So lots on the media about a Man in Lanarkshire being charged over a Tweet following the Death of Sir Tom Moore. Now I saw a tasteless one along the “only good Brit is a dead one” (FFS! ) lines which is tasteless needless and frankly a stupid thing to post about a chap who realistically was a normal fellow who did something extraordinary. I though a more unpleasant thing than I can type here about that post tbh. (I’m not going down the funding the NHS line here).
But should we really be charging people over tweets, or teaching their dog a salute? It’s all fine while the majority make the rules but we start to clamp down on a comment or post now it opens the door to this being abused.
Am I being an eejit here?
It's in law as a hate crime, so I suppose they had to charge, similarly if someone made a similar statement about Irish Catholics, Asians, or any other group.
It has to be a good thing, surely? Anything that addresses racism or hate, homophobia whatever.
The dog saluting idiot was charged and convicted of posting a grossly offensive racist and anti-Semitic communication, that would seem like a proper use of the law.
I though a more unpleasant thing than I can type here about that post tbh.
But probably a very important point was that you didn't state it out loud (or write it on the internets) for potentially thousands of people to read.
I suppose No Beer, that’s a fair point. I just worry if we stop people saying things we don’t like they continue to be said but behind closed doors and we just get this cancel culture not an opportunity to debate and counter you know?
It seems we’re losing the ability to actually talk or argue about things sometimes abhorrent ones, as people get “triggered” or require protection. I’ve been abused for being different to everyone else (Joys of being very Irish in England as a kid when bastards were blowing up bombs in the 80’s -90’s) a fair bit it’s awful, but I think it’s as much society’s job to make things inappropriate not only the law.
@kilo, yes and it was awful he said it was a joke, I didn’t think it was funny.
But if you ride a wave of populism and this is acceptable an opinion becomes an offence can’t that be spun to any result?
I’m happy to be wrong here, just airing a thought really.
Yeah Monk, I agree me replying with “you’re a #### mate” wouldn’t have been appropriate either. I just ignored and moved on you know?
I suppose No Beer, that’s a fair point. I just worry if we stop people saying things we don’t like they continue to be said but behind closed doors and we just get this cancel culture not an opportunity to debate and counter you know?
Aye, debate is fine, but I don't think that idiot is up for debate! 🙂
Difficult to say without knowing the content of the tweet, but yes generally on principal I think taking criminal action against a tweet is harsh.
Last time I checked being an arsehole wasn't actually illegal. If it was we would need a lot more gaols.
Inciting violence or hatred is different.
That doesn't mean "free speech" should be consequence free either. If you say something that offends loads of people then you could face action from the platforms you used for the comments or action from employers who no longer wish to be associated with you. But for the vast majority of cases where its just simple "offense" rather than incitement then I'd say no we shouldn't be criminalising tweets.
@nobeer True, I just thought it’s more our job to put him down than the law you know?
Like I said I can’t make my mind up really. Can’t help but feel for Moore’s family though last thing you need when you’re grieving is more external things. 🙁
we just get this cancel culture not an opportunity to debate and counter you know?
Taking dog-moron as an example, he had the opportunity to debate it with several layers of the Scottish judicial system and lost the debate.
You seem to conflate cancel culture with the law preventing people from making grossly offensive and/or racist statements.
Cancel culture = the right being told they can’t do what they like without repercussions.
Sometimesthe law has to lead the way when alligned with the vast majority.
Yeah maybe Kilo,I suppose you’re right if it had been a homophobic or racist comment I’d think nothing about it being picked up.
I really agree with Richmtb above, I think it’s very well put.
It’s in law as a hate crime, so I suppose they had to charge, similarly if someone made a similar statement about Irish Catholics, Asians, or any other group.
lol in theory yeah. But let's be honest, BoZo has staked his minimal credibility on the idea of individual heroes rather than concerted government effort, so if you say something unpleasant about one of said heroes, you're going dooowwwwnnnn. I've no doubt he and that vile human being(?) Priti Patel personally flagged this as "something has to be done".
nicko, tbh I'm coming from a Scots point of view on this, and the rules up here. I agree with you, your gonna get roasted for anti-Brit stuff, when the other groups I mention have had to put up with it for years, but we have to start somewhere.
One on FB that I saw was a picture of a walking frame with a notice on it, 'For sale, only done 100 laps of a garden'.
The comments were pretty spiteful toward whoever had posted it. I must be behind the times, as I was quite amused by it.
It boggles my mind that people don't understand freedom of speech as we understood it from the enlightenment:
"I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Anything else infantilises all of us.
It's infantile to think that "free speech" should be absolute.
It has to intersect with our laws intended to protect people from hate crimes.
The story in the OP doesn't say what the person actually Tweeted, so it's difficult for us to reach a considered opinion on whether that individual should have been prosecuted.
But in general, yes, people should be prosecuted if they use Twitter to say things which break the law.
And it's not got much to do with the dubious notion of "cancel culture" either, FWIW.
It’s infantile to think that “free speech” should be absolute.
Exactly this.
Kind of amazing that people are still defending the idea of completely unfettered free speech after it was just used to incite a riot against the Capital in the US.
But for the vast majority of cases where its just simple “offense” rather than incitement then I’d say no we shouldn’t be criminalising tweets.
Easy to say when you're not, for instance, a black woman in the public sphere - who receive unbelievable amounts of vile abuse on twitter if they say anything even vaguely 'controversial', leading to them shutting down their accounts.
Non anonymous accounts would go a long way to helping the likes of that Grum IMO.
Agreed
That doesn’t mean “free speech” should be consequence free either. If you say something that offends loads of people then you could face action from the platforms you used for the comments or action from employers who no longer wish to be associated with you
The problem with offence is that it is variable. I could say something here an half the people might be offended and the other half not and I don't there is anything I could say that would genouinely offend everyone and even if I did so what? I get offended alot by alot of things and people but I've always assumed that's my problem and ignore them and crack on. Different people have different thresholds, and some people deliberately use offence as a tactic to close down debate and people expressing themselves. Protecting people from offence shouldn't be a consideration regarding free speech. If people say things to offend that just makes them dicks and the majority of people just ignore them and that takes the attention away from them and they soon shut up as mostly its about attention seeking. But clearly the line is drawn when it comes to hate speech and incitement to commit violence.
We need to be very careful about giving anyone or any government powers to curtail freedom of speech. It's all fine when everyone agrees but its only a matter of time before things get stretched to the limits of their intention and that is where it can get dangerous. Best to just not go there.
If you can't risk offending people then you cannot have free speech. The only way to achieve open free and robust debate is to potentially offend people. How could you have an open debate about something like religion without potentially offending people. It's impossible.
Protecting people from offence shouldn’t be a consideration regarding free speech.
Do you count hate speech as "offence"? What about death threats? Rape threats?
Would you just ignore it if you were subjected to any of them? Or your wife/husband/partner? How about your kids?
Personally I'm quite glad that we've generally moved away from the "it's only the internet" attitude that was common about a decade ago.
what a ****ing stupid thing to say 🤣“I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Protecting people from offence shouldn’t be a consideration regarding free speech.
As above though, it's easy to say that as an able-bodied, middle-aged, middle-class white man (not saying that's necessarily you but it's surely the majority on here) - we have very little to get victimised over because we are the mainstream of society too.
It seems we’re losing the ability to actually talk or argue about things sometimes abhorrent ones, as people get “triggered” or require protection.
Are we though?
I'm not really sure there is such a thing as "Cancel Culture" there's just more immediate and vociferous backlash (online) when someone publicly outs themselves as a bit of a prick.
And the freedom to spout inherently means there's a freedom for other's to challenge, question or simply call you a prick in response...
People can generally still say some pretty offensive, bigoted things online and in public, without attracting the attention of the law. They're more likely to fall foul of the platform owner's rules. Plus the right to tweet, isn't the same thing as freedom of speech, it's just access to a commercial organisation's platform...
Kind of amazing that people are still defending the idea of completely unfettered free speech after it was just used to incite a riot against the Capital in the US.
I suppose the line is drawn (legally) when there's actual incitement. An attempt to call others to commit actions which cross the line of legality and/or are based on outright hatred of a specific group is pretty much where "freedom of speech" should be subject to challenge, voicing your own opinions and feeling, no matter haw stupid/bigoted doesn't necessarily cross that line if it lacks the clear intent to recruit others...
TBH the more you crack down on every infraction of "good taste" rather than just the extreme cases the more you drive those on the fringes towards less mainstream channels (who knows where all the Parler mob will turn up next)...
At least when you allow them to dwell in their little hateful social meeja bubbles on mainstream platforms you can keep an eye on them...
Free speech is the right to say what you like about those in power (subject to giving no legal offence) without fear of retaliation.
No one has to give you a platform for your speech (you are welcome to supply your own).
You may not offend against the law e.g shouting "Fire" in a theatre, referring to any race in a pejorative way.
Most importantly no one is compelled to listen to my or anyone else's blether.
"Cancel culture" is the whine from those twhom no one wants to listen too who are not self aware enough to realise this.
The problem with offence is that it is variable. I could say something here an half the people might be offended and the other half not and I don’t there is anything I could say that would genouinely offend everyone and even if I did so what?
Hmmm, no really, If I call someone a spastic, it might not offend the guy sitting next to him, but I'm pretty sure it's offensive. You don't need to offend everyone.
Apols for use of that word, but I feel it's relevant.
People DO have freedom of speech, to say what they want, and it's right and proper that we all do. What we're talking about here is freedom from consequence, and that ain't right.
Most things nowadays generate a meme or tweet that will offend someone. Some of the stuff I get whatsapped in the name of humour is quite unsavoury which must offend anyone sane.
Did this tweet break some unspoken 'national treasure' law?
wobbliscott
Full Member
That doesn’t mean “free speech” should be consequence free either. If you say something that offends loads of people then you could face action from the platforms you used for the comments or action from employers who no longer wish to be associated with youThe problem with offence is that it is variable. I could say something here an half the people might be offended and the other half not and I don’t there is anything I could say that would genouinely offend everyone and even if I did so what? I get offended alot by alot of things and people but I’ve always assumed that’s my problem and ignore them and crack on. Different people have different thresholds, and some people deliberately use offence as a tactic to close down debate and people expressing themselves. Protecting people from offence shouldn’t be a consideration regarding free speech. If people say things to offend that just makes them dicks and the majority of people just ignore them and that takes the attention away from them and they soon shut up as mostly its about attention seeking. But clearly the line is drawn when it comes to hate speech and incitement to commit violence.
We need to be very careful about giving anyone or any government powers to curtail freedom of speech. It’s all fine when everyone agrees but its only a matter of time before things get stretched to the limits of their intention and that is where it can get dangerous. Best to just not go there.
If you can’t risk offending people then you cannot have free speech. The only way to achieve open free and robust debate is to potentially offend people. How could you have an open debate about something like religion without potentially offending people. It’s impossible.
In offended by your blatant disregard for basic grammar and proofreading.
Do you count hate speech as “offence”? What about death threats? Rape threats?
Would you just ignore it if you were subjected to any of them? Or your wife/husband/partner? How about your kids?
Personally I’m quite glad that we’ve generally moved away from the “it’s only the internet” attitude that was common about a decade ago.
I'm firmly in this camp. Freedom of speech is a right but it brings with it responsibilities to not incite hatred or break the law, or to be intentionally offensive.
Hard to say without knowing what was in the original tweet.....
Given that Katie Hopkins could suggest machine gunning drowning migrants and get away with it, it must have either been outrageous or we have some double standards going on....
Do you count hate speech as “offence”? What about death threats? Rape threats?
Would you just ignore it if you were subjected to any of them? Or your wife/husband/partner? How about your kids?
Personally I’m quite glad that we’ve generally moved away from the “it’s only the internet” attitude that was common about a decade ago.
Well the examples you give are specific offences aren't they?
Not really someone voicing an opinion, more promising to commit a crime if they don't get their way. So not actually the same thing.
So yes if someone threatens to murder or rape my loved ones I would report that, if they just called me a bit of a lefty dickhead (or variations on that theme) TBH I wouldn't...
Someone voicing their opinion that a stranger's death is a "good thing" is grossly offensive, but arguably falls within the bounds of "free speech" as they are simply stating their opinion (nobody knows exactly what this tweet said TBH). Without promising a criminal action or calling for others to commit one they're not quite crossing the line of incitement...
As pointed out such people can be ignored and/or shouted down for being offensive.
Offending others isn't a crime, it just, well, offensive. and such things can be dealt with proportionately...
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions and even that basic premise of - I don’t agree with you but I’ll defend your right to say it. We are indeed in interesting times.
Where do you stand on bullying Loughan? Racist/sexist/homophobic abuse?
Should be fine if we believe in freedom of speech as an absolute.
The argument about driving things underground, I'm not sure if I buy that. By having thing like thedonald sub on Reddit (not any more) it gives it some level of legitimacy. I'm not sure how many relatively normal people will end up on Parler or some darknet far right site or whatever.
I think the concept that there is a 'marketplace of ideas' where the good ideas will win out is utterly naive and provably wrong. Unfortunately people are highly susceptible to emotional arguments especially based on othering an out group etc, and seemingly reinforced by all your peers via social media bubbles. I don't know what the answer is but 'free speech' clearly isn't it.
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions and even that basic premise of – I don’t agree with you but I’ll defend your right to say it. We are indeed in interesting times.
I think you've misread the room. I don't think anyone is denying a right to free speech, or to make a dick of yourself. But people tend to draw the line at threatening peopke or celebrating someone's death on the basis of age, colour, religion, gender, nationality etc
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
I think you need to go and read the UN charter on human rights which imposes caveats on the right to freedom of expression, in that you cannot use a right to undermine other rights. So you cannot use your right to free speech to enable you to discriminate against others. It is also the case in ECHR that freedom of expression is subject to conditions. in fact could you show any legislation, from anywhere that permits unfettered free speech?
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
I’m amazed you think that it doesn’t come with conditions.
Genuinely don't know the answer to this, but
could you show any legislation, from anywhere that permits unfettered free speech?
Parliamentary Privilege?
I'm pretty sure Parliament would not allow racist, misogynist or any other type of hate speech to be allowed. What it does enable is for members to discuss sensitive matters without the fear of legal repercussions.
Would be interesting to see it play out if hate speech was used in Parliament, every day it feels like we're edging closer to one of the muppets in power testing this through their own idiocy.
Blimey
https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/szEQlFBF/freedom-of-speech
You can’t be sued (for example, for defamation) or prosecuted for anything you say in the Chamber, Westminster Hall or a committee of the House. This allows you to speak up on behalf of constituents, express an opinion, or condemn corruption, malpractice or even criminal activity without fear of legal action, as long as you do so in proceedings of the House. This protection extends to written proceedings: for example, written and oral questions, motions, early day motions, and amendments tabled to bills and motions.
I suspect it'd be a career ender normally, but in these strange times probably promotion to Home Secretary.
Parliamentary Privilege?
Not quite as referring to the Rt. Hon Member for Uxbridge and S. Ruislip as a lying festering **** in the chamber is not permitted.
One has to choose ones insult carefully in the House.
Good spot, the parliamentary standards state that MPs should act in accordance with the law including discrimination laws so there may be some sanctions there. Any constitutional law experts on stw?
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
Everything in life has caveats and conditions. It it how a society lives and behaves.
Am I free to do and say what I want, of course not.
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
It's not conditional - it's more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I'm amazed that anyone would think it shouldn't.
For those wanting restrictions on free speech, go back in history and look at times when restrictions on free speech have been implemented before over thousands of years, and who it was who did it and the ultimate consequences. You'll find yourself in the company of some pretty despicable characters in history. Brutal dictators, murderers, xenophobes, genocidal maniacs, the most despicable people ever produced by the human race. Feree speech may have the potential to offend occasionally but that is a far better thing to manage than the impossibility to manage any sort of restrictions on free speech. So yes freedom of speech has consequences and people should show an element of care and responsibility bt by the same token no topic or subject is free from open debate or challenge. The consequences of anything different are far more dangerous.
So no. No if you value freedom, the power of the people to hold their governments to account, the fight for justice and against tyranny around the globe then be very very careful about your desire to curtail free speech.
The attack on free speech that we're currently seeing has nothing to do with duty of care for people being offended. its a political movement designed to disrupt and derail our way of life and structure of government thinly veiled as a moral endeavour.
True freedom of speech is something that is still quite rare in this world and certainly before about 100 years ago didn't exist on the planet. We shouldn't take it for granted and protect it as an absolute priority.
It’s not conditional – it’s more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I’m amazed that anyone would think it shouldn’t.
^^This^^
In fairness this is the way we've operated as a society for many years. Transgress the bounds of accepted good taste or acceptable opinion and you'll see some degree of backlash either challenge by others in speech and print, protest or yes ultimately challenge in court...
It's simply that the internet has made this whole process quicker and broader. Those who cry "cancel culture" are simply trying to pre-empt the backlash they know their exercising of free speech will inevitably draw.
As for all the "whataboutery" WRT people using their free speech to bully or throw about various forms of bigotry? Well Yes, people can and do, but as said above there are consequences to that choice, people lose their jobs or friends...
Nobody said free speech was perfect, but it's preferable to "over-regulation" or suppression, if you're arguing for more limits on free speech, you are essentially arguing for suppression and playing into the hands of those "cancel culture" claimants...
For those wanting restrictions on free speech blah blah blah....
No-one has advocated for restrictions on free speech.
For those wanting restrictions on free speech
As several people have pointed out, every "right" to free speech in national and international law has caveats on it. It's how society works. In the same way that you (theoretically at least) have to abide by certain standards to have the right to drive a car.
No one is saying free speech should be restricted further, I'm pretty sure no one is unaware of the risks and slippery slope that would lead to.
1. It’s not a new law - it’s been around since 1988 (although it’s scope may have been modernised in 2003 the nature of the offences has not). It’s used dozens of times a year in Scotland for people who send abuse by text, Twitter, Facebook - to the extent that it’s not “news” unless it was linked to a story that was news (like Cap. Tom).
2. The requirement is not just for offence the message must be “grossly offensive or obscene”, it’s the job of the court to determine what that means in the circumstances. Is the job of the prosecutor to bring a prosecution wherever there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest.
3. If the tweet was as per the OP imagine replacing Brit with German, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Politician, policeman, soldier, etc - would that be “worse”? Now imagine a world in which an “anti British” message is permitted within a political landscape dominated by the SNP and you potentially will have claims that the Government are not clamping down on such behaviour.
4. For anyone who believes in unlimited freedom of speech - this has never been the case, we have a common law offence of “Uttering Threats”, I’m not quite sure if this offence would meet the definition but it probably does.
5. Those saying the answer is to remove anonymity from Twitter etc: a) this person was clearly not that anonymous if they were detected and charged; so clearly it doesn’t prevent it. b) there are plenty of people worried about abuse on Twitter who don’t think removing anonymity is a good idea - and I guess if you have anti-government; anti-employer or are in a likely “target group” you might subscribe to that concern.
It’s not conditional – it’s more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I’m amazed that anyone would think it shouldn’t.
As others have said I really don't get why people can't grasp this simple concept. Yes you can say what you want BUT, if that's deemed to have broken the rule of law expect consequences. If someone wants to argue "free speech" should be free from repercussions that's clearly wrong.
On the radio this morning, Trump is apparently going to use the First Amendment (right to free speech) as defence in his Senate trial...
Slight aside - I wonder if this is why people enjoy putting anti-cyclist views out there... because their racist/sexist/homophobic views would get them in trouble, but we're one minority group that's not protected.
The attack on free speech that we’re currently seeing has nothing to do with duty of care for people being offended. its a political movement designed to disrupt and derail our way of life and structure of government thinly veiled as a moral endeavour.
🤔
The attack on free speech that we’re currently seeing has nothing to do with duty of care for people being offended.
Is there one?
Can't say I noticed.
Slight aside – I wonder if this is why people enjoy putting anti-cyclist views out there… because their racist/sexist/homophobic views would get them in trouble, but we’re one minority group that’s not protected.
I think there is definitely an element of this - if you are a divisive clickbait hate merchant then your targets are pretty limited. Cyclists are fair game.
Catch all terms like "migrants" can also be used as a dog whistle.
Yes you can say what you want BUT, if that’s deemed to have broken the rule of law expect consequences
That's precisely not freedom of speech - legal consequences imposed by the government are limitations on speech, with government-sanctioned force behind it. It's not the same as getting banned from Twitter / mocked on social media / ending up losing your job cos your employer thinks you're a liability.
I think there is definitely an element of this – if you are a divisive clickbait hate merchant then your targets are pretty limited. Cyclists are fair game.
I think if you replaced "Brits" with "Cyclists" in the tweet the OP quotes (I don't know if that is the real tweet - I don't follow people who are idiots - so generally don't see this stuff!), and post if from an identifiable account in Scotland you should not be surprised to get a visit from the boys in blue. All the more so, if it was said in response to a high profile news story following a cyclist death, and attracts a large number of views (although I don't believe a post has to be viewed by anyone to make it grossly offensive).
Wobbliscott: Do you really believe that there should be no legal consequences for writing/saying/tweeting that "all [religious group] are vermin and we should all go to [place of worship], barricade the doors shut and then set it on fire. If any of the filthy [religious group] try to climb out of the windows then we'll be waiting to get them as they come out. In fact, John Doe, I know that you're [religious group] and I'm coming for you. I know you live at 123 Acacia Avenue. I'm going to follow you home tomorrow night and kill you and your family as step one of wiping out [religious group]."
It's just speech, I haven't actually *done* anything. Yet. You can't punish me for that, what is this, 1984? Why can't John Doe just have a robust debate with me and if he changes my mind with his well reasoned arguments then I won't set his house on fire or encourage other people to do it.
for the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe any of the above!
think if you replaced “Brits” with “Cyclists” in the tweet the OP quotes (I don’t know if that is the real tweet
It was allegedly something like "the only good Brit soldier is a dead one".
If you replace "Brit" with another nationality I wonder what the response would have been.
Also, I think you've got a minimal chance of getting in trouble if you write something like that about cyclists. You see it often enough on social media with comments along the lines of "should run them all over".
Slight aside – I wonder if this is why people enjoy putting anti-cyclist views out there… because their racist/sexist/homophobic views would get them in trouble, but we’re one minority group that’s not protected.
I've challenged people "joking" about attacking cyclists and asked them to replace "cyclist" with black or Jew. They back down pretty quickly.
Also, I think you’ve got a minimal chance of getting in trouble if you write something like that about cyclists. You see it often enough on social media with comments along the lines of “should run them all over”.
Have you ever reported them to the police and have they had identifiable UK (or preferably Scottish - so we are comparing police forces and prosecutors) posters? Someone will have reported the tweet in the OP to the police, they aren't sitting monitoring twitter. I'm pretty certain that a sensibly worded report with an easily identifiable offender will get a follow up. Now whether that results in charges may depend on many things - e.g. if the knock on the door is met with "I only meant it in jest, surely nobody thought I was serious, I'll delete it right now" that might get a different degree of discretion from "its twitter, I've got a right to free speech" or "they don't even pay road tax, they hold me up adding to pollution" or even "that's not offensive - its funny; you need to get a life. Haven't you got better things to do like arrest criminals". And of course, if someone has previously been warned about their conduct, or has a history of threatening or aggressive behaviour that is also likely to be a factor.
If you've been reporting threats against cyclists and not getting follow up I think you should escalate that to more senior ranks, PCC, MP etc.
I think the best example of why the absoluteness of "freedom of speech" doesn't work, is Alex Jones and his ongoing campaign of torturing the families of murdered children, egged on by a pro gun right wing media. Even the disagreement was weaselly framed in the pathetic "I don't agree with him but defend his right to say it" rather than call him out for the scum that he is. I am sure many of those parents and victims of his abuse would rather have received physical violence rather than the mental torture he profited from.
And lets face it, the most blatant example of cancel culture in the past few years, occurred when a black man knelt during the national anthem.
There's a few people on this thread who would do well read up on what 'freedom of speech' means before leaping to it's attack or defence or otherwise voicing an opinion on it. It is not the freedom to say whatever the hell you want.
The UK falls under the Human Rights Act, which grants "freedom of expression" but crucially this does not trump other laws around hate speech because why would it? The wording states that it “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. As bails eloquently demonstrates, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain why Isis or whatever they're called this week creating a Facebook group called "plans to blow up London" might be problematic.
In the US, freedom of speech (and a few other freedoms) is protected by the First Amendment but this too has exemptions. Incitement, hate speech, obscenity, maybe others? Of course, defining those things can be a little more tricksy.
5. Those saying the answer is to remove anonymity from Twitter etc:
The problem with this concept, aside from some people in protected groups actually needing anonymity, is that other platforms are available. If you enforce ID verification on Twitter then Titter will spring up in an afternoon and those not wanting to divulge their identity will jump ship. We saw exactly this when the trumpers stormed the Whitehouse a couple of weeks back.
Incidentally, is "social meeja" the new "Microsoft Windoze"? I'm not sure what point it's supposed to prove other than to be needlessly condescending, if it's a joke then it's about as funny as genital herpes. Plus, a web forum is a social medium so, y'know, irony and all.
And lets face it, the most blatant example of cancel culture in the past few years, occurred when a black man knelt during the national anthem.
If it were possible here, this older white chap would upvote this (more than once too).
The trend seems to be if someone is saying [outlier group/minority] is doing this [action/boycott], it is usually the person making the noise that is carrying out [action/boycott] and is trying to project.
See also the gammon outcry and petition calling for sacking when a (gay, black) priest suggested the Sir Tom movement was a white nationalist cult. Apparently cancel culture is ok sometimes.
Hmm. So if I was to say the only good Nazi/racist/rapist is a dead one would that fall under hate speech? I mean, if you swap any of those for a religion, gender or race...
Or is that another example of the absurdity of dealing in absolutes?
It's almost as though complicated questions demand complex answers, isn't it.
If nothing else, it's good that we're discussing it.
Hell, if nothing else, it's good that (because of freedom of speech) we can discuss it.
If someone chose to report it, probably yes.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states, in part:(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, they—
(a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
Loughan
Free MemberI am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
I think anyone with half a brain knows it does tbf. "Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right so shout fire in a crowded theatre". Libel, fraud, confidentiality, incitement.
One thing I was thinking about just now in reference to what Wobbliscot said and Bails response.For a more realistic example if there should be no repercussion from "free speech" is the suggest from Wobbliscot that Trump should not be facing the charges hes facing now? After all be basically incited a bunch of people to storm capitol hill
In offended by your blatant disregard for basic grammar and proofreading.
#muttleys**** #pot #kettle 🤣
I am amazed by the number of people on this thread that feel free speech has caveats & conditions
it’s more that it has consequences, like most things in life. I’m amazed that anyone would think it shouldn’t.
there’s a natural law which expresses this, I believe; “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
Hmm. So if I was to say the only good Nazi/racist/rapist is a dead one would that fall under hate speech? I mean, if you swap any of those for a religion, gender or race…
But would you swop any of those ?, they're not really comparable. I mean racist, cannot be compared to religion or gender or race, unless you think someones race is the equivalent of being a nazi or someones sexual orientation is the equivalent of being a rapist.
Maybe some other examples might be more akin.
It's a law that comments on use of grammar will have a basic error within them.
Muphry's law. ^^^^
I found a cure to getting offended on social media, stay the **** off of it!
On a more serious note a mate is currently facing prosecution for a facebook comment he made towards a politician. It wasn't overly horrible in the context of things I've seen on the internet but he is now in serious trouble over it
I couldn't possibly comment on whether the scumbag racist **** of a jobsworth politician deserved it or not but my mate's comment was obviously more harmful than the xenopohbic decisions and neo-nazi groups the victim is involved in
Anyone else seen the 'safe space' South Park episode? I'm surprised you can't already hire someone to filter your social media comments. Or maybe you can