Freedom Speech

[Ky Le Don]

After many minutes of research into some of your opinions i have found a perfect concoction to the current perception.

 

 

[Strokes]

What if the government had said you couldn’t talk about Aaron banks and the Russia links, or Cambridge analytica? Still ok?

[Captain...]

Free speech is the freedom to have an opinion/viewpoint without persecution.

 

What should not be covered by freedom of speech is passing off lies as facts and trying to convert people to your point of view with falsehoods.

[LiberalFox]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What if the government had said you couldn’t talk about Aaron banks and the Russia links, or Cambridge analytica? Still ok?

That's the thing isn't it?

 

I've got no problem if the government says it is taking steps to stop the spread of damaging conspiracy theories or dangerous ideologies like far right extremism or islamic extremism so long as the steps it wishes to take are clearly conveyed and then voted into law by members of parliament etc

 

If the government was to try the same for the things you listed that would be far more controversial. But people completely forget we've actually had that sort of thing in most people's living memory (section 28) and that was eventually defeated by repealing it. I'm a Liberal, but this modern fashion of promoting absolute right of freedom of speech as the panacea to extremism is flawed.   

[Innovindil]

20 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What if the government had said you couldn’t talk about Aaron banks and the Russia links, or Cambridge analytica? Still ok?

What if the government had said you couldn't talk about hamburgers, or lcfc? Still ok?

 

Of course flipping not. 

 

There's a line and that line should be one that draws a general consensus. Talking about killing jews? Not okay. Talking about jaffa cakes? Okay. Talking about spreading false information about vaccinations? Not okay.

 

Like I said, if something is banned from MAJOR social media sites, it needs to be explained why to a sufficient point that it is then acceptable, if it can't be, then it shouldn't be banned.

[LiberalFox]

Another angle is that we still need to open up the economic model we have so that more people have the path at least in theory to create their own variants of social media (and other business entities). Rather than demanding the government forces large businesses to subscribe to some kind of political neutrality agreement, we could have a society where a handful of tech giants aren't exerting such control over the creative space of the internet.

[peach0000]

We don't have true freedom of speech in the United Kingdom and never have. There is nothing wrong in my opinion in controlling certain kinds of speech such as hate speech or threatening language but anything beyond that should be accepted otherwise it can become a very slippery slope towards tyranny. 

 

I also believe that companies such as Facebook and Twitter should not be removing things that are controversial as by being a public place of discussion they should also accept their responsibility to allowing freedom of speech. I'll probably get in trouble for writing this but the same for me should apply to FoxesTalk, people with controversial opinions should not be banned or have posts removed, although I'm aware they do.

 

Just my opinion and I know others will disagree.  

[leicsmac]

Difficult topic.

 

Idealistically people should be free to believe and talk about that belief as they wish - and given the capacity for Internet access these days it's hardly difficult to have and maintain your own platform for doing so without having to violate the terms of use while using a platform supplied by another. However practically words do have power and it's rather easy for words of violence to become acts of violence.

 

As such, freedom of speech has to come with freedom to take the consequences of that speech - because words don't exist in some kind of vacuum entirely separate from deeds.

[ithuriel]

.

 

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, Innovindil said:

What if the government had said you couldn't talk about hamburgers, or lcfc? Still ok?

 

Of course flipping not. 

 

There's a line and that line should be one that draws a general consensus. Talking about killing jews? Not okay. Talking about jaffa cakes? Okay. Talking about spreading false information about vaccinations? Not okay.

 

Like I said, if something is banned from MAJOR social media sites, it needs to be explained why to a sufficient point that it is then acceptable, if it can't be, then it shouldn't be banned.

But the line is decided with people up to no good, they can easily misuse it. 
Just like gagging orders and super injunction, it’s a murky path.

[Dahnsouff]

7 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Freedom of speech to me means you aren't restricted by the threat of state imprisonment or sanction for expressing your opinions.

 

It doesn't mean youtube or facebook or wherever is legally bound to allow whatever content you upload to be hosted on their site. 

 

What people are actually debating isn't freedom of speech in the classic sense, but that entities like youtube or facebook effectively become gatekeepers of what is socially acceptable.

 

Of course 20 years or so ago, ordinary members of society had far fewer available means to publish opinions to a wide audience, so I'd argue that even for those with "extreme" views

 

it has never been easier to share your opinions with others. 

Good post, but the bit boldI take slight exception with.
 

Whilst this is undoubtedly true, it is the use of the word opinion that raises an eyebrow, as I am not convinced people always share these so called opinions because they believe them, but because it may cause shock, perceived respect, or they believe it allows them membership to a group they currently aspire to belong too.

[Voll Blau]

8 hours ago, Webbo said:

You've heard these holocaust deniers, you've not been convinced.

No, but I must admit I was on the fence for a while. I mean, there must be something to it if people are posting about it on the internet, right? 

[st albans fox]

a good illustration of how people who are clearly intelligent can become influenced by the power of the internet ..... I’m sure that this becomes a bigger problem as time passes 

 

too much Information available for those who are too receptive too claptrap - it’s not just the idiots who are taken in ......
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52674949

[Webbo]

33 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

No, but I must admit I was on the fence for a while. I mean, there must be something to it if people are posting about it on the internet, right? 

I'm sorry, I don't get your point? 

[Voll Blau]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm sorry, I don't get your point? 

My point is that people can and do assume that because something is on the internet, there must be something to it - hence the real global problem of fake news and disinformation.

 

An internet football forum should not be facilitating that.

 

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

My point is that people can and do assume that because something is on the internet, there must be something to it - hence the real global problem of fake news and disinformation.

 

An internet football forum should not be facilitating that.

 

 

I don't think that something is true because its on the internet, quite the reverse. Obviously you don't either. What percentage of people think the holocaust was hoaxed? Pretty low I'd guess. 

 

If people do think that, I'd rather they said so openly so I can challenge them. Don't let them say I know the truth but I'm not allowed to say it and give them another grievance to fester on. 

[Finnaldo]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm sorry, I don't get your point? 

It may not have been Voll’s point, but as St Albans pointed out above, conspiracies and hateful, inciteful or otherwise subversive content are often packaged and delivered online in a way that makes them much less detectable and believable than they would be otherwise, whether that’s an information barrage via bots and targeting or spread of fake articles or memes, they’ve been proved to take in who would otherwise be considered intelligent otherwise. 
 

It’s not the madman raving on a street corner or YouTube video anymore, it’s specially tailored and targeted content created by malevolent, well-funded interest groups or in some cases other nation states in attempt to destabilise. As such it shouldn’t be treated as the idiot spreading nonsense, rather counter-propaganda and a security issue.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

It may not have been Voll’s point, but as St Albans pointed out above, conspiracies and hateful, inciteful or otherwise subversive content are often packaged and delivered online in a way that makes them much less detectable and believable than they would be otherwise, whether that’s an information barrage via bots and targeting or spread of fake articles or memes, they’ve been proved to take in who would otherwise be considered intelligent otherwise. 
 

It’s not the madman raving on a street corner or YouTube video anymore, it’s specially tailored and targeted content created by malevolent, well-funded interest groups or in some cases other nation states in attempt to destabilise. As such it shouldn’t be treated as the idiot spreading nonsense, rather counter-propaganda and a security issue.

One person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth. 150 years ago if you'd have campaigned for gay rights, votes for women, home rule for Ireland everyone would have thought you were a dangerous loon. You cannot stop people from campaigning for what they believe just because you don't agree with their cause. 

[Voll Blau]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't think that something is true because its on the internet, quite the reverse. Obviously you don't either. What percentage of people think the holocaust was hoaxed? Pretty low I'd guess. 

 

If people do think that, I'd rather they said so openly so I can challenge them. Don't let them say I know the truth but I'm not allowed to say it and give them another grievance to fester on. 

 

But the point is that it does cause harm, no matter how few believe something. In the example of Holocaust denial, it fuels anti-Semitism among those dumb enough to believe it. Anti-vax theories cost lives because people act on it by refusing legitimate treatment.

 

You've got people doing dense shit like this because of the, again, provably nonsense theories about 5G:

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nhs-nightingale-phone-mast-arson-attack-5g-conspiracy-a4414351.html

 

Is that really a price worth paying just so the conspiracy nuts don't feel aggrieved when they aren't allowed to publicise their poisonous - and (I can't stress this enough) provably incorrect - theories to a wider audience?

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

One person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth. 150 years ago if you'd have campaigned for gay rights, votes for women, home rule for Ireland everyone would have thought you were a dangerous loon. You cannot stop people from campaigning for what they believe just because you don't agree with their cause. 

whilst most reasonable people will agree with your sentiment, the world doesn’t work like that. I wish it did but it doesn’t ..... there are some baddies and weirdos out there ....... and a lot of impressionable people ......and once these susceptible personalities take the stuff in, reasoned debate rarely works .........

 

and the causes you mentioned aren’t good illustrations imo .........

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

 

 

and the causes you mentioned aren’t good illustrations imo .........

Why not? 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

But the point is that it does cause harm, no matter how few believe something. In the example of Holocaust denial, it fuels anti-Semitism among those dumb enough to believe it. Anti-vax theories cost lives because people act on it by refusing legitimate treatment.

 

You've got people doing dense shit like this because of the, again, provably nonsense theories about 5G:

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nhs-nightingale-phone-mast-arson-attack-5g-conspiracy-a4414351.html

 

Is that really a price worth paying just so the conspiracy nuts don't feel aggrieved when they aren't allowed to publicise their poisonous - and (I can't stress this enough) provably incorrect - theories to a wider audience?

 

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

One person's conspiracy theory is another person's truth. 150 years ago if you'd have campaigned for gay rights, votes for women, home rule for Ireland everyone would have thought you were a dangerous loon. You cannot stop people from campaigning for what they believe just because you don't agree with their cause. 

Voll has is right - as above spoken viewpoints don't exist in a vacuum and people can and often do act upon them.

 

Is it always a case of waiting until that happens before addressing the matter?

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

But the point is that it does cause harm, no matter how few believe something. In the example of Holocaust denial, it fuels anti-Semitism among those dumb enough to believe it. Anti-vax theories cost lives because people act on it by refusing legitimate treatment.

 

You've got people doing dense shit like this because of the, again, provably nonsense theories about 5G:

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nhs-nightingale-phone-mast-arson-attack-5g-conspiracy-a4414351.html

 

Is that really a price worth paying just so the conspiracy nuts don't feel aggrieved when they aren't allowed to publicise their poisonous - and (I can't stress this enough) provably incorrect - theories to a wider audience?

You can quote as many examples as you like. We're talking about principles here not specifics. 

 

Sometimes these conspiracy nuts are right. Smoking causes cancer? Feeding cattle ground up sheep carcasses gives you brain disease? Giving thalidomide to pregnant mothers causes defects? 

 

All dismissed at the time, now we pretend we knew all along. 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Voll has is right - as above spoken viewpoints don't exist in a vacuum and people can and often do act upon them.

 

Is it always a case of waiting until that happens before addressing the matter?

Which viewpoints do you hold that you think should be censored? 

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You can quote as many examples as you like. We're talking about principles here not specifics. 

 

Sometimes these conspiracy nuts are right. Smoking causes cancer? Feeding cattle ground up sheep carcasses gives you brain disease? Giving thalidomide to pregnant mothers causes defects? 

 

All dismissed at the time, now we pretend we knew all along. 

These are better ........