Freedom of Speech

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, nottingram said:

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.

A lot of people online, myself included, read that as the University believes in an individuals right to free speech whilst distancing themselves from it - and therefore no further action is necessary.  We'll see whether she is still employed in the near future I guess. 

 

4 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

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?!

I have always been consistent in pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy.  Social Media rules aren't applied the same across the political spectrum.  I don't care what peoples politics or beliefs are, we're either allowed to discuss them freely without fear of repercussion or we're not - and the more you limit one side of the conversation the further the Overton window drifts away from the centre and the more radical the conversations become. 

 

[Reggie Greenwood]

3 hours 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;

 

“Caputured by the left “ ?

[nottingram]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

A lot of people online, myself included, read that as the University believes in an individuals right to free speech whilst distancing themselves from it - and therefore no further action is necessary.  We'll see whether she is still employed in the near future I guess. 

 

I have always been consistent in pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy.  Social Media rules aren't applied the same across the political spectrum.  I don't care what peoples politics or beliefs are, we're either allowed to discuss them freely without fear of repercussion or we're not - and the more you limit one side of the conversation the further the Overton window drifts away from the centre and the more radical the conversations become. 

 

Yes I had a feeling it was a political point you were trying to make but didn’t want to assume.

Despite your warning this thread could turn political, you seem the only one making any political points, repeatedly. Can’t say I have much interest in engaging in that so shall leave you to it.

[cstand]

If you want any info on free speech I follow these on FB interesting feed IMO.

https://freespeechunion.org

They have won a few cases for people who have been unfairly dismissed by the cancel culture within our society.

Edited September 9, 2022 by cstand

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Social Media rules aren't applied the same across the political spectrum.  I don't care what peoples politics or beliefs are, we're either allowed to discuss them freely without fear of repercussion or we're not

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, as you seem obsessed with the idea that there is some sort of global conspiracy to silence right wing views. There really isn't. It's just culture war nonsense that keeps dragging you in. 

 

Quote

the more you limit one side of the conversation the further the Overton window drifts away from the centre and the more radical the conversations become. 

This doesn't make any sense. You're saying that people should be allowed to discuss their views no matter how radical (ie you literally want to allow conversations to be as radical as we like) because if you don't allow that then the conversations will become too radical?! Erm

 

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, nottingram said:

Yes I had a feeling it was a political point you were trying to make but didn’t want to assume.

Despite your warning this thread could turn political, you seem the only one making any political points, repeatedly. Can’t say I have much interest in engaging in that so shall leave you to it.

I'm not trying to make political points, just arguing that free speech and politics are intertwined - if one side can speak freely and the other side has to self censor or be censored, there is no such thing as free speech. 

Furthermore, when I mention 'politics' I am not just purely talking about politics, but the wider range of topics that are 'discussed' on social media; race, gender, guns, climate, vaccine, etc - stuff thats widely become known as identity politics, which are allied so closely to distinct political parties they are virtually indistinguishable. 

Currently, the social media global square today is owned almost exclusively by large left-wing corporations.  People can laugh at 'captured by the left' but Google, Twitter, Facebook and their employees donate overwhelmingly (90%+) to the Democrats.  Inherent bias has crept into social media and their political bias is not really a talking point anymore, more an observable reality. 

Whilst the argument is valid that if you sign up to their terms of service you know rules you have to play by, the option to sign up elsewhere and have a fraction of the same global reach does not exist.  Therefore, you either bite your tongue and play the game for as long as you can, or you go unheard.

So imho free speech and politics are virtually indistinguishable at this current moment in time, especially online.  If you can think of a somewhat contentious topic that hasn't been co-opted by identity politics in the recent past, that in turn wasn't allied to one of the main political parties, I'd be surprised.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Currently, the social media global square today is owned almost exclusively by large left-wing corporations.  People can laugh at 'captured by the left' but Google, Twitter, Facebook and their employees donate overwhelmingly (90%+) to the Democrats

LOL - that famous party of the extreme left - the US Democrats? 

If you genuinely thing that any large corporations are "left-wing" you are on another planet. They are all extreme global capitalists. They care about share price and nothing else

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

the option to sign up elsewhere and have a fraction of the same global reach does not exist

Why do you think it is that the platforms that allow extreme views to be heard have no global reach? It's because the vast majority of people have no interest in reading horrible extremist views. Why would you sign up for that? These platforms are the natural evolution of free speech - you get the right to say what you want but you don't get the right to have anyone listen or care

 

 

[dog]

Anya's comments are deliberately situated in two fields, one of academia (I'm a professor, look at me) the other of individual voice (see how I can be polemic). It's a case of having cake and eating it as I doubt that anyone would have been aware of her individual voice if it weren't for her academic position.

Thus without her previous positioning of herself as an academic she'd have gathered little attention. As such it would be disingenuous for her university to disassociate from her, her voice is built on a plinth partially constructed by them.

 

[GboroRam]

I thought freedom of speech was about the government not telling you what you can or can't say? Twitter, Facebook and dcfcfans.uk are not the government, so crying "you're restricting my freedom of speech" is wrong. 

[dog]

Free speech itself brings with it consequences, as someone mentioned earlier. That would also include an awareness of others' perceptions 

The awareness of this used to bring with it a degree of self censorship, and we have a number of metaphors linked with going too far in speech, such as 'going too far'(!), 'beyond the pale' etc. All of which suggest an understanding of when something is becoming unacceptable.

Some current rhetoric doesn't quite do this and if you look at word usage the phrase 'saying it how it is ' is increasingly used to excuse comments that would once have seen phrases suggestive of going beyond being used.

 

 

[PistoldPete]

4 hours ago, therealhantsram said:

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.

You cannot say a whole load of stuff if it is racist, homophobic etc. And yes people do not have the right to say any old rubbish and expect not to suffer consequences like getting banned from forums or sacked from your job.   

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

LOL - that famous party of the extreme left - the US Democrats? 

If you genuinely thing that any large corporations are "left-wing" you are on another planet. They are all extreme global capitalists. They care about share price and nothing else

Why do you think it is that the platforms that allow extreme views to be heard have no global reach? It's because the vast majority of people have no interest in reading horrible extremist views. Why would you sign up for that? These platforms are the natural evolution of free speech - you get the right to say what you want but you don't get the right to have anyone listen or care

This is going to be my last comment re. social media politics as its now become just politics. 

Biden and the Democrats have swung to the left according to The Hill (media bias fact check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/) and The Guardian;

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/547475-whats-really-behind-joe-bidens-far-left-swing/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/05/joe-biden-left-president-radical-domestic-plans-west-wing

And their far-left policies are out of touch with regular Americans;

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/597987-new-polling-confirms-democrats-left-leaning-policies-are-out-of-touch/

If you don't think that Social Media companies are biased towards the left I don't really know what to tell you... Just look at the majority of those that have been banned and the 'accepted' views of some of those that remain.  The Google meltdown after Trump won the 2016 election.  Zuckerbergs $400 interference in the 2020 election.  The entire media rounding on Trump (in some cases literally just making stuff up) whilst ignoring actual provable Biden controversies. 

The recent Twitter employee meltdown at the prospect of Elon Musk buying it tells you everything you need to know about who works there...

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/twitter-elon-musk-lawyer-crying-b2066310.html

As @GboroRam mentioned earlier, 'I thought freedom of speech was about the government not telling you what you can or can't say? Twitter, Facebook and dcfcfans.uk are not the government, so crying "you're restricting my freedom of speech" is wrong.' 

The Twitter meltdown was quite telling.

Edited September 9, 2022 by maxjam

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, as you seem obsessed with the idea that there is some sort of global conspiracy to silence right wing views. There really isn't. It's just culture war nonsense that keeps dragging you in. 

I've said enough re. the politics of social media now...

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

This doesn't make any sense. You're saying that people should be allowed to discuss their views no matter how radical (ie you literally want to allow conversations to be as radical as we like) because if you don't allow that then the conversations will become too radical?! Erm

Okay, lets take a fairly benign example - flat earthers, not the best analogy, but it will do.  

Their wacky ideas clearly flout Twitters misinformation policy and should be removed, but a quick search shows several flat earth society accounts.  We could kick them off social media but they would just congregate elsewhere, become increasingly 'radicalized' with no one to offer them evidence to the contrary.

Alternatively, we could allow them to remain on Twitter and counter their weak arguments with better arguments.  We might bring a few of them back into the mainstream and perhaps deter others from being seduced by crackpot ideas. This also has the counter benefit of keeping real scientists honest.  Rather than allowing them to flounce round 'trusting the science' and smearing anyone that disagrees, they have to show their workings and produce evidence to prove their argument.

The vast majority of people will study the evidence and agree that the Earth is round whilst a minority will continue to believe its flat and the argument inevitably dies down.  We remain tolerant flat earthers in the hope that one day they will see the error of their ways.  What we don't allow however is the fringe minority to both live in their reality and impose it upon the rest of us.

Now apply that analogy to for example the number of increasingly bizarre genders and pronouns argument. 

Then think about who has already been fired or silenced for misgendering or refusing to use pronouns they disagree with, and who will receive similar punishment in the future.  I'm guessing its once again only one side of a certain persuasion that I'm no longer talking about that will fall foul of any such measures ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/25/bbc-staff-told-150-genders-diversity-training-sessions/

 

[CBRammette]

6 hours 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.

Previously mates would have met more to discuss stuff in person rather than communicating with strangers online (the irony of typing this but proves the point!), therefore seeing  the reactions by people they liked to what was said and if people obviously offended could rein it in. Also nothing was in writing. Now people communicate in an echo chamber often under a pseudonym with people they dont seem to care about offending or their enjoyment comes from offending or baiting but importantly there is written evidence. If you wouldnt be comfortable of something you type going viral dont type it. Advice given to my boys on first getting smartphones and reminded often! 

 

 

[therealhantsram]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

You cannot say a whole load of stuff if it is racist, homophobic etc. 

That's just not true. People can and do say that kind of stuff all the time. 

What you can't do however is discriminate based on race or sexual orientation.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

That's just not true. People can and do say that kind of stuff all the time. 

What you can't do however is discriminate based on race or sexual orientation.

It's a no-no if their actions and/or words are intended to incite racial (or religious) hatred, although Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 is somewhat woolly.

[therealhantsram]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

It's a no-no if their actions and/or words are intended to incite racial (or religious) hatred, although Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 is somewhat woolly.

Fair enough.

[Rev]

I'm sick of all these politicians and the media who support them, swinging to the left and putting more money in the working man's pocket.

Said no one, ever.

[Stive Pesley]

4 hours ago, maxjam said:

I've said enough re. the politics of social media now...

Thank god. I'm not going to engage with transphobic rubbish either, and that's definitely a banned subject so please stop

 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

There is a french proverb which roughly translates as

someone's liberty stops where someonelse 's start

It ought to apply to freedom of speech too