Last year Angelos Sophocleous was sacked as assistant editor from Durham’s University Journal ‘Critique’ and forced to resign as head of the University’s free speech society ‘Humanist Student’ because of a tweet.
The tweet stated "RT [retweet] if women don't have penises", and linked to an article in The Spectator.
Angelos was later reinstated.
He was due to take part in a discussion panel asking "is there a problem with free speech on campus?" at the University of Bristol, but was de-platformed due to fears of violent protests.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-47199156
https://twitter.com/Sofocleous_A/status/1094631188789149696
Meanwhile, in New Zealand, after allegedly receiving ‘four or five’ complaints from members of the public, a media company has removed 60 billboard posters for a women's right group.
The words on the poster read 'Fairness. Consultation. Women’s rights to safety, dignity and privacy'
https://speakupforwomen.nz/womens-rights-campaign-censored/
Does anyone else feel we're on a slippery slope to 1984?
Not me.
You can have free speech....just don't upset anyone
Let's hope the (predicted) global warming melts all these snowflakes. 🙂 Students these days seem so lame and precious. I'm guessing it's all about litigation potential rather than genuine interest in welfare and equality issues.
Guy who makes deliberately inflammatory comments gets dropped from event where he would probably make more deliberately inflammatory comments?
Students these days seem so lame and precious.
It's OK they are taking a lead from the old right wingers who can't cope with anything outside of their 1950's life aspiration 🙂
Here's another one then
Canadian Meghan Murphy was permanently banned from twitter for 'misgendering' Jessica Yaniv.
A quick google of 'Jessica Yaniv' will yield many links. Decide for yourself if your think Yaniv is genuine or not. I'm going with not.
People who cite freedom speech as a defence should probably learn what it actually means first. Freedom of speech means that the government won’t arrest you for saying things. That’s it. That’s literally all it means. Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you an audience, it doesn't guarantee you a platform, it doesn’t guarantee that people will listen it just means that you won’t end up in prison.
That being said “no platforming” is not in my opinion a healthy thing for people, especially at a university, to do. We must be able to hear opposing views; contest and debate them as only then will we understand the people with whom we disagree.
Rights come with responsibilities. Yeah, you've the right to your opinion but don't be a dick about it. If you want to spew infactual crap and stir hatred then maybe a university might not be the best place to do it, and they've the right to say piss off
We must be able to hear opposing views; contest and debate them as only then will we understand the people with whom we disagree.
Pretty much sums it up nicely
I do struggle with people not grasping that social comms providers like Twitter, Facebook, STW etc will (unless leglislation demands otherwise) always make decisions that are in their commercial interests. Including banning people who are more trouble than they're worth.
re: protests - students (and subsequently Universities) were blocking access to debates for pro-apartheid organisations and individuals when I was in my teens in the early 80's - nothing's really changed.
He is a complete muppet from what I've read.
OP, i'm not sure that quoting parts of the article is really much different from just posting the link with no comment (in reference to the earlier linkbot discussions).
It may just be me but i would actually like to understand your reasons for sharing 🙂
OP there can't be any "gender wars", because there are no gender boundaries. We are all gender non-binary.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison
The trans movement encroaching on women's rights is an interesting one. For such a small community they seem to have a very large voice & a lot of financial backing.
OP, i’m not sure that quoting parts of the article is really much different from just posting the link with no comment (in reference to the earlier linkbot discussions).
It may just be me but i would actually like to understand your reasons for sharing
My reasons for sharing are that both of these things happened in the same week. They are the most relevant (and recent) example of attempts to bully those on one side of an argument into silence.
During last years (UK) government consultation on revisions to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), women's groups trying to meet up to discuss it were met with violent protests and even bomb threats against venues. Activists seem to have not understood the word 'Consultation'.
A couple of weeks ago women's groups around the country placed cotton t-shirts (bearing the dictionary definition of women) on statues of women. Media reports said the statues were 'defaced' and described it as terrorism.
Popper's wrong. Thomas Jefferson is right:
"...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.".
There was a new 'Ian Huntley is now a woman' story doing the rounds. The latest version claimed Ian was going by the name 'Nicola' (the name of the the mother of one of the girls he raped and murdered).
Unsurprisingly the story has been revealed to be fake (again), but not before users were banned from twitter for saying 'Ian Huntley is a man'.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/02/11/newspaper-retracts-claim-ian-huntley-transgender/
not before users were banned from twitter for saying ‘Ian Huntley is a man’.
Errrr! No, that’s not quite right now is it.
Errrr! No, that’s not quite right now is it.
Do you mean, "that's wrong they were banned", or "no-one was banned for saying that"?
I mean they weren’t banned for saying he’s a man.
Popper’s wrong. Thomas Jefferson is right:
“…let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”.
Events since his time have I think proven Jefferson wrong. Popper was around to see the effects of mass media and its manipulation, which I wonder if had an effect on his thinking.
Problem with these quotes from dead giants is that the giants are no longer around to correct themselves, as surely they would want in some instances, maybe this one?
I mean they weren’t banned for saying he’s a man.
I've seen more than one screenshot where a user was banned until they deleted a tweet, plus others where someone has reported them. Also, numerous tweets along the lines of 'I don't care what she has done in the past but...'
OP, you're mixing up "free speech" and "lack of consequences". Happens quite a lot nowadays.
I’ve seen more than one screenshot where a user was banned until they deleted a tweet,
No you haven’t. Don’t you think twitter would delete the tweet?
Events since his time have I think proven Jefferson wrong.
I don't. If you have to be intolerant to prevent intolerance then all you're saying is intolerance is desirable. And if you're accept that the Nazis can just quote Popper and say they were right to be intolerant towards anyone they fancy by citing examples of intolerance in the Jewish Community, or in Communist Society or by the French or the Polish.
Jefferson was spot on, bad ideas lose out to good ideas.
...and the Nazi's held power by terror, not by the quality of their ideas.
PrinceJohn
Member
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”― Harlan Ellison
That assumes that people are all nice and fluffy and don't have dark, nefarious thoughts that they actually mean.
Tbh it does the argument a lot of disservice to call everyone ignorant and foolish. When the opposite is obviously true.
The right, often accused of the ignorance are the ones I can see clearly have a longer term plan to organise, and disrupt, particularly in the political spheres. The left? hmmm. well.. tbh I don't really recognise it as much bar being pawns in the rights game of provocation, reaction and growth over time.
Don’t you think twitter would delete the tweet?
Drac - this seems to be an approach they use quite frequently. Force users to 'retract' by deleting a tweet rather than just removing the tweet in question and either lettign user back in or banning them.
Jefferson was spot on, bad ideas lose out to good ideas.
This assertion is being disproved all over the world, even as we debate it.
No you haven’t. Don’t you think twitter would delete the tweet?
Why would twitter delete the tweet? They don't delete tweets threatening rape and other violence.
https://terfisaslur.com
I can't escape the impression that the founding purpose of the Bristol Free Speech Society is to find a way to get de-platformed so they can moan about it. If they had no trouble holding their events, I suspect they'd get bored pretty quickly.
If you have to be intolerant to prevent intolerance then all you’re saying is intolerance is desirable.
No, just that there is a paradox, as Popper says. You don't seem to have understood Popper.
martinhutch - they often seem to be a forum for people who want to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/whatever under guise of exercising their 'rights' and in an environment where everyone's as swivel eyed as they are.
I can’t escape the impression that the founding purpose of the Bristol Free Speech Society is to find a way to get de-platformed so they can moan about it. If they had no trouble holding their events, I suspect they’d get bored pretty quickly.
I think you're right. I feel this needs some kind of smiley emoji but no idea how to add one.
…and the Nazi’s held power by terror, not by the quality of their ideas.
And the allies took it from them by terror. It wasn't by being nice and tolerant with Nazism. That didn't work. That's why we had a war about it. (Sorry if I sound patronising...)
This assertion is being disproved all over the world, even as we debate it.
Care to given an example in a tolerant democracy where bad ideas are losing out to good ideas?
I'm sorry but all you've posted there is some screenshots, nkpo evidence to say if it was reported, ignored or if the poster was banned and told to delete them.
Oh look Twitter do remove posts and accounts.
No matter a social media website sets its own rules it is very little to do with freedom of speech.
And the allies took it from them by terror. It wasn’t by being nice and tolerant with Nazism. That didn’t work. That’s why we had a war about it. (Sorry if I sound patronising…)
We didn't go to war because of what they *said*. We went to war because they were violent **** who were an existential threat to us.
Mein Kampf isn't even banned in the Uk. We let them spout their ideas to this day.
Care to given an example in a tolerant democracy where bad ideas are losing out to good ideas?
Is the US still tolerant?
Care to given an example in a tolerant democracy where bad ideas are losing out to good ideas?
Well this is clearly going nowhere.
No matter a social media website sets its own rules it is very little to do with freedom of speech
So, what's a better the word/phrase to describe what's happening then?
Does anyone else feel we’re on a slippery slope to 1984?
I feel you're on the slippery slope to 198-bore.
As above, what's your flippin' point? Let's have your incisive analysis of modern gender politics if you want to start a thread about it, please.
It's not really a paradox. It is just that the right is not always kept open to those who seek to use it to restrict the rights of others.
Compare with this…
"Everyone is free to walk the streets unhindered. They must not be held captive."
"Should kidnappers be free to walk the streets unhindered? Should they be imprisoned?"
So, what’s a better the word/phrase to describe what’s happening then?
They broke the terms and conditions of twitter.
