PistoldPete Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 9 minutes ago, GboroRam said: I've never said anything about being happy to shout freedom of speech. If you read up, I was saying that there's not actually anything of the kind. And my "I was just expressing my freedom of speech" comment was very tongue in cheek, surely you can see that. That seems to be what some people are arguing for - my right to say what I want. Your comment is cancelling me! Snowflake! Cancel Culture!! I'm the one who was castigated for saying I don't want the police to ban actual fascists. I want people to organise and bash their heads in. I don't want to live in a country where what's acceptable and what's not is decided by politicians. I want freedom of speech to mean that no public authority, no government, no police force will stop you from saying what you have to say. I can see how that gets difficult with protected characteristics - and I don't know how that sits with me when it comes to saying something racist, mysogenistic, antisemitic and the like - but I don't believe you have the right to say these things online, on TV, in the news, in a theatre venue, in a comedy club, in a newspaper, on a chat show etc. Freedom of speech seems to mean a freedom to say what you want where you want to some people. And then they complain about being "cancelled", which just means the medium of passing that message decided they don't like you saying it, and took away your right to use it. But not just Government your employer should not stop you from saying what you think either. I worked somewhere once where my employment contract said I couldn't criticise any of the Directors. So I could be sacked for breach of contract just for criticising a Director. That seems to me just wrong. Sure there need to be boundaries on what people can say (not just about people with protected characteristics, but being abusive, grossly offensive, bullying and the like). But beyond that no-one should suffer at all just because they say something someone else doesn't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 13 hours ago, uttoxram75 said: No he's not. He probably should be though. He visited Jeffrey Epstein's apartment in New York two years after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Bear in mind he'd been a guest of Epstein and Maxwell before Epstein's conviction. Add the fact that he paid £12m instead of facing his accuser in an American court, I would say it's fair to assume he's a nonce. He should count himself very lucky not to be in prison and should be kept out of the public eye completely before he brings the whole monarchy down. Am I right that the girl in question was 17? I'm honestly not sure because I didn't follow the story closely because it broke when I was living in the US. If that is the case (or even if she was 16) then it would have been legal in the UK and a great many other countries. In fact, it would have been legal in the vast majority of US States, just not Florida So, on the Georgia side of the St. Marys river I can have relations with a 16 year old girl legally. But if go around to the other side which is in Florida and do the same I'm a nonce and a pedophile. I think the guy is a slimy loathsome individual, but that sounds utterly absurd to me. I don't view somebody charged with pedophilia after having sex with a 17 year old in the same way as I do somebody who has sex with a 10 year old. In the same way as I don't judge an 18 year old boy who slept with his willing 17 year girlfriend and is charged with statutory rape in the same way I would a 20 year old who forced a 19 year old to have sex against her will. In the US, both end on the sex offenders register.. GB SPORTS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 27 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: So, on the Georgia side of the St. Marys river I can have relations with a 16 year old girl legally. But if go around to the other side which is in Florida and do the same I'm a nonce and a pedophile. Not if you have £12m you're not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 1 hour ago, PistoldPete said: But not just Government your employer should not stop you from saying what you think either. I worked somewhere once where my employment contract said I couldn't criticise any of the Directors. So I could be sacked for breach of contract just for criticising a Director. That seems to me just wrong. Sure there need to be boundaries on what people can say (not just about people with protected characteristics, but being abusive, grossly offensive, bullying and the like). But beyond that no-one should suffer at all just because they say something someone else doesn't like. I don't actually have a problem with an employer choosing not to employ me based on what I've said publicly. But again, I'd like public opinion to show their actions for what they are, and that company to suffer the consequences. Terminate someone for racist posts? Sure. Let the public know that business x doesn't support racists. Terminate someone for, I dunno, being anti hunting? Petty enough to cause their customers to go elsewhere, maybe. That'd work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yani P Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 On 09/09/2022 at 08:46, GboroRam said: White bloody polar bears I bet. They have black skin though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSD Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 I've seen anti monarchy protesters being arrested on twitter. Now I'm all for freedom of speech but when it's someone's funeral? Come on, such a disgusting lack of class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 1 hour ago, GboroRam said: I don't actually have a problem with an employer choosing not to employ me based on what I've said publicly. But again, I'd like public opinion to show their actions for what they are, and that company to suffer the consequences. Terminate someone for racist posts? Sure. Let the public know that business x doesn't support racists. Terminate someone for, I dunno, being anti hunting? Petty enough to cause their customers to go elsewhere, maybe. That'd work for me. The general principle is not to be oppressive. That is why EU doesn't allow Governments to interfere...so making anti hunting posts illegal would itself be illegal. in EU countries. But EU law doesn't go far enough in preventing oppression (actually I read somewhere that even the EU recognises this and is changing it). It's actually oppressive to sack someone because they have voiced anti hunting opinions. And yes it is oppressive to non platform people. But as I say free speech is not absolute and should not extend to the right to make racist or grossly offensive comments. GB SPORTS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 I mean they shouldn't arrest them. But we should all go to their funerals and do an anti anti protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted September 13, 2022 Author Share Posted September 13, 2022 Think we're entering dodgy ground with this one. Preston season ticket holder banned for life over offensive Queen tweets. I can get on board with your employer not being happy and have grounds to sack, but a season ticket holder banned. Just seems a bit harsh. ariotofmyown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 51 minutes ago, David said: Think we're entering dodgy ground with this one. Preston season ticket holder banned for life over offensive Queen tweets. I can get on board with your employer not being happy and have grounds to sack, but a season ticket holder banned. Just seems a bit harsh. Done him a favour. GboroRam, ariotofmyown, Comrade 86 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 53 minutes ago, nottingram said: Done him a favour. Less of a sanction, more like a public service. Comrade 86 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 Freedom of speech, very much including the freedom to disagree, is an important cornerstone of a healthy society. At the same time, @David is totally right to say Twitter is a private company and make whatever rules it likes, and if you want too use Twitter, you have to stick to its rules. The problem is that Twitter, in many areas, has become the de facto public square, but some views aren't allowed to be expressed. This is why Elon Musk considered buying it, as a healthy future of humanity will depend on the ability to openly discuss rules. But that's not the answer. The problem is that Twitter is part of a centralized Web (sitting on top of a beautiful decentralized Internet) making everything less efficient and designed around adding shareholder value by consumer engagement, especially more clicks, and these are driven by fostering argument and division. I think nowadays Twitter founder Jack Dorsey regrets that decision. He started opening up about it in a series of Tweets in 2019.: maxjam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 3 hours ago, David said: Think we're entering dodgy ground with this one. Preston season ticket holder banned for life over offensive Queen tweets. I can get on board with your employer not being happy and have grounds to sack, but a season ticket holder banned. Just seems a bit harsh. Has it got to the point that we can only discuss our views person to person and not via social media. I can walk into work tomorrow and have discussions with colleagues about royal nonces, merits of the monarchy etc, have someone tell me I'm talking out me arse and I can tell them the same, no harm done. I'm more likely to get stick for us losing at Lincoln than my political views when talking to colleagues, mates etc. Social media is looking more and more like a way of controlling people. George Orwell's thought police....... ramit, sheeponacid, maxjam and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ariotofmyown Posted September 13, 2022 Share Posted September 13, 2022 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/13/britain-free-speech-heckles-prince-andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted September 14, 2022 Share Posted September 14, 2022 14 hours ago, David said: Think we're entering dodgy ground with this one. Preston season ticket holder banned for life over offensive Queen tweets. I can get on board with your employer not being happy and have grounds to sack, but a season ticket holder banned. Just seems a bit harsh. Who was it - Kevin Killbane? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted September 14, 2022 Share Posted September 14, 2022 16 hours ago, David said: Think we're entering dodgy ground with this one. Preston season ticket holder banned for life over offensive Queen tweets. I can get on board with your employer not being happy and have grounds to sack, but a season ticket holder banned. Just seems a bit harsh. Preston can't take the moral high ground when they have Ridsdale working for them. That said by all accounts this guys tweet was worse than Sinclair's. Clubs issue bans for all sorts of things, going on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted September 14, 2022 Share Posted September 14, 2022 3 hours ago, PistoldPete said: Preston can't take the moral high ground when they have Ridsdale working for them. That said by all accounts this guys tweet was worse than Sinclair's. Clubs issue bans for all sorts of things, going on the pitch. A football club is a private place, If they don't want someone who tweets negative things about the ex Queen then they can ban them if they choose, A little excessive with Ridsdale being there tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 I'm sorry sir, but you're social credit score isn't high enough to attend Preston North End football matches. Watching 0-0 draws is a privilege, not a right. Alph, maxjam and ramit 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 Interesting article in the Financial Times about free speech. Anon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted September 15, 2022 Share Posted September 15, 2022 3 hours ago, maxjam said: Interesting article in the Financial Times about free speech. The death of the Queen has certainly been an interesting time for people reflecting on what "free speech" should mean It's like the extremists on both sides have held up the mirror and seen each other Hopefully it will continue to act as a yard stick going forward whenever people want to moan about "cancel culture" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts