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.
@cafcnick1992 can you give any examples of (b) where judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and who would not have been investigated in "other western countries"?
Well no I'm not a legal expert in all countries within the G7. That comment was a nod to the USA which has protections under the First Amendment, and very narrow hate speech laws.
I don't think there are any examples. If that really is one of your two concerns, then I think you can be assured you don't need to worry about that one.
I am very confident that if Lucy Connolly had posted what she posted in the USA, she would not be in prison. I asked ChatGPT actually and it's thrown up a bunch of case law that would seem to back me up.
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.
Robinson acted like he wanted to be put in prison, wanted to make a martyr of himself.
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.
@cafcnick1992 can you give any examples of (b) where judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and who would not have been investigated in "other western countries"?
Well no I'm not a legal expert in all countries within the G7. That comment was a nod to the USA which has protections under the First Amendment, and very narrow hate speech laws.
I don't think there are any examples. If that really is one of your two concerns, then I think you can be assured you don't need to worry about that one.
I am very confident that if Lucy Connolly had posted what she posted in the USA, she would not be in prison. I asked ChatGPT actually and it's thrown up a bunch of case law that would seem to back me up.
Well she's even more stupid then. If she really wanted to incite racially-motivated violence, she could simply have flown to the United States and done so there. I am glad she's not allowed to do that here.
Of course, the funny thing is, she won't be able to fly to the United States now, which makes her conviction even better.
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.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
And removing all context of her being a complete div that's exactly it. Doing the same would land a lot of us in jail for things said about miere and captain twat.
I've suggested on social media, here and in any forum I'm given to speak
Publicly hanging politicians, estate agents, the guy who runs Ryanair, Russel Brand, investment bankers and middle lane drifters
I'm taking things to extremes a bit with that and I don't care personally for the plight of the woman involved. I think a prison sentence is disproportionate all things considered is my view its different to others which is cool
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Millions believe free speech is their absolute right to say anything and back that up quoting Magnum Carte.
Wasn't Abu Hamza convicted of the same crimes as Lucy Connolly. I doubt many would sympathise with his right to freedom of speech. If we are defending LC purely on the principle of freedom, consistency would mean defending Hamza too.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Millions believe free speech is their absolute right to say anything and back that up quoting Magnum Carte.
The freedom to name two ice creams in one sentence is an inalienable right.
I'll put it another way, I don't agree with the amount being spent to keep this woman in jail, without knowing if she has a career or whatever, the subsequent derailing of that and supporting of her on welfare as it is very hard for released prisoners to get work that covers household outgoings.
I don't have sympathy for her, she is not my cup of tea at all but she is guilty of being a thicko in my humble opinion.
That woman who posted a picture of her grumble on a under 10s football WhatsApp group got as much mileage on twitter and from what I've seen people seem to want to give oxygen to bollocks like what she posted as if to go "look, look at what the people of the UK think" when its one pissed up molisher who possibly spends their life saying and doing stupid things and not in anyway representative. I don't believe it’s a genuine incitement to violence and she shouldn't be in prison. I'm not on her side, and I think she should be made to pick up litter every Sunday for the foreseeable at worst
If someone threatened to set your family on fire and also rallied others to do the same, would you be happy with them out there on the street and still being able to encourage others to pursue and attack you?
If anyone wants to see how far your freedom extends pop onto X or Facebook.
You can post vile comments that no normal human would say in open conversation.
I’m all for reducing people’s rights and shutting down social media platforms that don’t regulate their members. The world was a nicer place when those who like to spout their thoughts had smaller audiences. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility which adults should have no problem with and know what is acceptable.
That's the way Chinese social media works- everything is traceable and can ultimately have consequences. Works better.
I can't quite decide whether this is satire or not...
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.
That stadium looks superb!
The badge on the shirt looks like a bong or a particularly niche buttplug though.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Again, who determines what is a conspiracy theory?
At one point in time, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab story, and Joe Biden being senile were all examples of conspiracy theories. Not any more.
Should people promoting those stories have been banned from being on TV?
I don’t think that the examples you cite equate to conspiracy theories. There is no unequivocal body of evidence to suggest that they are undoubtedly wrong. There may be some degree of evidence that might lead one to think that those theories carry weight and some evidence to the contrary. Having people citing climate change is not real or that vaccines are dangerous or we’re all being sprayed by chem trails is very different to wondering whether Joe Biden is clinically senile.
I think that's a bit disingenous. People promoting those stories I listed were identified as right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'm actually reading Jake Tapper's 'Original Sin' book at the moment and it was a deliberate tactic of white house staff to smear people who challenged Biden's cognitive function as conspiracy theorists. I'm just making the broader point that it's difficult to judge what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.
When there is overwhelming evidence and data that proves beyond all reasonable doubt eg climate change or how many lives vaccines save and yet people vehemently dispute that, then do you think those people should be given equal time and opportunity to put forward their views over those of scientists backed by all the evidence and data ? That is the false equivalence given to conspiracy theories and it’s wrong. As for The White House having a policy to smear people who challenged Biden cognitive function. That’s immaterial to conspiracy theories. It’s a ploy to discredit which has gone on since god was a lad.
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.
@cafcnick1992 can you give any examples of (b) where judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and who would not have been investigated in "other western countries"?
Well no I'm not a legal expert in all countries within the G7. That comment was a nod to the USA which has protections under the First Amendment, and very narrow hate speech laws.
I don't think there are any examples. If that really is one of your two concerns, then I think you can be assured you don't need to worry about that one.
I am very confident that if Lucy Connolly had posted what she posted in the USA, she would not be in prison. I asked ChatGPT actually and it's thrown up a bunch of case law that would seem to back me up.
Yet in The USA you can have your constitutional rights ignored and be arrested and be deported without any recourse to due process.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Millions believe free speech is their absolute right to say anything and back that up quoting Magnum Carte.
The freedom to name two ice creams in one sentence is an inalienable right.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Millions believe free speech is their absolute right to say anything and back that up quoting Magnum Carte.
They absolutely have the right to believe and say whatever they like but where their beliefs fly in the face of the evidence they shouldn’t be given an equal platform to spout their views. Although Magna Carta is considered the basis of many of our laws, of the 63 clauses in it. Only four are still in law, none of which relate to freedoms of speech.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Again, who determines what is a conspiracy theory?
At one point in time, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab story, and Joe Biden being senile were all examples of conspiracy theories. Not any more.
Should people promoting those stories have been banned from being on TV?
I don’t think that the examples you cite equate to conspiracy theories. There is no unequivocal body of evidence to suggest that they are undoubtedly wrong. There may be some degree of evidence that might lead one to think that those theories carry weight and some evidence to the contrary. Having people citing climate change is not real or that vaccines are dangerous or we’re all being sprayed by chem trails is very different to wondering whether Joe Biden is clinically senile.
I think that's a bit disingenous. People promoting those stories I listed were identified as right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'm actually reading Jake Tapper's 'Original Sin' book at the moment and it was a deliberate tactic of white house staff to smear people who challenged Biden's cognitive function as conspiracy theorists. I'm just making the broader point that it's difficult to judge what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.
When there is overwhelming evidence and data that proves beyond all reasonable doubt eg climate change or how many lives vaccines save and yet people vehemently dispute that, then do you think those people should be given equal time and opportunity to put forward their views over those of scientists backed by all the evidence and data ? That is the false equivalence given to conspiracy theories and it’s wrong. As for The White House having a policy to smear people who challenged Biden cognitive function. That’s immaterial to conspiracy theories. It’s a ploy to discredit which has gone on since god was a lad.
I understand why you might get upset with people promoting views that fiercely conflict with your views, but no I do not think TV networks should ban people from voicing those views.
The best way to kill a stupid idea is to have it ridiculed live on TV.
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.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
A fair few of us chant about setting some football fans alight a lot of match weeks, should that be an arrestable offence?
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.
@cafcnick1992 can you give any examples of (b) where judges are handing out inappropriately long prison sentences to people who present no danger to society and who would not have been investigated in "other western countries"?
Well no I'm not a legal expert in all countries within the G7. That comment was a nod to the USA which has protections under the First Amendment, and very narrow hate speech laws.
I don't think there are any examples. If that really is one of your two concerns, then I think you can be assured you don't need to worry about that one.
I am very confident that if Lucy Connolly had posted what she posted in the USA, she would not be in prison. I asked ChatGPT actually and it's thrown up a bunch of case law that would seem to back me up.
I'm sure she would be able to say those things in the US - that says a lot more about the US.
Although I'm really not sure that you using the US as the bastions of free speech is a wise choice.
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.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
A fair few of us chant about setting some football fans alight a lot of match weeks, should that be an arrestable offence?
(Not saying what she did was acceptable btw)
There's not a court in the land that would convict us for Palace and Millwall.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Again, who determines what is a conspiracy theory?
At one point in time, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab story, and Joe Biden being senile were all examples of conspiracy theories. Not any more.
Should people promoting those stories have been banned from being on TV?
I don’t think that the examples you cite equate to conspiracy theories. There is no unequivocal body of evidence to suggest that they are undoubtedly wrong. There may be some degree of evidence that might lead one to think that those theories carry weight and some evidence to the contrary. Having people citing climate change is not real or that vaccines are dangerous or we’re all being sprayed by chem trails is very different to wondering whether Joe Biden is clinically senile.
I think that's a bit disingenous. People promoting those stories I listed were identified as right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'm actually reading Jake Tapper's 'Original Sin' book at the moment and it was a deliberate tactic of white house staff to smear people who challenged Biden's cognitive function as conspiracy theorists. I'm just making the broader point that it's difficult to judge what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.
When there is overwhelming evidence and data that proves beyond all reasonable doubt eg climate change or how many lives vaccines save and yet people vehemently dispute that, then do you think those people should be given equal time and opportunity to put forward their views over those of scientists backed by all the evidence and data ? That is the false equivalence given to conspiracy theories and it’s wrong. As for The White House having a policy to smear people who challenged Biden cognitive function. That’s immaterial to conspiracy theories. It’s a ploy to discredit which has gone on since god was a lad.
I understand why you might get upset with people promoting views that fiercely conflict with your views, but no I do not think TV networks should ban people from voicing those views.
The best way to kill a stupid idea is to have it ridiculed live on TV.
They shouldn’t be banned at all but just not given an equal platform. A few months ago there was a breakfast tv show where two flat earthers were interviewed along with an Astro physicist. Both sides were give roughly equal opportunity to put forward their beliefs. What a waste of air time and insult to anyone with a brain.
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.
No offence but this would be an awful thing to implement. I understand the idea behind it, and I am all for stopping bedroom badmen, but with security risks and cyber attacks etc, it would only be a matter of time before an innocent person gets hurt.
There will be someone out there who will know how to access that information with ill intentions, and there will be someone willing to pay for private details of social media users.
There does need to be a crackdown on keyboard warriors in some capacity though. Just yesterday I was reading about some lovely woman I follow on social media, she rescues foxes and a torrent of online abuse made her take her own life.
I think most mental health cases nowadays could be linked to online incidents. We simply have an ease of access to a lot of stuff we shouldn't. In a lot of cases people are one click away from dreadful news or very good news, it just wasn't like that before.
A bit off topic with free speech there but thought it was relevant to the cyber security aspect.
False equivalence is the blight of free speech. Giving equal time to views that are not based in any science or evidence base is a consequence of the enormous amount of false information out there and now widely believed by millions of people. Having conspiracy theorists and deniers on tv isn’t free speech. It’s perpetuating nonsense and is frankly dangerous.
Again, who determines what is a conspiracy theory?
At one point in time, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab story, and Joe Biden being senile were all examples of conspiracy theories. Not any more.
Should people promoting those stories have been banned from being on TV?
I don’t think that the examples you cite equate to conspiracy theories. There is no unequivocal body of evidence to suggest that they are undoubtedly wrong. There may be some degree of evidence that might lead one to think that those theories carry weight and some evidence to the contrary. Having people citing climate change is not real or that vaccines are dangerous or we’re all being sprayed by chem trails is very different to wondering whether Joe Biden is clinically senile.
I think that's a bit disingenous. People promoting those stories I listed were identified as right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'm actually reading Jake Tapper's 'Original Sin' book at the moment and it was a deliberate tactic of white house staff to smear people who challenged Biden's cognitive function as conspiracy theorists. I'm just making the broader point that it's difficult to judge what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't.
When there is overwhelming evidence and data that proves beyond all reasonable doubt eg climate change or how many lives vaccines save and yet people vehemently dispute that, then do you think those people should be given equal time and opportunity to put forward their views over those of scientists backed by all the evidence and data ? That is the false equivalence given to conspiracy theories and it’s wrong. As for The White House having a policy to smear people who challenged Biden cognitive function. That’s immaterial to conspiracy theories. It’s a ploy to discredit which has gone on since god was a lad.
I understand why you might get upset with people promoting views that fiercely conflict with your views, but no I do not think TV networks should ban people from voicing those views.
The best way to kill a stupid idea is to have it ridiculed live on TV.
They shouldn’t be banned at all but just not given an equal platform. A few months ago there was a breakfast tv show where two flat earthers were interviewed along with an Astro physicist. Both sides were give roughly equal opportunity to put forward their beliefs. What a waste of air time and insult to anyone with a brain.
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.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
A fair few of us chant about setting some football fans alight a lot of match weeks, should that be an arrestable offence?
(Not saying what she did was acceptable btw)
There's not a court in the land that would convict us for Palace and Millwall.
Of course not, but my point is where is the line. How can someone be arrested online for saying they want to see a group of people burned, but another group can say the same thing but face no legal action because it's seen as a joke.
Surely anyone could just say it was a joke what they said in that instance.
I am just trying to play devil's advocate here. I don't agree with what she said.
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.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
A fair few of us chant about setting some football fans alight a lot of match weeks, should that be an arrestable offence?
(Not saying what she did was acceptable btw)
There's not a court in the land that would convict us for Palace and Millwall.
Of course not, but my point is where is the line. How can someone be arrested online for saying they want to see a group of people burned, but another group can say the same thing but face no legal action because it's seen as a joke.
Surely anyone could just say it was a joke what they said in that instance.
I am just trying to play devil's advocate here. I don't agree with what she said.
But we know where the line is. It's like someone asking why they are being arrested for arson when people light fires every Guy Fawkes.
You can't restrict free speech for British people and allow others to say what they want. Anybody with a brain knows that aint gonna work
Who are the "others"? Who is doing the restricting?
Having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Got a link to some kind of incident?
Do you really want me to post incidents or are you just wanting a silly argument? There are plenty of examples of two tier policing going on. Look how quickly some people get arrested and jailed in some circumstances eg Southport.
Who are the non-British "others" who are, I have to assume, not being restricted in their speech by UK authorities as Brits are?
Whatever you are trying to raise seems to have a specific incident in mind... so... am trying to get you to spell it for those of us who are unaware?
You are just acting dumb to try and make me say something you want me to say i guess? Are you unaware of two tier policing?
I’m aware that it’s a ruse by some on the right to undermine our justice system . I suspect it’s virtually a fallacy
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.
I think hey should and will get a substantial sentence. Not least as he pled not guilty
If anyone wants to see how far your freedom extends pop onto X or Facebook.
You can post vile comments that no normal human would say in open conversation.
I’m all for reducing people’s rights and shutting down social media platforms that don’t regulate their members. The world was a nicer place when those who like to spout their thoughts had smaller audiences. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility which adults should have no problem with and know what is acceptable.
That's the way Chinese social media works- everything is traceable and can ultimately have consequences. Works better.
I can't quite decide whether this is satire or not...
Nope. Genuine comment. Less hateful bile and lies due to people actually being accountable and traceable
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.
She was quite literally suggesting setting human beings on fire.
A fair few of us chant about setting some football fans alight a lot of match weeks, should that be an arrestable offence?
(Not saying what she did was acceptable btw)
If you think that’s the same thing then I can’t help ya.
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.
No offence but this would be an awful thing to implement. I understand the idea behind it, and I am all for stopping bedroom badmen, but with security risks and cyber attacks etc, it would only be a matter of time before an innocent person gets hurt.
There will be someone out there who will know how to access that information with ill intentions, and there will be someone willing to pay for private details of social media users.
There does need to be a crackdown on keyboard warriors in some capacity though. Just yesterday I was reading about some lovely woman I follow on social media, she rescues foxes and a torrent of online abuse made her take her own life.
I think most mental health cases nowadays could be linked to online incidents. We simply have an ease of access to a lot of stuff we shouldn't. In a lot of cases people are one click away from dreadful news or very good news, it just wasn't like that before.
A bit off topic with free speech there but thought it was relevant to the cyber security aspect.
Interesting point re: people paying for that data and potential harm to an "innocent".
I wonder how that is managed in China. I suspect the govt just don't cash in (amazing concept, eh!)
I'll put it another way, I don't agree with the amount being spent to keep this woman in jail, without knowing if she has a career or whatever, the subsequent derailing of that and supporting of her on welfare as it is very hard for released prisoners to get work that covers household outgoings.
I don't have sympathy for her, she is not my cup of tea at all but she is guilty of being a thicko in my humble opinion.
That woman who posted a picture of her grumble on a under 10s football WhatsApp group got as much mileage on twitter and from what I've seen people seem to want to give oxygen to bollocks like what she posted as if to go "look, look at what the people of the UK think" when its one pissed up molisher who possibly spends their life saying and doing stupid things and not in anyway representative. I don't believe it’s a genuine incitement to violence and she shouldn't be in prison. I'm not on her side, and I think she should be made to pick up litter every Sunday for the foreseeable at worst
If someone threatened to set your family on fire and also rallied others to do the same, would you be happy with them out there on the street and still being able to encourage others to pursue and attack you?
This isn't meant personally to you, thats a ridiculous comparison. If someone threatens me with anything on social media I'd deal with it myself or more likely I'd just tell them to stop being so fucking stupid
If someone specifically said "carter I'm going to set you and your family on fire" I'd think they were batshit mental and probably under the influence then treat it with the contempt it deserves.
One of my mates is a copper and spends a ridiculous amount of time responding to calls about "XYZ sent me a nasty message" so he tells them to block them and to not make contact with them. So I'd probably also block them
If someone else reported it and the police contacted me about it and assuming whatever dinlo threatened to set me and my family on fire had subsequently apologised and promised not to do something quite so stupid again I'd move on with my life and wouldn't pursue any further action
Comments
Of course, the funny thing is, she won't be able to fly to the United States now, which makes her conviction even better.
I've suggested on social media, here and in any forum I'm given to speak
Publicly hanging politicians, estate agents, the guy who runs Ryanair, Russel Brand, investment bankers and middle lane drifters
I'm taking things to extremes a bit with that and I don't care personally for the plight of the woman involved. I think a prison sentence is disproportionate all things considered is my view its different to others which is cool
The best way to kill a stupid idea is to have it ridiculed live on TV.
(Not saying what she did was acceptable btw)
There will be someone out there who will know how to access that information with ill intentions, and there will be someone willing to pay for private details of social media users.
There does need to be a crackdown on keyboard warriors in some capacity though. Just yesterday I was reading about some lovely woman I follow on social media, she rescues foxes and a torrent of online abuse made her take her own life.
I think most mental health cases nowadays could be linked to online incidents. We simply have an ease of access to a lot of stuff we shouldn't. In a lot of cases people are one click away from dreadful news or very good news, it just wasn't like that before.
A bit off topic with free speech there but thought it was relevant to the cyber security aspect.
I agree - the astrophysicist was a joke!
Surely anyone could just say it was a joke what they said in that instance.
I am just trying to play devil's advocate here. I don't agree with what she said.
Less hateful bile and lies due to people actually being accountable and traceable
I wonder how that is managed in China. I suspect the govt just don't cash in (amazing concept, eh!)
If someone specifically said "carter I'm going to set you and your family on fire" I'd think they were batshit mental and probably under the influence then treat it with the contempt it deserves.
One of my mates is a copper and spends a ridiculous amount of time responding to calls about "XYZ sent me a nasty message" so he tells them to block them and to not make contact with them. So I'd probably also block them
If someone else reported it and the police contacted me about it and assuming whatever dinlo threatened to set me and my family on fire had subsequently apologised and promised not to do something quite so stupid again I'd move on with my life and wouldn't pursue any further action
I think that covers most bases