When did Free Speech disappear?

Topcat123

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not a public place, and you can't say what you like in public places, anyway.


Running a site like MSE does cost a lot, but something smaller could be operated very cheaply, possibly for nothing. What you wouldn't get from that is a ready-made community.


It's not so much a question of class, but of fame. Someone who is famous has a reputation that is worth defending, both in terms of the loss they have suffered and the potential gains from making a successful claim.

I don't think the libel laws should be scrapped, in fact I think there should be greater protection online for people who use their own real identities.

It is a public place same as a pub is a public house such as the Boozers Arms, should be allowed to say what you like as in a pub, if you do not like what someone says in a pub stop eaves dropping, you can ignore them as you can here.

His reputation is no more valuable than mine, we are all equal, it is equality these days. People can say what they like about me, does not bother me as they cannot prove false allegations so there is no damage to my reputation, if some makes a damaging claim about me I can just say prove it, they won't be able to if it is false and if they can prove it is fair comment.

You do not need protection, I could make all sort of wild claims but nobody can be damaged by unproven claims. In the USA to claim damages you have to prove the claim is false, which is how it should be.

Muttleythefrog

Topcat123 wrote: »

It is a public place same as a pub is a public house such as the Boozers Arms, should be allowed to say what you like as in a pub, if you do not like what someone says in a pub stop eaves dropping, you can ignore them as you can here.

lol.. like all free speech it tends to come with restriction. If you're overheard plotting a bombing in the ladies then it might be more than the flush you need to worry about when you're done. And in pubs... well... when I ran one... I used to monitor casually the conversations... all of them at the same time if I could hear..lol. I remember one quiet afternoon a couple of gents were sitting together and getting into heated argument... so I went over and quipped 'no talk about politics, football, religion or women in here.. it always leads to arguments'.. one remarked that the other's wife stood accused of having an affair. I replied something to the effect of 'no talk about politics, football or religion in here... it always causes trouble... now what was this about his wife?' It's true that I threw quite a few people out for things they were saying.. or singing... for some reason many seemed to think if they sang abuse they could get away with it.

wymondham

tommix wrote: »

About bleeding time!:cool:

why? do the minority now have overall control and if so that's not fair to 'the majority' ... ..

Cornucopia

Topcat123 wrote: »

It is a public place same as a pub is a public house such as the Boozers Arms, should be allowed to say what you like as in a pub, if you do not like what someone says in a pub stop eaves dropping, you can ignore them as you can here.

Except that you aren't able to say what you like in a Pub, which is not a public place anyway.

People can say what they like about me, does not bother me as they cannot prove false allegations so there is no damage to my reputation...

Exactly.

You do not need protection...

I am not talking about me. I "hide" behind an anonymous identity, like almost all of us here. I am talking about people like MPs who necessarily use their real identities in social media. I think threats against them should be taken more seriously.

Cornucopia

wymondham wrote: »

why? do the minority now have overall control and if so that's not fair to 'the majority' ... ..

Minorities are having their views and "voices" heard more prominently than used to be the case, but let's not confuse that with control, which still rests with the old paradigms of the Majority, and the Establishment.

At the same time, the Establishment and Majority views have softened over time, and some consideration of minority interests are now considered mainstream where 40 years ago they would not have been.

All of this remains about social change, and not about denial of freedom of speech.

Marisco

Cornucopia wrote: »

Except that you aren't able to say what you like in a Pub, which is not a public place anyway.

If a group of friends are talking about something (I don't mean drunken shouting all over the place) and someone overhears something they are "offended" by something they hear, (again I'm not talking about crime "plotting" here) then they need to keep their noses out and move to another part of the pub!

andromedean

On the positive side Farage has lost his legal battle with hope not hate after saying this on air about Jo Cox's widower.

Yes, well of course he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like HOPE not hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.

So the group sent a request to Farage to apologise and retract his statement. That was ignored. HnH then launched a crowdfunder, supported by 16,000 people, to begin a libel action against the former UKIP leader.

Yesterday, Nigel Farage formerly retracted his comments – after almost a year-long out of court legal dispute.

In a statement filed with the High Court, Mr Farage said:

“Having now considered the position further I am happy to acknowledge that Hope not Hate does not tolerate or pursue violent or undemocratic behaviour.”

“In a desperate attempt to save face, Nigel Farage is creating a smokescreen about costs. We agreed to pay our own. According to Farage’s own lawyers, this will mean he has to pay in access of £100,000.”

https://leftfootforward.org/2017/11/nigel-farage-just-withdrew-this-libel-against-anti-racism-campaigners/

:T

darrensurrey

Isn't free speech knowing that you can tell your wife that she is fat (and it isn't that dress) but just choosing not to?

Cornucopia

Yesterday, Nigel Farage formerly retracted his comments – after almost a year-long out of court legal dispute.

"Formerly" => "Formally".

Just sayin' - and only correcting because this came from an apparently official/professional statement.

...pay in access of

"access" => "excess"

It seems that whilst speech is not free, it can on occasions be quite cheap.

andrewf75

wymondham wrote: »

The minorities voice is now louder than the majority!

anyone who genuinely believes that is deluded

yes there are loud voices calling for minorities to be given equal rights, and rightly so

The system is still weighted against minorities and it will take time before our society is truly equal.

Again this is just the right wing snowflakes bleating because the system is slightly less weighted in their favour than before. And today those voices are most certainly the loudest - and most influential so not sure why the complaints!