Angelos was later reinstated.
...On procedural grounds rather than anything to do with his political opinions, though which is worth pointing out. You could argue that he exercised his free speech, and that other's did so also in voting him off the publication.
That seems pretty healthy to me. Angelo wasn't denied his free speech rights, he merely suffered the consequence of them. Which let's be honest here, meant that he got his name in the right wing press (Spectator, Telegraph, and Mail all took up the story) and he lost the editorship of a Posh(ish) Tory(ish) University student rag.
Let’s have your incisive analysis of modern gender politics if you want to start a thread about it, please.
That's never going to happen the OP just posts soundbites.
Is the US still tolerant?
The US was never tolerant!
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 word/phrase, no-platforming?
If someone signed on twitter and made their first tweet a comment on the sex of the Canadian ball waxing enthusiast/tampon fetishist, that would likely be the one and only tweet on that account.
Is the US still tolerant?
Well, 60 years or so ago they segregated people on the basis of race so they've certainly been going in the right direction over the last century or so.
I certainly don't have any objections to their 1st amendment.
Well this is clearly going nowhere.
Indeed. A bad idea (intolerance) has lost out to a good idea (tolerance).
technicallyinept
Member
No matter a social media website sets its own rules it is very little to do with freedom of speechSo, what’s a better word/phrase, no-platforming?
Specifically to Twitter. Twitter is a corporation, corporations don't need to adhere to any form of free speech at all. They could only allow monty python quotes on it if they so chose.
They could only allow monty python quotes on it if they so chose.
That would probably be better for everyone
So how about calling for the killing of certain groups? Should someone be allowed a platform at a university to say that?
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.
Nice dodge. I'll leave you to it.
Is the US still tolerant?
Depends who you ask and what the question is.
For example they have a pornography industry, we have the four finger rule. Is that a sign of tolerance of different peoples fetishes or light touch legislation of capitalism exploiting women?
On the other hand it's a big country, you'll find someone who doesn't tolerate just about anything if you look hard enough. It's like saying "Europeans are intolerant", which is arguably more true, Americans generally like other Americans, we voted for Brexit (American and Europe being comparable sizes).
So, what’s a better the word/phrase to describe what’s happening then?
You have an obsession.
So how about calling for the killing of certain groups? Should someone be allowed a platform at a university to say that?
If the killing being called for was a criminal offence then it's already illegal:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/inchoate-offences
Personally, I'd rather it was dealt with by the Police than the University.
we have the four finger rule
Would like to hear about this rather than a thread that is as pointlessly fixed on course as the Brexit thread. Unless any of the participants here have any real intention of changing their minds of course.
No?
**** off to Twitter then.
A bad idea (intolerance) has lost out to a good idea (tolerance).
You sound confused, to be honest.
we have the four finger rule
I'm just gonna assume it's about eating KitKats.
TBH it generally seems like "Lost Freedom of Speech" is a card played by those on the fringes of both the left and right when their access to a 'platform' through which they want to present their views and opinions (which are likely, and possibly intended to cause conflict and offence), pulls their access... Businesses/organisations can of course withdraw service/access from anyone who is likely to damage there reputation or upset their other users or otherwise falls outside their terms of use...
We're talking about twitter/FB/Youtube/etc and of course participation in brodcast or university organised debates, those are all platforms provided through consent/invitation by private organisations and thus come with T&Cs.
Nobody's had their "Freedom of Speech" infringed, a private organisation has withdrawn access to a platform...
The problem is people's understanding/perception of their "rights" and when they are actually using a service or participating in someone elses privately organised event...
There’s also a move to shut down anyone who says something that might offend someone or be regarded as ‘hate’ speech
The biggest problem is that it's all filtered through a commercial viewpoint.
If Trump were a 'normal' twitter user he'd probably be banned but he's not because he earns them money.
Equally, Twitter have tolerated a huge number of threats against women and only acted when someone with a a blue tick and lots of followers is affected - and even then rarely, look what female Labour MP's have had to put up with.
So there is moderation at Twitter but it's selective and the way it's run tends to reinforce and reward certain types of behaviours that include threats of harm whilst being intolerant of those who are perceived to be terf for arguing about gender politics.
It's a complex area but the commercial imperative means there is always bias in the way that rules are applied.
So, what’s a better word/phrase, no-platforming?
I already answered.
However, it would be breaking the rules of Twitter a bit like GeeTee and other banned members making new accounts thinking we won't notice. We have the right to ban those accounts and delete any posts they made.
thinking we won’t notice
Are they not 'technically savvy' enough to use a VPN? 🙂
Agree with cookeaa, summed it up perfectly IMO
Are they not ‘technically savvy’ enough to use a VPN? 🙂
Ha! You think we rely on IP addresses. 😂
My God! The tentacles of the deep state run deep...
Hang on, geetee got banned?
Just for his MRA bellendery or did he go postal?
we have the four finger rule.
I thought we had the Mull-of-Kintyre rule. 😀
Hang on, geetee got banned?
Just for his MRA bellendery or did he go postal?
I think he got banned for being bullied and lashing out at said bulliy. The bully meanwhile...
I've seen a couple of news items the past few weeks about 'hate incidents'. Basically someone posting something on social media, and even though they have said nothing illegal people have reported said posts to police. The police then log them as 'hate incidents' and then harass engage with the person making the posts to explain why some people don't like it and that their posting similar again could lead to their employers being made aware etc. Apparantly several police forces have dedicated resources for this. Complete waste of time and money and an abuse of their power IMO.
I think he got banned for being bullied and lashing out at said bulliy. The bully meanwhile…
No.
I think he got banned for being bullied and lashing out at said bulliy.
He made me do it, your honour....
Apparantly several police forces have dedicated resources for this. Complete waste of time and money and an abuse of their power IMO.
Agreed, the Police should stick to running around with truncheons, and drinking tea out of mugs. They have no place in the modern world. We'll police ourselves online thank you very much. It's like when they started intervening when people posted actual shit through letter boxes. You don't get as much of that kind of fun anymore, because of the fear of police involvement. Bloody minority snowflakes. Can't they take the odd bit of harassment, and the occasional death threat, as the light hearted japery that they clearly weren't intended to be?
Bloody minority snowflakes. Can’t they take the odd bit if harassment, and the occasional death threat, as the light hearted japery that they weren’t intended as?
Harassment and making death threats are illegal and can be dealt with as hate crimes if requirements are met. Stating your opinion or thoughts about something in a perfectly legal manner and being classed as a 'hate incident' and bothered by some cyber community policeperson is completely different.
Basically someone posting something on social media, and even though they have said nothing illegal people have reported said posts to police. The police then log them as ‘hate incidents’ and then harass engage with the person making the posts to explain why some people don’t like it and that their posting similar again could lead to their employers being made aware etc.
The Labour Party? 😉
I think he got banned for being bullied and lashing out at said bulliy. The bully meanwhile…
thm nostalgia
However, it would be breaking the rules of Twitter a bit like GeeTee and other banned members making new accounts thinking we won’t notice. We have the right to ban those accounts and delete any posts they made.
I'm not sorry he's banned, equally, I don't think mods should be discussing people who have no right of reply.
So why was he banned, out of interest?
Welcome the forum. They broke the rules.
Does anyone else feel we’re on a slippery slope to 1984?
No, these are complicated issues, but people are having vigorous debates about them. In 1984 there was no debate.
I don’t think mods should be discussing people who have no right of reply.
And what do you base that on? They'd have had a right of reply if they hadn't transgressed in whatever way they did.
I don’t think mods should be discussing people who have no right of reply.
Then you'll notice that it hasn't been discussed simply mentioned he's banned, just like Mr Woppit is banned.
First they came for Junkjard, now Woppit... actually Junkyard wasn't first. Is he still banned or has he just decided not to come back? I miss him, sob *reaches for Kleenex, can't find one, clears nose all the same*. Now Woppit, sniff *wipes snot off mouse with sleeve*, OK so he's not Buddy Rich but he's the closest STW is ever going to get...*wipes eyes* I get so lonely sometimes... .
gonefishin
Member
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.
This, aye. "No platforming" isn't a thing. It's like complaining about "no partying" when you don't get invited to anything because you're a ****, or, I dunno, "involuntary celibacy" when you're ranting about how much you hate women. Or "no foruming" because you got kicked off singletrack. You don't have a right to go to someone else's thing and spoil it
If you and your ideas are so vital, you will find a platform or build your own. If nobody else lets you on their platform, your ideas are shit.
Then you’ll notice that it hasn’t been discussed simply mentioned he’s banned, just like Mr Woppit is banned.
You decided to raise the issue on a public forum, and the person in question has no right of reply. I believe that you're out of order.
And what do you base that on? They’d have had a right of reply if they hadn’t transgressed in whatever way they did.
A simple principle of fairness.
“No platforming” isn’t a thing.
Garbage.
You don’t have a right to go to someone else’s thing and spoil it
It doesn't stop there. The baying mob will even come after the place and people who dare host their own thing in an effort to shut them down.
If you and your ideas are so vital, you will find a platform or build your own.
As above.
It doesn’t stop there. The baying mob will even come after the place and people who dare host their own thing in an effort to shut them down.
They seem to manage
GeeTee has been banned? Gosh, only ever saw evidence of him being sinned against rather than sinning, one less reason to spend time on this site.
This, aye. “No platforming” isn’t a thing. It’s like complaining about “no partying” when you don’t get invited to anything because you’re a ****, or, I dunno, “involuntary celibacy” when you’re ranting about how much you hate women.
What rot, all the examples I have heard about, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, specifically involve invitations being withdrawn because of pressure put on the organisers or venue owners etc.
