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.
I remember during lockdown seeing video of some conspiracy theorist nutters turning up at a British hospital demanding the poor nurses and doctors “tell them the truth” or something. They were quoting their rights under Magna Carta as justification for this nonsense.
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.
I remember during lockdown seeing video of some conspiracy theorist nutters turning up at a British hospital demanding the poor nurses and doctors “tell them the truth” or something. They were quoting their rights under Magna Carta as justification for this nonsense.
The same type of conspiracy nutters are still doing that online, despite the huge & still growing amount of evidence that they are wrong.
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.
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.
Oh I really wish that were true but, unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case for way too many years now!
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
But, on the other hand, nice easy way for the government to disappear you if they don't like what you're saying.
Good to see the old CCP propaganda continues unabated.
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)
Clearly a joke that has been ongoing for many many years. Jokes are legal and have been covered in this thread.
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.
I doubt 99.99% of the population could read, take in and give a 1minute summary of what was written. I certainly couldn't but then I'm happy to admit that I'd can't read a document written 800 years ago in Latin or really the literal translation of the time. I do have a slight suspicion that it wasn't written for the masses though rather the ones with the assets.
Below the opening paragraph copied and pasted, of course.
In primis concessisse Deo et hac praesenti carta nostra confirmasse, pro nobis et haeredibus nostris in perpetuum, quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit, et habeat jura sua integra, et libertates suas illaesas; et its volumus observari; quod apparet ex eo quod libertatem electionum, quae maxima et magis necessaria reputatur ecclesiae Anglicanae, mera et spontanea voluntate, ante discordiam inter nos et barones nostros motam, concessimus et carta nostra confirmavimus, et eam obtinuimus a domino papa Innocentio tertio confirmari; quam et nos observabimus et ab haeredibus nostris in perpetuum bona fide volumus observari. Concessimus etiam omnibus liberis hominibus regni nostri, pro nobis et haeredibus nostris in perpetuum, omnes libertates subscriptas, habendas et tenendas, eis et haeredibus suis, de nobis et haeredibus nostris.
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
Yet we do have one poster actually living in the country you speak of and praise regularly, that is so scared that they asked for all their posts to be deleted.
I won’t be naming that person and ask that no one else does either thank you.
I find it surprising that people leave countries that they appear to prefer to live in and move to the UK which they appear to think is not as good a fit to what they think is best.
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
Yet we do have one poster actually living in the country you speak of and praise regularly, that is so scared that they asked for all their posts to be deleted.
I won’t be naming that person and ask that no one else does either thank you.
I find it surprising that people leave countries that they appear to prefer to live in and move to the UK which they appear to think is not as good a fit to what they think is best.
Let's have a beer sometime and I'll tell you my tale
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
But, on the other hand, nice easy way for the government to disappear you if they don't like what you're saying.
Good to see the old CCP propaganda continues unabated.
Makes people accountable. Sure, it's a double-edged sword. On balance, I think there are probably more benefits to society of having people think twice about what they post.
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.
I don't know about whatever other group you are referring to had done. But I understand she had previously posted racist stuff and also did so after the event. She was a bit too committed to the cause to be able to claim whimsy surely?
One thing I think is sad is that what has happened to many in the "celebrity" world and quite possibly even in the working world that something that was posted or said years before gets brought up to attack that person without any context applied.
It's being reported that a Norwegian tourist has been barred from entering the USA after ICE agents found a meme of JD Vance on his phone.
The land of the free (speech)...
This is not uncommon. There are lots of cases of visitors being denied entry to the US and of US residents being deported because of hurty words and pictures on their phones.
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
But, on the other hand, nice easy way for the government to disappear you if they don't like what you're saying.
Good to see the old CCP propaganda continues unabated.
Makes people accountable. Sure, it's a double-edged sword. On balance, I think there are probably more benefits to society of having people think twice about what they post.
I'm sure if you asked people whether they'd rather put up with someone calling them a shithouse online, and the government having the ability to send them to a fucking salt mine in Mongolia for moaning about the price of bread, they'd probably not agree with you...
It's being reported that a Norwegian tourist has been barred from entering the USA after ICE agents found a meme of JD Vance on his phone.
The land of the free (speech)...
Well he should have deleted it then. I would bar him for being fucking thick.
If speech is free in the USA, it wouldn't matter if the person had a meme on his phone, assuming it is not inciting violence. Unfortunately I've heard of many instances of people prevented from entering the USA or being arrested for having comments criticising the Government there.
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
But, on the other hand, nice easy way for the government to disappear you if they don't like what you're saying.
Good to see the old CCP propaganda continues unabated.
Makes people accountable. Sure, it's a double-edged sword. On balance, I think there are probably more benefits to society of having people think twice about what they post.
I'm sure if you asked people whether they'd rather put up with someone calling them a shithouse online, and the government having the ability to send them to a fucking salt mine in Mongolia for moaning about the price of bread, they'd probably not agree with you...
You'd have to factor in the (huge) volume of shithousery fallout (inc. the level of attempted hotel arson) vs the (tiny) amount of people vanished to proverbial salt mines
People in the west tend to think China is much more harsh than its reality is
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
But, on the other hand, nice easy way for the government to disappear you if they don't like what you're saying.
Good to see the old CCP propaganda continues unabated.
Makes people accountable. Sure, it's a double-edged sword. On balance, I think there are probably more benefits to society of having people think twice about what they post.
I'm sure if you asked people whether they'd rather put up with someone calling them a shithouse online, and the government having the ability to send them to a fucking salt mine in Mongolia for moaning about the price of bread, they'd probably not agree with you...
You'd have to factor in the (huge) volume of shithousery fallout (inc. the level of attempted hotel arson) vs the (tiny) amount of people vanished to proverbial salt mines
People in the west tend to think China is much more harsh than its reality is
So why would someone request that ALL of their posts are deleted, when to my knowledge, they never even made, what I would consider to be a critical post?
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.
Of course I don't actually think it's the same thing, but that's only by design.
When you break it down, both parties have said the same words, it's just one is taken less seriously than the other, who should decide what is too offensive and what isn't.
A few years ago there were words you could say very publicly and no one would bat an eye lid, you say these words now, your job is gone for a start, and there could be further action.
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.
Of course I don't actually think it's the same thing, but that's only by design.
When you break it down, both parties have said the same words, it's just one is taken less seriously than the other, who should decide what is too offensive and what isn't.
A few years ago there were words you could say very publicly and no one would bat an eye lid, you say these words now, your job is gone for a start, and there could be further action.
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.
Of course I don't actually think it's the same thing, but that's only by design.
When you break it down, both parties have said the same words, it's just one is taken less seriously than the other, who should decide what is too offensive and what isn't.
A few years ago there were words you could say very publicly and no one would bat an eye lid, you say these words now, your job is gone for a start, and there could be further action.
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.
We only know where the line is because someone with a lot more power than any of us drew it.
There are so many examples of one rule for one and one rule another.
If we really simplify it, comedians will joke about racism, ableism, rape, religion, etc. It's just a joke, no one cares, and the people that do are told it's just a joke.
On the flipside an ordinary person could make the same jokes as a comedian in a public space, or a powerful person (think Trumps gestures, or Sean Stricklands comments) and they'll face repercussions. Most people in this country would lose their job if they said something out of line, whereas there are others who can get away with it.
There's a ton of selective outrage over the freedom of speech, and who can and can't say what.
The point I am trying to make, is it should be anything goes, or very clear guidelines on what can and can't be said so there can be no mistake, basically a dictatorship.
You either have a society of free-will and the repercussions are at worst, a disagreement, or, you have it so there are rules and everyone must follow them.
Say something online which you would never say in a normal office/work environment and you run the risk of getting knocked. It's very simple and basic common sense
The point I am trying to make, is it should be anything goes, or very clear guidelines on what can and can't be said so there can be no mistake, basically a dictatorship.
You either have a society of free-will and the repercussions are at worst, a disagreement, or, you have it so there are rules and everyone must follow them.
Is that not anarchy? There has got to be rules i.e. the law, but I will agree that objective guidelines and tests should be applied to enable consistency.
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.
Of course I don't actually think it's the same thing, but that's only by design.
When you break it down, both parties have said the same words, it's just one is taken less seriously than the other, who should decide what is too offensive and what isn't.
A few years ago there were words you could say very publicly and no one would bat an eye lid, you say these words now, your job is gone for a start, and there could be further action.
Is that a good or a bad thing?
This isn't about whether it is good or bad. There is nothing I can or can't say/would or wouldn't want to say that would impact me, so that question doesn't really apply to me.
I am purely playing devil's advocate here. I have seen the failure of the UK justice system, working within it, and as a victim of crime.
Comments
Good to see the old CCP propaganda continues unabated.
Jokes are legal and have been covered in this thread.
Below the opening paragraph copied and pasted, of course.
In primis concessisse Deo et hac praesenti carta nostra confirmasse, pro nobis et haeredibus nostris in perpetuum, quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit, et habeat jura sua integra, et libertates suas illaesas; et its volumus observari; quod apparet ex eo quod libertatem electionum, quae maxima et magis necessaria reputatur ecclesiae Anglicanae, mera et spontanea voluntate, ante discordiam inter nos et barones nostros motam, concessimus et carta nostra confirmavimus, et eam obtinuimus a domino papa Innocentio tertio confirmari; quam et nos observabimus et ab haeredibus nostris in perpetuum bona fide volumus observari. Concessimus etiam omnibus liberis hominibus regni nostri, pro nobis et haeredibus nostris in perpetuum, omnes libertates subscriptas, habendas et tenendas, eis et haeredibus suis, de nobis et haeredibus nostris.
I won’t be naming that person and ask that no one else does either thank you.
I find it surprising that people leave countries that they appear to prefer to live in and move to the UK which they appear to think is not as good a fit to what they think is best.
Sure, it's a double-edged sword.
On balance, I think there are probably more benefits to society of having people think twice about what they post.
The land of the free (speech)...
I would bar him for being fucking thick.
Fuck me that country is a goner
British arms companies complicit in genocide probably are.
People in the west tend to think China is much more harsh than its reality is
When you break it down, both parties have said the same words, it's just one is taken less seriously than the other, who should decide what is too offensive and what isn't.
A few years ago there were words you could say very publicly and no one would bat an eye lid, you say these words now, your job is gone for a start, and there could be further action.
There are so many examples of one rule for one and one rule another.
If we really simplify it, comedians will joke about racism, ableism, rape, religion, etc. It's just a joke, no one cares, and the people that do are told it's just a joke.
On the flipside an ordinary person could make the same jokes as a comedian in a public space, or a powerful person (think Trumps gestures, or Sean Stricklands comments) and they'll face repercussions. Most people in this country would lose their job if they said something out of line, whereas there are others who can get away with it.
There's a ton of selective outrage over the freedom of speech, and who can and can't say what.
You either have a society of free-will and the repercussions are at worst, a disagreement, or, you have it so there are rules and everyone must follow them.
I am purely playing devil's advocate here. I have seen the failure of the UK justice system, working within it, and as a victim of crime.