Freedom Speech

[joachim1965]

10 hours ago, Webbo said:

You don't think banning someone from saying something makes people suspicious?

Absolutely, it makes the" information " banned all the more credible.

 

[st albans fox]

Just now, joachim1965 said:

Absolutely, it makes the" information " banned all the more credible.

 

which means the ’criminals’ doing it part of a sinister and targeted conspiracy theory campaign are onto a winner ! 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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

None that should be of import because I'm going to attempt to spread them around. Power over other people doesn't interest me.

 

However, the same cannot be said for a lot of other folks who may or may not share those views.

 

Talking about this as if it is just a matter of principle and that thoughts and viewpoints exist solely in a vacuum is not understanding the reality of the situation IMO. As before, totally free speech is something we should aspire to in principle, but practically speaking it does often cause a mess.

 

[joachim1965]

9 hours ago, Captain... said:

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.

That's the point though, to have an opinion/viewpoint without persecution.

Once you start censoring and banning peoples viewpoint/ opinions because you don't agree with it or you believe it to be false then you are taking away that individuals right to freedom of speech. 

[joachim1965]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

which means the ’criminals’ doing it part of a sinister and targeted conspiracy theory campaign are onto a winner ! 

 

Unfortunately, yes.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Absolutely, it makes the" information " banned all the more credible.

 

I'm interested to know how, to use one example, the idea that Covid 19 was bred in a laboratory as a biological weapon is somehow more credible because people espousing the idea are having to seek their own platforms rather than using existing ones? Ditto for anti vaxxer belief, come to that.

 

I'd add climate change ignorance to the list but oddly enough despite the threat it poses that one hasn't been so targeted as yet.

[leicsmac]

Once again: words are free, but they can and do have consequences. Sometimes in blood.

 

If folks think that is a price worth paying, then fair enough.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

None that should be of import because I'm going to attempt to spread them around. Power over other people doesn't interest me.

 

However, the same cannot be said for a lot of other folks who may or may not share those views.

 

Talking about this as if it is just a matter of principle and that thoughts and viewpoints exist solely in a vacuum is not understanding the reality of the situation IMO. As before, totally free speech is something we should aspire to in principle, but practically speaking it does often cause a mess.

 

These 5G phone mast nuts aren't trying to grab power either. They're as sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours. 

 

When you start believing that views you disagree with are dangerous and should be banned you're on the slippery slope to dictatorship. 

[Voll Blau]

7 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. 

But the examples I've given *have* been irrefutably disproved already. And yet the continued broadcast of such theories despite that keeps doing harm to people.

 

Of course the principle of allowing people to say and do what they like is important, but it doesn't trump the right of everyone else to live without fear that their health and safety is being put at risk by a minority of gullible idiots prone to believing dangerous, disproven theories.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

But the examples I've given *have* been irrefutably disproved already. And yet the continued broadcast of such theories despite that keeps doing harm to people.

 

Of course the principle of allowing people to say and do what they like is important, but it doesn't trump the right of everyone else to live without fear that their health and safety is being put at risk by a minority of gullible idiots prone to believing dangerous, disproven theories.

I respect your right to disagree, but I'm going to stop now. I just repeating myself now and I don't want to bore anyone. 

[joachim1965]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm interested to know how, to use one example, the idea that Covid 19 was bred in a laboratory as a biological weapon is somehow more credible because people espousing the idea are having to seek their own platforms rather than using existing ones? Ditto for anti vaxxer belief, come to that.

 

I'd add climate change ignorance to the list but oddly enough despite the threat it poses that one hasn't been so targeted as yet.

The point I am trying to make is that removing these "views" from various mainstream platforms because they are extreme , creates the impression of credibility.

[joachim1965]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

These 5G phone mast nuts aren't trying to grab power either. They're as sincere in their beliefs as you are in yours. 

 

When you start believing that views you disagree with are dangerous and should be banned you're on the slippery slope to dictatorship. 

This.