Freedom of Speech

[BaaLocks]

16 hours 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?

It is an interesting point - compare the outrage to Sinclair with the support seen over the past few days prior to Lineker - he was criticised by a Commons select committee for expressing political views and his woke (I'm joking) legion of followers lept to his defence. They were dealt with very differently, one time it is made clear Sinclair is not entitled to have radical views, Lineker was pretty much exclusively supported for his.

That said Sinclair deserved it, his comments were ill thought through and ill timed. There's always one (sometimes more) who ill judge the moment and write a few words that cost them for years. His choice, his error, his consequences.

To the point on freedom of speech, I can't add more than that freedom of speech does not come without freedom of consequences (I shall use that one more than once). My challenge that I have with people who claim to value it is pretty much always that they do it with the aim of talking 'to' rather than 'with' - it comes as a one sided privilege and some sort of free pass to express views as sacroscant.

I really think so much of the last few years could have been avoided (or better dealt with) if we'd just be a little bit more "live and let live" in our approach to dealing with others.

[Gone]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

It is an interesting point - compare the outrage to Sinclair with the support seen over the past few days prior to Lineker - he was criticised by a Commons select committee for expressing political views and his woke (I'm joking) legion of followers lept to his defence. They were dealt with very differently, one time it is made clear Sinclair is not entitled to have radical views, Lineker was pretty much exclusively supported for his.

That said Sinclair deserved it, his comments were ill thought through and ill timed. There's always one (sometimes more) who ill judge the moment and write a few words that cost them for years. His choice, his error, his consequences.

To the point on freedom of speech, I can't add more than that freedom of speech does not come without freedom of consequences (I shall use that one more than once). My challenge that I have with people who claim to value it is pretty much always that they do it with the aim of talking 'to' rather than 'with' - it comes as a one sided privilege and some sort of free pass to express views as sacroscant.

I really think so much of the last few years could have been avoided (or better dealt with) if we'd just be a little bit more "live and let live" in our approach to dealing with others.

Excellent post

Sinclair is as entitled to his view as much as anyone else, and has to deal with the consequences of putting them on a public forum. However it’s done let’s move on, as you said if we were a little bit more “live and let live” then a lot of the hate would be displaced and we’d stop making mountains out of “just words” generated mole hills. 
 

Edited September 10, 2022 by TexasRam

[PistoldPete]

13 hours ago, maxjam said:

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.

Musk is a good example .. he is someone who randomly called a rescuer a paedo guy  without any foundation of course. Quite how that wasn’t defamation I do not know .

But you cannot expect to have freedoms everywhere you go and make random insults just for the sake of it. Even if it is legal I wouldn’t support someone abusing someone in that way .. eg Rams fans calling Sharp a paedo is unacceptable. I mean it might be a sick joke but I don’t think that’s much of a defence.

[maxjam]

9 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

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

My post had nothing to do with transphobia, it was about freedom of speech and who gets to decide what is allowed - or not.  A point that you have unwittingly just proved ?

On one side of the argument, typically the more left leaning, everything is allowed and indulged.  The other side, more typically conservative in nature, struggle with the more extreme elements or compelled speech. 

I loosely compared the more extreme genders and pronoun usage to flat earthers.  They speak freely on social media and have the freedom to live their lives as they wish.  Eventually over time some of them may return to the accepted norms of society whilst others will continue to using weird and wonderful pronouns - no one is stopping them and the social media sword of damocles is not poised over them waiting to fall.

On the other hand, I might be the dinosaur and in a few years everyone will be using Bug/Frog/whatever pronouns and I will be dragged into the norm - but that can only happen assuming I've chosen my words very carefully, navigated the social media minefield, avoided any compelled speech and have not been kicked off the various platforms. 

But hey what do I know, people keep laughing at me for saying social media has been captured by the left and I'm just imagining that the ban hammer falls more easily on one side than it does the other.  I think I'll end my input here.

[therealhantsram]

30 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Musk is a good example .. he is someone who randomly called a rescuer a paedo guy  without any foundation of course. Quite how that wasn’t defamation I do not know .

That's US law for you. The level of "the bar" for libel and slander is much higher compared to the UK. 

And I think that's one of the challenges we are facing at the moment in a US dominated social media scene - the cultural and legal norms of what is acceptable are different from those generally accepted in the UK.

You can see on this thread the discussion often ends up being couched in a political left vs right argument because that's how the US dominated media is positioning the argument. But I think for us it's much more about traditional UK culture and values vs. US culture and values.

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by therealhantsram

[PistoldPete]

37 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

That's US law for you. The level of "the bar" for libel and slander is much higher compared to the UK. 

And I think that's one of the challenges we are facing at the moment in a US dominated social media scene - the cultural and legal norms of what is acceptable are different from those generally accepted in the UK.

You can see on this thread the discussion often ends up being couched in a political left vs right argument because that's how the US dominated media is positioning the argument. But I think for us it's much more about traditional UK culture and values vs. US culture and values.

 

Yes that’s one of the many problems with Social media .. it’s domiinance by American “culture”. 

[FindernRam]

If you want an example of free speech and consequences, look at the Chippie owner in Muir of Ord (Scotland). She posted a video celebrating the death of the Queen. Her right I suppose. 

A few minutes later a crowd of 150 locals effectively ran her out of town as the police removed her for her own safety. The Chippie was pelted with eggs and ketchup.

Be interesting to see if she has the nerve to return again. Cancel culture by a majority not minority. Democracy in action?

[Ewe Ram]

To me it boils down to one plain thing. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but because of social media, they think everyone else needs to know what that opinion is. We don’t. 
 

years ago we bought newspapers that we roughly knew were politically leaning one way or the other, you bought one or you didn’t, you knew who wrote in those papers. 
now, social media gives everyone a platform and to get to read what you do want, you have to see a load of what you don’t. 

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

To me it boils down to one plain thing. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but because of social media, they think everyone else needs to know what that opinion is. We don’t. 
 

years ago we bought newspapers that we roughly knew were politically leaning one way or the other, you bought one or you didn’t, you knew who wrote in those papers. 
now, social media gives everyone a platform and to get to read what you do want, you have to see a load of what you don’t. 

Yes and twitter is already way too toxic for me to even bother with. If Musk wanted to relax things even further goodness knows what sort of bilge would be on there. 

[Alph]

25 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

If you want an example of free speech and consequences, look at the Chippie owner in Muir of Ord (Scotland). She posted a video celebrating the death of the Queen. Her right I suppose. 

A few minutes later a crowd of 150 locals effectively ran her out of town as the police removed her for her own safety. The Chippie was pelted with eggs and ketchup.

Be interesting to see if she has the nerve to return again. Cancel culture by a majority not minority. Democracy in action?

Just like Sinclair and Kevin Kilbane and all the others that want to defend someone's right to have free speech and opinion.... I wonder if she'll cry that others used their freedoms to go and tell her what they thought. 

The vandalism etc... Not ok. 

But it seems that saying "it's a free country" is something that is said after someone has been a dick. 

It's amazing how often they cry when other tell them they're dick. Free country though innit

[Tamworthram]

30 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

If you want an example of free speech and consequences, look at the Chippie owner in Muir of Ord (Scotland). She posted a video celebrating the death of the Queen. Her right I suppose. 

A few minutes later a crowd of 150 locals effectively ran her out of town as the police removed her for her own safety. The Chippie was pelted with eggs and ketchup.

Be interesting to see if she has the nerve to return again. Cancel culture by a majority not minority. Democracy in action?

A bit of a Gerald Ratner moment in terms of her business maybe.

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

The vandalism etc... Not ok. 

Ketchup and eggs? Guess it depends on if the eggs were hard boiled. Maybe even Scotch Eggs?

Was the ketchup squirted or in glass bottles?

One of thise big jars of pickled eggs could do some serious damage.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Ketchup and eggs? Guess it depends on if the eggs were hard boiled. Maybe even Scotch Eggs?

Was the ketchup squirted or in glass bottles?

One of thise big jars of pickled eggs could do some serious damage.

I said it but I don't really mean it. Just felt like the right thing to say. 

Feck her

[therealhantsram]

3 hours ago, Ewe Ram said:

To me it boils down to one plain thing. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but because of social media, they think everyone else needs to know what that opinion is. We don’t. 

Yes it's this... and a bit more. It's given a voice to people who traditionally did not have a voice. In some cases those are controversial, wierd or dangerous. In other cases they are more legitimate groups under-represented in traditional media.

Much of the "culture wars" at the moment is a battle between those groups who are now finding their voice and those in the traditional media trying to defend their historic position as the arbiters of public opion. The traditional dominant groups feel threatened by a changing society and seeing so much public dialogue that dispupts their world view. It comes down to money in the end. They are fighting so they maintain their power and income streams.

 

[Normanton Lad]

It's not "free speech" on this site if the site owner is paying for it.

I like the meme showing a man on his deathbed saying "I wish I'd spent more time online arguing with strangers".

You are never going to change the political views of others on football sites. If you need to get something off your chest you should go on Twitter if you are left wing or Telegram if you are right wing and bend the ears of people who agree with you. If you are middle of the road then you probably don't feel strongly about politics and you won't feel the need to say anything.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Normanton Lad said:

It's not "free speech" on this site if the site owner is paying for it.

I like the meme showing a man on his deathbed saying "I wish I'd spent more time online arguing with strangers".

You are never going to change the political views of others on football sites. If you need to get something off your chest you should go on Twitter if you are left wing or Telegram if you are right wing and bend the ears of people who agree with you. If you are middle of the road then you probably don't feel strongly about politics and you won't feel the need to say anything.

You do understand the meaning of the phrase “free speech” doesn’t actually mean there is no charge right?

With regard to your final paragraph, there is nothing wrong with getting something off your chest even though you’re not going to change the views of others. As you say, you might just want/need make your point. As for Twitter, I can’t think of a worse place to post your opinions - political or otherwise.

[Archied]

Freedom of speech has fluid boundaries and is hard to pin down if you are a decent person who cares about others ,, this trend to mis information being deleted , banned and who decides what is mis information is the real danger as far as I’m concerned, maybe it will be challenged in the courts in due time the way cases of people losing jobs for speaking a view on issues are starting to appear now with the law protecting peoples rights ,

as for Sinclair I notice the slight change in the wording of his tweet being reported to black and brown people SHOULD NOT mourn the queen as significant and a usual well worn tactic, personally I have no problem with Sinclair tweeting his view and though it’s sad he obviously has some racist views and behaviours I don’t know what his life experiences are to have lead him there 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Archied

[Stive Pesley]

On 10/09/2022 at 08:45, maxjam said:

My post had nothing to do with transphobia, it was about freedom of speech and who gets to decide what is allowed - or not.  A point that you have unwittingly just proved 

How on earth have I proved that unwittingly? I don't make the forum rules. I just reminded you what they are!

The fact that you posted yet another lengthy rant about your perceived view of "cancel culture" unwittingly proves that you aren't being silenced at all.

It strikes me that a lot of the time when people cry about cancel culture it's less about not being able to say what you think and more about being sore that the consensus doesn't agree with you

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

How on earth have I proved that unwittingly? I don't make the forum rules. I just reminded you what they are!

The fact that you posted yet another lengthy rant about your perceived view of "cancel culture" unwittingly proves that you aren't being silenced at all.

It strikes me that a lot of the time when people cry about cancel culture it's less about not being able to say what you think and more about being sore that the consensus doesn't agree with you

How do you determine what a concensus is on an Internet forum?

I'd imagine people are much more inclined to make posts disputing/debating a point than they are to say they agree with a point.

[May Contain Nuts]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'd imagine people are much more inclined to make posts disputing/debating a point than they are to say they agree with a point.

Agreed.