise mentioning not being able to get into your account.
And that's just it. I've said things about one of our previous owners that could be taken as an incitement to violence depending on how someone looks at it
Lucy Connolly is guilty of being an idiot, I don't believe anyone, hand on heart believes posting unpleasant things that she did is worthy of a prison sentence. I say that as someone who regularly talks about publicly flogging people who use their phones in cinemas, planes or in public generally.
It was hateful speech however I'd hope some intelligence was to be applied to someone of her pedigree posting stupid shit. She doesn't have an audience of willing participants to rouse to my knowledge anyway.
One of the more egregious cases of denial of freedom of speech was the case of Paul Chambers in the infamous "Twitter Joke Trial". He tweeted
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s**t together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
...and was convicted at Doncaster Crown Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 in costs. His appeal to the Crown Court failed. So he had to take it to the High Courts, where, thankfully, the conviction was overturned. Because it was a joke.
Thanks to the ruling, something meant as a joke cannot reasonably be criminal if no one was actually frightened and the CPS issued new guidleines. And there's now a requirement to consider free speech protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10).
I think where I disagree is the definition of inciting violence.
For me, to incite violence, there has to be some element of organisation behind it - perhaps a time or place. Lucy Connolly, when writing that post, was just shouting at the wind.
It is an embarrasing thing to post, and I cringe when I read it, but she shouldn't be in prison for it.
a) officers are investigating social media posts from people of no influence when they won't even show up to a burglary (i.e. an actual crime) b) Judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and wouldn't even have been investigated in other western countries.
Thats not how I understand it but we will start arguing getting into the weeds and i dont suppose either of us can be bothered with that. I could well be wrong and so could you. My point was regarding him as well as the other two is I think people have done worse things and were not sent to prison, Huw Edwards off the top of my head as one. Maybe the ones who don't seem to get punished have better briefs or maybe telling truths, and for the sake of an argument I'm talking about Assange and Snowden here, upset people who dont like being upset or shown up. Assange is someone I really dont like the feel of however I equally don't like how he is being treated or Snowden
Well, I'm reading from the court ruling init. He can spin whatever "silenced and oppressed" rubbish he wants, he's a vile man, he broke the law, he went prison boo-hoo. Whataboutism about other people who have avoided jail doesn't really progress our conversation on free speech. I like free speech, people can say what they like, but they shouldn't be able to lie and spread hate.
I think it progresses the conversation in so much as 3 people went to prison for something I don't think warrants a prison sentence and one didn't go to prison for something I very much think does deserve a prison sentence. All subjective I suppose
I'm not on any of their side especially not Huw Edwards. He didn't release things that powerful people didn't like though just downloaded indecent images of children. He didn't go to prison, the other 3 did.
I accept the 3 people I've mentioned are extreme examples however I think they were targeted to be put in prison one way or another.
I would say accusing a 15 year old of being a violent criminal because you don’t like the colour of his skin, and then breaking the injunction telling you not to do it again should probably send you to prison
Comments
If I could take it in a slightly different direction, it’s ironic that in an era where introduction of social media has led to an avalanche of largely unregulated amateur journalism, professional journalism has gone the other way and it now seems completely stifled by fear of law and litigation. Exposees are a rare thing these days and it was massively telling during the Southall / dodgy lawyers period just how few professional journalists we’re prepared to dip a toe in, even with all the hard work being done for them. Bold and fearless professional journalists seem a thing of the past.
That was a real eye opener
The Lucy Connelly case for example for me is Britain at its worst. She's been put away for inciting violence, but for me the test for that should be much higher than an angry facebook post that didn't name any person, place or time.
I don't understand how society is being protected by having her in prison, especially when actual criminals are being released to make space.
I'm very interested in seeing what sentence (if any) is opposed on Labour Councillor Ricky Jones in August.
Comedy?
I Think it all depends on your point of view.
a) officers are investigating social media posts from people of no influence when they won't even show up to a burglary (i.e. an actual crime)
b) Judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and wouldn't even have been investigated in other western countries.
The difference between being racist and inciting violence is that one is merely unpleasant, while the other is illegal. She moved from one to the other and, happily, is paying the price.
People should be able to post racist comments or make racist jokes on social media if they want to. And they oughtn't to be offended if their posts stimulate commensurate opprobrium. (If you're a racist, I think you're a dick).
But people shouldn't be allowed - nor are they - to incite violence.
Lucy Connolly is guilty of being an idiot, I don't believe anyone, hand on heart believes posting unpleasant things that she did is worthy of a prison sentence. I say that as someone who regularly talks about publicly flogging people who use their phones in cinemas, planes or in public generally.
It was hateful speech however I'd hope some intelligence was to be applied to someone of her pedigree posting stupid shit. She doesn't have an audience of willing participants to rouse to my knowledge anyway.
...and was convicted at Doncaster Crown Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 in costs. His appeal to the Crown Court failed. So he had to take it to the High Courts, where, thankfully, the conviction was overturned. Because it was a joke.
Thanks to the ruling, something meant as a joke cannot reasonably be criminal if no one was actually frightened and the CPS issued new guidleines. And there's now a requirement to consider free speech protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10).
For me, to incite violence, there has to be some element of organisation behind it - perhaps a time or place. Lucy Connolly, when writing that post, was just shouting at the wind.
It is an embarrasing thing to post, and I cringe when I read it, but she shouldn't be in prison for it.
"Look, the evidence is inarguable, its there in black and white, plead guilty, take your medicine of a slap on the wrist and get on with your life"
People plead guilty to loads of things if they had time and resources to spare they never would plead guilty to.