Day Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 If you invited me into your house, and I was being offensive or disrespectful you would have the right to ask me to leave. It’s your house. Or your wedding, I stand on a table, strip naked and start abusing the guests whilst doing the helicopter, you would have the right to ask me to leave. It’s your event. Trevor Sinclair, the convicted racist made a tweet last night on a privately owned platform, Twitter. If Twitter decide that has crossed a line in their guidelines, they have the right to remove him. It’s incredible to see the numbers on there supporting him shouting freedom of speech, like it gives you a free pass to say and do what you like. Freedom of speech does not give you freedom of consequences. It’s a privately owned platform, if they insist you start every tweet with the word pink or you will be removed, those are the rules, don’t like it? Don’t use it. Maybe this should have gone in the what angers me topic, however having seen freedom of speech mentioned on this forum a few times recently, I’m genuinely interested in why some believe they are entitled to freedom without consequences on any privately owned platform? therealhantsram, Ewe Ram, TigerTedd and 13 others 8 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 Dangerous topic as it could easily boil over into politics... Freedom of speech has never given you freedom of consequence. You can't run into a crowded theatre and shout 'FIRE!' and you can't incite violence or law breaking etc. The problem we have at the moment is that Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc own the public space and buy out or put pressure on hosting services to remove the opposition from their platforms. They are all situated in places like California and have been captured by the left - we can easily see that by looking at who and what conversations are allowed on their platforms and who and what conversations aren't. Ideologies that should be open for debate are often dominated by one side, with dissenting voices treated harshly. Alternative platforms such as GETTR have recently started to gain a (small) foothold but as 'free speech' on traditional platforms is increasingly restricted, all they are doing is creating two distinct cultures that view the other side as extreme - which is leading to the breakdown of society. Personally, I'm for letting everyone speak and judging them on the content of their arguments. Keeping it relevant; Anon and Wolfie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenBr Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 Its because they don't actually understand what freedom of speech means. A lot of people even think they are not allowed to be criticised for some of the reprehensible views they espouse and will shout "freedom of speech" as if they think it gives them a free pass to say and do whatever they want without consequence. therealhantsram, I know nothing and Tamworthram 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted September 9, 2022 Author Share Posted September 9, 2022 4 minutes ago, maxjam said: Dangerous topic as it could easily boil over into politics... Which is funny as when we allowed political topics, they contained the most reported posts as members looked to have others freedom of speech removed. Absolutely no reason why this topic should become political really, I mean it has as much to do with politics as it has say veganism. Tamworthram, Eddie and I know nothing 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 46 minutes ago, David said: Freedom of speech does not give you freedom of consequences. This is it all it actually boils down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 36 minutes ago, David said: If you invited me into your house, and I was being offensive or disrespectful you would have the right to ask me to leave. It’s your house. Or your wedding, I stand on a table, strip naked and start abusing the guests whilst doing the helicopter, you would have the right to ask me to leave. It’s your event. Trevor Sinclair, the convicted racist made a tweet last night on a privately owned platform, Twitter. If Twitter decide that has crossed a line in their guidelines, they have the right to remove him. It’s incredible to see the numbers on there supporting him shouting freedom of speech, like it gives you a free pass to say and do what you like. Freedom of speech does not give you freedom of consequences. It’s a privately owned platform, if they insist you start every tweet with the word pink or you will be removed, those are the rules, don’t like it? Don’t use it. Maybe this should have gone in the what angers me topic, however having seen freedom of speech mentioned on this forum a few times recently, I’m genuinely interested in why some believe they are entitled to freedom of consequences on any privately owned platform? As you may know I am a strong advocate of free speech but there are limits and personal abuse is just not acceptable and cannot be justified in the pretext of "free speech". I don't know much about Trevor Sinclair but I did see a random clip of Talksport on him assessing Wayne Rooney, and Sinclair said Rooney wasn't doing well as derby were bottom of the Championship. He had to be told that Derby had had 21 points deducted. Which doesn't say much for Sinclair's knowledge about his supposed specialist subject as a (former?) football pundit. His tweet yesterday also shows similar lack of knowledge as well as lack of class or judgement. Whether he crossed the line as far as twitter is concerned I don't know but I cannot see any responsible media group continuing to employ him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 Twitter and most the internet age is just full of the offended and the offensive. It's like the real world doesn't exist sometimes. I don't know about everyone's right to free speech. I think people should just exercise the right not to be a Bamford. How hard is it, after the Queen dies, to accept some people might be bothered and if your not then why not just, you know, not be a Bamford? Is people being upset really bothering you? Really? Internet age. It's vile. Everyone thinks they're so important and crusading for something. Everyone is the star of their own little show. Imagine a society the judges itself on 'likes'. Anyone seen Black Mirror where the people review each other. Everyone can see your rating and you rate people you meet. I love that one. Freedom to not be a Bamford. That's the greatest freedom going to waste. Hashtag that. Trend that. The racist horrible t*** GB SPORTS, FlyBritishMidland, Cisse and 2 others 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, maxjam said: Dangerous topic as it could easily boil over into politics... Freedom of speech has never given you freedom of consequence. You can't run into a crowded theatre and shout 'FIRE!' and you can't incite violence or law breaking etc. The problem we have at the moment is that Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc own the public space and buy out or put pressure on hosting services to remove the opposition from their platforms. They are all situated in places like California and have been captured by the left - we can easily see that by looking at who and what conversations are allowed on their platforms and who and what conversations aren't. Ideologies that should be open for debate are often dominated by one side, with dissenting voices treated harshly. Alternative platforms such as GETTR have recently started to gain a (small) foothold but as 'free speech' on traditional platforms is increasingly restricted, all they are doing is creating two distinct cultures that view the other side as extreme - which is leading to the breakdown of society. Personally, I'm for letting everyone speak and judging them on the content of their arguments. Keeping it relevant; Good point, without freedom of speech, minor celebrity Laurence Fox wouldn't have been able to publicly moan about south Asians been cast in a first world war film, then subsequently learn about how loads of south Asians did actually fight (and die) in said war. Hopefully Trev will now come to learn that the queen didn't really enable racism to thrive over her reign, in the same way how she was wasn't really responsible for the positive things that have happened during her reign either. Isn't the world view of the huge social media channels really just unregulated capitialism, that thrives of conflict and controversary to generate yet more money? They must hate having to remove offensive posts as it will reduce engagement. Edited September 9, 2022 by ariotofmyown Sorry, removed the political content. Damn woke vegans! Stive Pesley 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 17 minutes ago, maxjam said: Dangerous topic as it could easily boil over into politics... Freedom of speech has never given you freedom of consequence. You can't run into a crowded theatre and shout 'FIRE!' and you can't incite violence or law breaking etc. The problem we have at the moment is that Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc own the public space and buy out or put pressure on hosting services to remove the opposition from their platforms. They are all situated in places like California and have been captured by the left - we can easily see that by looking at who and what conversations are allowed on their platforms and who and what conversations aren't. Ideologies that should be open for debate are often dominated by one side, with dissenting voices treated harshly. Alternative platforms such as GETTR have recently started to gain a (small) foothold but as 'free speech' on traditional platforms is increasingly restricted, all they are doing is creating two distinct cultures that view the other side as extreme - which is leading to the breakdown of society. Personally, I'm for letting everyone speak and judging them on the content of their arguments. Keeping it relevant; But on the subject of Trevor Sinclair, what does “cancelling” him actually mean? Is it Talksport no longer having him on their channel? Surely that is their right if he has said something that doesn’t align with their values? If I tweeted something abhorrent and my account was linked to my workplace in some way have I been cancelled if I am hauled into a disciplinary first thing on Monday morning? No obviously not, I’ve said something ridiculous and faced the consequences Its why I don’t quite understand complaints about “cancel culture”. If cancel culture is people facing the consequences of their actions then what is the problem? I don’t think anyone is saying he doesn’t have the right to an opinion. Course he does, everyone does. But if that opinion is problematic in some way then his employers have the right to get rid of him as well. It works both ways. Day, therealhantsram and Wolfie 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted September 9, 2022 Author Share Posted September 9, 2022 5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: As you may know I am a strong advocate of free speech but there are limits and personal abuse is just not acceptable and cannot be justified in the pretext of "free speech". This is the issue, you say you are a strong advocate yet even have your own lines where if crossed that freedom is stripped. When you multiply that by the millions on a platform such as twitter, those lines are all over the place and why one minute you will see someone shout freedom of speech and the next day cancel them the next. There should be no lines at all for pure freedom of speech, none whatsoever, the only place that freedom of speech truly exists is in your own home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 51 minutes ago, David said: If you invited me into your house, and I was being offensive or disrespectful you would have the right to ask me to leave. It’s your house. Or your wedding, I stand on a table, strip naked and start abusing the guests whilst doing the helicopter, you would have the right to ask me to leave. It’s your event. Trevor Sinclair, the convicted racist made a tweet last night on a privately owned platform, Twitter. If Twitter decide that has crossed a line in their guidelines, they have the right to remove him. It’s incredible to see the numbers on there supporting him shouting freedom of speech, like it gives you a free pass to say and do what you like. Freedom of speech does not give you freedom of consequences. It’s a privately owned platform, if they insist you start every tweet with the word pink or you will be removed, those are the rules, don’t like it? Don’t use it. Maybe this should have gone in the what angers me topic, however having seen freedom of speech mentioned on this forum a few times recently, I’m genuinely interested in why some believe they are entitled to freedom without consequences on any privately owned platform? It's good to hear the forum owner say it, as I've said broadly the same thing multiple times across the dozens of threads that have gone down this road. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but if you express it online, on a privately owned platform with rules, then you have to abide by the rules and accept the consequences if you break them. No point whining about the platforms being "captured by the left" etc because their rules don't suit your opinions. Find a different platform ariotofmyown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 6 minutes ago, nottingram said: But on the subject of Trevor Sinclair, what does “cancelling” him actually mean? Is it Talksport no longer having him on their channel? Surely that is their right if he has said something that doesn’t align with their values? If I tweeted something abhorrent and my account was linked to my workplace in some way have I been cancelled if I am hauled into a disciplinary first thing on Monday morning? No obviously not, I’ve said something ridiculous and faced the consequences Its why I don’t quite understand complaints about “cancel culture”. If cancel culture is people facing the consequences of their actions then what is the problem? I don’t think anyone is saying he doesn’t have the right to an opinion. Course he does, everyone does. But if that opinion is problematic in some way then his employers have the right to get rid of him as well. It works both ways. Can you explain to me how Trevor Sinclair's views on the Queen (however stupid they may be) effect his job, which is talking about football? Archied 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 41 minutes ago, David said: Which is funny as when we allowed political topics, they contained the most reported posts as members looked to have others freedom of speech removed. Absolutely no reason why this topic should become political really, I mean it has as much to do with politics as it has say veganism. This thread doesn't have to get political but freedom of speech is highly political. Virtually every major talking point these days highlights and exacerbates the division between the left and the right. Social media companies routinely take the (far) left stance leaving those on the right treading on eggshells. For every left-wing commentator that gets banned there are probably 10x as many on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 I've had a hard time for a long time with the current climate of people expressing their views on internet and otherwise too. When people disagree on some topic or opinion there seems to be two ways to go these days. Either they call the other party morons or something else or they try to get the opinion removed from the platform it is in. No real sense of trying to hold a conversation. How in the heck can it be so hard for grown up people to understand that there are different opinions and sometimes people might be even wrong for whatever reason? There seems to be a big lack of respect for other people at the moment. Same people that insist being tolerant for this and that will smash others on other subjects. For example this Trevor Sinclair thing. Is his timing really, really bad? Yes. Do I agree with him? No. Do I have the slightest idea what he has gone through as a black man? No. Does all black people agree with him? Probably not. But it is his opinion based on what he has been through. The best thing would be to have a discussion on the matter after appropriate time. However what will now happen is he will become a spit bucket for lot of people for a long time and perhaps removed from tv so that tv doesn't lose any money. Why are people so ready to attack verbally on anyone so fast these days at the same time they insist that they are pro freedom of a speech? Feel free to disagree with me or you can even trash me for having this opinion but keep it in mind that I'm just a simple Finn from the woods living in constant threat being eaten by polar bears. ariotofmyown and ramit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 28 minutes ago, Anon said: Can you explain to me how Trevor Sinclair's views on the Queen (however stupid they may be) effect his job, which is talking about football? He is poo at that too. Anon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 23 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said: It's good to hear the forum owner say it, as I've said broadly the same thing multiple times across the dozens of threads that have gone down this road. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but if you express it online, on a privately owned platform with rules, then you have to abide by the rules and accept the consequences if you break them. No point whining about the platforms being "captured by the left" etc because their rules don't suit your opinions. Find a different platform In an ideal world I'd agree, but the public space is owned by left-wing corporations. An example would be Parler (twitter alternative) being kicked from the internet for a period of time due to accusations that it helped promote the January 6th 'insurrection' in the US. Following investigations however it was determined that the majority of the planning took place on Facebook and Parler had actually handed information from their platform to the FBI prior to Jan 6th. There are numerous examples... another being the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax that has now been determined to have been started by Hilary Clinton in an attempt at undermining Trump whereas the information on the Hunter Biden laptop was actively suppressed. I'm not trying to veer off into the world of politics, but the social media platforms are highly political and massively biased ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted September 9, 2022 Author Share Posted September 9, 2022 22 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said: It's good to hear the forum owner say it, as I've said broadly the same thing multiple times across the dozens of threads that have gone down this road. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, but if you express it online, on a privately owned platform with rules, then you have to abide by the rules and accept the consequences if you break them. No point whining about the platforms being "captured by the left" etc because their rules don't suit your opinions. Find a different platform This wasn’t really about this forum, more social media where these freedom of speech arguments are almost a daily topic of discussion now. Always said though that forums are like pubs, one pub doesn’t suit all, some prefer the real ale, IPA, old man ambiance with beard combs in the toilets. Others prefer a pint of lager and bag of pork scratchings with the football on and a game of pool. You find one to suit your individual tastes. This is not China, I have not taken control of your internet and blocked other forums, you are all here by your own choice. Derby Mad, COYR’s, Popside, Vital Derby all there and some of those even allow your politic discussions. Same applies to social media platforms, Twitter is popular yet it’s not the only option, others are available now that offer free speech, although I saw on Reddit the other day, posts are starting to be removed on Donald Trumps Truth Social. I have little sympathy for those that click agree to the terms of use and then cry freedom of speech. Alph and Stive Pesley 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 6 minutes ago, Cisse said: Feel free to disagree with me or you can even trash me for having this opinion but keep it in mind that I'm just a simple Finn from the woods living in constant threat being eaten by polar bears. White bloody polar bears I bet. Cisse, Stive Pesley, Eddie and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 37 minutes ago, David said: This is the issue, you say you are a strong advocate yet even have your own lines where if crossed that freedom is stripped. When you multiply that by the millions on a platform such as twitter, those lines are all over the place and why one minute you will see someone shout freedom of speech and the next day cancel them the next. There should be no lines at all for pure freedom of speech, none whatsoever, the only place that freedom of speech truly exists is in your own home. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 Just now, PistoldPete said: He is poo at that too. I agree. The point I'm getting at though is that his employer is seeking to "make contact" with him regarding views expressed in his own time that were not expressed on their platform. Why? Is everyone here really comfortable with the idea that it is any of your employers business what you say and do in your own free time so long as you don't break the law? Why on earth should talkSPORT even feel the need to have to specify that they don't "support those views expressed"? Alph 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts