Freedom of Speech

[Day]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

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.

Politics is up there for sure, but there is a wide spectrum now where the freedom of speech conversations take place including the use of pronouns, gender issues, racism and even the monarchy.

Basically anything that can be divisive and in a world where so many appear to be obsessed by followers, likes, retweets, views for some kind of internet fame, views that are being expressed are becoming more extreme for the attention and exposure they give. 

Take TikTok for example, we’re breeding a generation which is creating “challenges” to go viral, one of which has killed 2 young lads in recent weeks, appears to be no accountability, just stick stuff online for it to bang, clout, ratio or whatever it is these days.

Kids strangling themselves, eating washing up tablets, I mean what a world this is becoming. 

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, Anon said:

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"?

Many employers do take the view that an employee showing a total lack of respect or judgement on a public forum risk bringing that employer into disrepute. And they are probably right.   

[Day]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Freedom of speech is not absolute. 

Then it’s not real freedom is it?

If I opened an all you can eat Chinese, but then limited everyone to one plate only and no refills, it’s not really an all you can eat is it.

[Anon]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Many employers do take the view that an employee showing a total lack of respect or judgement on a public forum risk bringing that employer into disrepute. And they are probably right.   

Big Brother is always watching. I can maybe see the argument about being more careful on a public forum, but we're also seeing people cancelled for leaked messages from private conversations.

[maxjam]

20 minutes ago, David said:

Politics is up there for sure, but there is a wide spectrum now where the freedom of speech conversations take place including the use of pronouns, gender issues, racism and even the monarchy.

Basically anything that can be divisive and in a world where so many appear to be obsessed by followers, likes, retweets, views for some kind of internet fame, views that are being expressed are becoming more extreme for the attention and exposure they give. 

Take TikTok for example, we’re breeding a generation which is creating “challenges” to go viral, one of which has killed 2 young lads in recent weeks, appears to be no accountability, just stick stuff online for it to bang, clout, ratio or whatever it is these days.

Kids strangling themselves, eating washing up tablets, I mean what a world this is becoming. 

I'd agree with a lot of that but I think we're rapidly reaching the point at which politics and identity politics (which is closely allied to politics) starts to infect everything. 

Never mind pronouns, gender issues, racism etc computer games, movies, tv shows, sport etc have all become targets for activists that like to enforce their ideology on the world - backed up by social media companies that bent the knee to the noisy minority a long time a go.  You go along with it for a quiet life, but dare to voice an alternative opinion, regardless of how moderate, you face an avalanche of hate.

Whilst I agree that you know what you are getting yourself into when you sign up to the terms of service the alternatives are tiny by comparison and routinely denigrated as fringe or far-right.  Even if they were 100% legit and everyone was nice and polite to each other we would still be creating two distinct cultures that would rather silence and remove you from society than listen to and argue against what you say.  

Edited September 9, 2022 by maxjam

[Leeds Ram]

If the question is about the internet and you can go to another site I think there's a big problem with that logic tbh. The public square that gives people the right (although constitutionally in this country there is no defined right of speech such as in the US) is transferring increasingly to an 'online square'. The power that big tech companies such as twitter, facebook, tiktok etc. have to lock people out if they 'violate terms of service' is disturbing. If you turn off the ability of people to speak to others in the public square, even if you're not prosecuted do you truly have freedom of speech? the conception of speech David proposes is i would suggest very 'thin' when we need a 'thicker' more 'fuller' definition to actually create equality of speech rights. Timothy Garton Ash in his books notes this issue and theoretical concerns previously to the internet about the nakedness of the public square also can fit in to this narrative.

Whilst this is David's site, if you're a derby county fan far away and you get banned from this site where else does someone have to go to communicate about the rams? People may have the freedom to talk about the rams but if you're speaking into a silenced void what is the point. The solution to me is not obvious; public ownership unless heavily regulated and restricted would be a no go. Breaking up tech firms might appear to be the best route forward but that would be a long drawn out complicated process that could create similar issues in the long run.  It is a problem without an easy solution. 

What i do know is that freedom of speech is not disconnected but intrinsically connected to other rights and fights against social norms. Classical texts such as On Liberty did not look upon speech as distinctive but interwoven into a broader fight against restrictions upon our rights to choose experiments in living. Simply stipulating there are 'terms and conditions' undermines the very essence of those traditional arguments, that were not based in empty legalism but a fuller cultural conception of rights and experimentation.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[ScubaRam]

37 minutes ago, maxjam said:

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.

I personally don't see it as a left/right issue. The right are certainly more vocal when it comes to having their freedom of speech denied, but as we seen with the Joe Lycett on the BBC - The Daily Mail are then the first to engage in cancel culture themselves. 

We've got ourselves in a position where vocal grumps can't accept critism nor a differing view, and then start bashing their keyboards in protest. Sadly its more than social media - although its certainly given a platform to many who previously didn't have one. Even my old man struggles to get his head around how a Brexit supporting Tory has produced a Environment loving lefty. I can't mention anything political to him without him getting enraged. Its sad really and I just stay clear of those conversations now. 

A lot of people just like getting mad over things that they don't need to be, but I think news channels, radio stations and social media is all geared up to doing just that. 

[Cisse]

49 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

White bloody polar bears I bet. 

You got me there. 

[Stive Pesley]

34 minutes ago, Anon said:

Big Brother is always watching. I can maybe see the argument about being more careful on a public forum, but we're also seeing people cancelled for leaked messages from private conversations.

Thing is, you're talking largely about people working in the media - where image is everything. If you live by the sword and all that..

I think pretty much all standard employment contracts in the UK will have clauses about not bringing your employer's name into disrepute, so media figures, employed by media companies should be well aware of how easily they can breach that clause

That said - leaking messages from private chats to try and destroy people is plain evil - but once the info is in the public domain, the employer probably doesn't have much choice but to act on it

 

[Stive Pesley]

45 minutes ago, David said:

Take TikTok for example, we’re breeding a generation which is creating “challenges” to go viral, one of which has killed 2 young lads in recent weeks, appears to be no accountability, just stick stuff online for it to bang, clout, ratio or whatever it is these days.

Kids strangling themselves, eating washing up tablets, I mean what a world this is becoming. 

TikTok is horrendous, have you sat and looked at it for any length of time? Pure drivel - yet compulsively addictive for kids. And there is growing evidence that it's affecting children's attention spans as they struggle want to engage with anything that isn't over in a matter of seconds (ladies insert your own joke here)

 

[Day]

Just now, Stive Pesley said:

TikTok is horrendous, have you sat and looked at it for any length of time? Pure drivel - yet compulsively addictive for kids. And there is growing evidence that it's affecting children's attention spans as they struggle want to engage with anything that isn't over in a matter of seconds (ladies insert your own joke here)

 

I haven’t. Never signed up or opened it. I’m not a parent so haven’t had to deal with the difficulties of my child’s mates all being on there, but I would do everything in my power to block usage of that app. 

[nottingram]

1 hour 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?

Ultimately, perception is everything. I don’t necessarily think that’s right and I don’t even necessarily think what he’s said is that awful (just quite strange). But his Twitter account is intrinsically linked to his employer, most football fans will know that is who he works for and so will automatically make the link, and so if his employer doesn’t feel it’s in line with their values (even if those values only amount to getting adverts and listeners) they can get rid of him. 

He has the right to say what he wants, his employer has the right to understand why especially if they feel it will affect their reputation, and take any action accordingly. 

I assume at some point you feel there is a line somewhere? The obvious difficulty is where that line is. I certainly don’t think it’s easy and I don’t think it’s something that has been gotten quite right yet. I’m just making the point that there are consequences to most things, I don’t think that’s overly controversial. 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

Dangerous topic as it could easily boil over into politics...

 

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

They are all situated in places like California and have been captured by the left

As predicted

[Day]

1 minute ago, nottingram said:

I don’t necessarily think that’s right and I don’t even necessarily think what he’s said is that awful (just quite strange).

For what it’s worth I agree with this. Found it weird and instantly knew this would cost him his job, rightly or wrongly.

When you are a convicted racist, you would think he would stop to consider what he was putting out there, especially as a public figure that uses your platform to encourage engagement for extra listeners.

I also don’t agree with the mob mentality mentioning TalkSport threatening to never listen again if he’s sacked, targeting someone’s employer is now a common tactic and “these views are my own” in your bio doesn’t really save you. 

Report the tweet, unfollow and move on if it’s something you believe should not be allowed, let the platform decide if that’s the content they want on their platform.

[maxjam]

11 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Ultimately, perception is everything. I don’t necessarily think that’s right and I don’t even necessarily think what he’s said is that awful (just quite strange). But his Twitter account is intrinsically linked to his employer, most football fans will know that is who he works for and so will automatically make the link, and so if his employer doesn’t feel it’s in line with their values (even if those values only amount to getting adverts and listeners) they can get rid of him. 

He has the right to say what he wants, his employer has the right to understand why especially if they feel it will affect their reputation, and take any action accordingly. 

I assume at some point you feel there is a line somewhere? The obvious difficulty is where that line is. I certainly don’t think it’s easy and I don’t think it’s something that has been gotten quite right yet. I’m just making the point that there are consequences to most things, I don’t think that’s overly controversial. 

Did you see the tweets from Professor Uju Anya yesterday.  Some of the most vile and hate filled comments I've seen in a long time which have since been removed by twitter - 'I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating'

Given what other Universities have censored and sacked people for, this sets a new high watermark for those of a particular leaning.  If Trevor Sinclair worked there, he'd probably have got a promotion with his tweet ? 

[FindernRam]

I think you need to turn this on its head. The problem with freedom of speech is more the reaction of the listener.

There appears to be an assumption that every person has a right not to be offended by anything at anytime. As being offended is not an offense in law, there is no such right!

"resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult" is the dictionary definition. Well, loads of things annoy me and I can perceive lots of things as insults if I choose to do so. 

I imagine most of us have extreme dislikes of one sort or another, but in general you let it go. However that's from a perspective of advanced age. Youngsters have no such perspective and an impatience that borders on fanatical. Peer group pressure also plays its part.

When I was a student, the union was always calling for strikes over some issue or other. In those days fortunately nobody took a blind bit of notice. "Just students with too much time on their hands. They'll soon stop when they get a job!"

Nowadays, lily-livered companies bow down at the slightest hint of protest. They need to get a spine (being gender neutral!) and face it down.

[nottingram]

9 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Did you see the tweets from Professor Uju Anya yesterday.  Some of the most vile and hate filled comments I've seen in a long time which have since been removed by twitter - 'I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating'

Given what other Universities have censored and sacked people for, this sets a new high watermark for those of a particular leaning.  If Trevor Sinclair worked there, he'd probably have got a promotion with his tweet ? 

Yes I did see them. Clearly not acceptable especially in that moment and as you would expect the replies were full of backlash, Twitter have removed the tweet and her university have distanced themselves from the comments and I would imagine are having some conversations about her position as we speak. 

Not quite sure what your point is.

[therealhantsram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Freedom of speech is not absolute. 

Freedom of speech is absolute. 

The thing is, people confuse freedom of speech with an entitlement to be published. 

You can say whatever you want to whoever you want. You can stand on The Spot with a megaphone and shout out your views. 

That's fine. But you have no entitlement to have you speeches published by anyone. You never have had, and it hasn't changed in the Internet age.

[Stive Pesley]

10 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Not quite sure what your point is

I don't think he is either!

One minute he's saying it's bad that people are cancelled for speaking their brains and then in this post he seems to be applauding her being cancelled?!

[therealhantsram]

22 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

I think you need to turn this on its head. The problem with freedom of speech is more the reaction of the listener.

There appears to be an assumption that every person has a right not to be offended by anything at anytime. As being offended is not an offense in law, there is no such right!

"resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult" is the dictionary definition. Well, loads of things annoy me and I can perceive lots of things as insults if I choose to do so. 

I imagine most of us have extreme dislikes of one sort or another, but in general you let it go. However that's from a perspective of advanced age. Youngsters have no such perspective and an impatience that borders on fanatical. Peer group pressure also plays its part.

When I was a student, the union was always calling for strikes over some issue or other. In those days fortunately nobody took a blind bit of notice. "Just students with too much time on their hands. They'll soon stop when they get a job!"

Nowadays, lily-livered companies bow down at the slightest hint of protest. They need to get a spine (being gender neutral!) and face it down.

This is the idea of public shaming. The internet mob can get big powerful corporations to act differently through public shaming.

If you are interested in this phenomena Jon Ronson has a really good podcast about it. So You've Been Publicly Shamed. I listened to it on the BBC Sounds app. It may be on other podcast platform too.