When did Free Speech disappear?

trigger_fish

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

That is an interesting point.

I have heard that the majority are in favour of the death penalty should it therefore be brought back?

No.

Its no deterrent.

Besides, the masses don't know whats good for them.

Topcat123

Cornucopia wrote: »

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


Exactly.


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.

Of course it is a public place, pub is short for PUBLIC HOUSE, it could hardly be clearer.

MPs are public figures, paid by the pubic, they choose their role. Threats against anyone should be taken seriously if deemed a serious threat. "I'll bloody kill him" is more a figure of speech, not to be taken literally.
But we are talking about banned opinion here, not threats.
MPs are in position of power, which they can often abuse which is why people need the protection of anonymity.


Further to that people can be banned ie punished with out a fair hearing and the have no effective right of appeal, they are at the mercy of button pushers often with a malicious intent and they can be handed out arbitrary and disproportionate punishment often by a person is far from independent and often with their own vested interests and answerable to nobody and regulated by nobody. It is a recipe for injustice.

£$&*"($£&(

Topcat123 wrote: »

Of course it is a public place, pub is short for PUBLIC HOUSE, it could hardly be clearer.

In that case I'm off to the local public school to swan around and swear at the teachers. It is a public place after all if the clue is in the name.

Cornucopia

Topcat123 wrote: »

Of course it is a public place, pub is short for PUBLIC HOUSE, it could hardly be clearer.

It is private property, owned by an individual or a company and operated for the purpose of selling food and drink for profit. It's subject to whatever rules the owner/manager wishes to impose, and people can be banned at the discretion of the management. It's not a public place based on a distinction that is relevant to the discussion we are having.

But we are talking about banned opinion here, not threats.

I didn't think we were - I see comments about opinions and actions.

MPs are in position of power, which they can often abuse which is why people need the protection of anonymity.

Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that members of the public should abuse their anonymity to be able to attack their MPs, then I do not agree.

Further to that people can be banned ie punished with out a fair hearing and the have no effective right of appeal, they are at the mercy of button pushers often with a malicious intent and they can be handed out arbitrary and disproportionate punishment often by a person is far from independent and often with their own vested interests and answerable to nobody and regulated by nobody. It is a recipe for injustice.

It's tricky, isn't it: you want to create a community that people enjoy being part of, and yet you want to protect yourself (as owner/publisher) from legal action, and at the same time exercise a sense of public responsibility for taste and decency in what appears. I don't personally get any flavour of the kind of "injustice" you are talking about, but perhaps my expectations are different?

As someone involved in three very different forums, I think this sense of belonging is a fascinating thing - not least because we are talking primarily about short text messages being published anonymously online. The three forums (and my role in them) are all quite different in this respect, and I get a different perspective based on my roles here/there.

Topcat123

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

What he/she said :beer: :T

Originally Posted by Penitent View Post
In terms of this particular corner of debate...

I think it's worth remembering that MSE is a site about saving money. As the mods explained to me when I asked why a completely inoffensive post of mine was removed, they only have so many mods and so much time, so they choose to devote that time primarily to the money-related parts of the forums, since that's what the site is actually for. This means that they'll often just delete something in the non-money-related parts of the forum without looking very deeply into it if they've received complaints about it or if it potentially puts them at risk of legal problems (hence the missing threads about the missing girl).

If you want an unmoderated debate, you may be better finding (or creating) another forum where anything goes. If you want to express views that many strongly disagree with without receiving a negative response, then you need to seek out a forum for people who share those views. It depends on what your goal is.

DT is often very hostile, but we all know and expect that. Demanding a calm, reasoned debate in here is like going into a clothes shop and demanding sausages. Maybe it would make more sense to go to a butcher instead?

Deleting a post is one thing banned people is another.

Even with deleting stuff the most innocuous of things can be deleted, if they do not have the time to look at it they should leave it.
And if they looking into it and there is nothing of merit maybe they should ban the person reporting for a while?
Often it is just opinion that is being deleted, if they do like the opinion they can state there own opinion and let people make up their own minds as to whether to read such posts.

It is called choice.

People can choose what they read, if they find something offensive then stop reading it!
Why should extremely delicate folk dictate what others can read?

Personally there is nothing anyone could write that would bother me, so long as I have the right to reply.

Being denied the right to reply really bothers me, censorship enables genocide and was used by tyrants throughout history for that purpose,
nobody ever died from free speech.

Quizzical_Squirrel

I don't think the younger generation are any more snowflakey than previous generations.

Students have always relished activism and exploring their newly found influence on the world.

Because we live in a time of extraordinary peace in the west, the current generation have had to dig a bit deeper to actually find something to rally against.

This, combined with the internet giving everyone a voice and a sense of self-importance has enabled collaborative effort to build entire edifices from shaky foundations.

I truly don't believe the kids themselves are any different to previous generations but the difference is that they have been given a frightening amount of power through the internet.

Cornucopia

grahawk wrote: »

In that case I'm off to the local public school to swan around and swear at the teachers. It is a public place after all if the clue is in the name.

For the avoidance of doubt the following places are unlikely to be public places:-

- Public Houses
- Public Schools
- Public Libraries
- Buildings occupied by Public Authorities

Public Conveniences are likely to be owned by a public authority, but operated subject to rules imposed either by bye-law over public spaces, or simply Ts & Cs over private spaces.

Public Markets may or may not be public spaces, depending on who owns the land. Rules may be imposed by bye-law or Ts & Cs as appropriate.

The following are non-physical concepts:

- Public Domain
- Public Interest
- The Public Good

Topcat123

Cornucopia wrote: »

It is private property, owned by an individual or a company and operated for the purpose of selling food and drink for profit. It's subject to whatever rules the owner/manager wishes to impose, and people can be banned at the discretion of the management. It's not a public place based on a distinction that is relevant to the discussion we are having.


I didn't think we were - I see comments about opinions and actions.


Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that members of the public should abuse their anonymity to be able to attack their MPs, then I do not agree.



It's tricky, isn't it: you want to create a community that people enjoy being part of, and yet you want to protect yourself (as owner/publisher) from legal action, and at the same time exercise a sense of public responsibility for taste and decency in what appears. I don't personally get any flavour of the kind of "injustice" you are talking about, but perhaps my expectations are different?

As someone involved in three very different forums, I think this sense of belonging is a fascinating thing - not least because we are talking primarily about short text messages being published anonymously online. The three forums (and my role in them) are all quite different in this respect, and I get a different perspective based on my roles here/there.

It is a public space, who owns it is not relevant, if it is open to the public it should abide by public law not arbitrary justice.
Should Jack the Ripper be allowed to dish out "justice"?

No MP is being attacked, it is just words. They will not die if someone calls the a corrupt evil crook.

Legal action should not be possible the libel laws are wrong, their to protect the rich and powerful form criticism.

It seems you are not involved in the forums as a user but as one dishing out arbitrary punishment.

So of course you do not see the injustice as you are the one dishing it out. :rotfl:

Muttleythefrog

Marisco wrote: »

I understand what your saying re the rest, but unless people are actually shouting, then it's not very good if your out relaxing you have to watch everything you say in case an evesdropper hears something they don't like/agree with.

Well in terms of football it was in fairness afternoon.. think international football tournament rather than Saturday night premier league. I wouldn't have allowed children in after around 5 or 6 in the evening... although as per what I was saying.. I always had to judge things given the circumstances.

But on the quoted point... usually people would get plenty warning... but in the end a pub is a place where hostility can rapidly get out of control or arise. And quite often you get a surprise where the violence originates. If you're out in public you're always at risk that something you say could get you into strife... in a pub it is just the space is usually little... and the poison dripping into the blood. It's a licenced trade... failure to control the customers can carry significant sanction.

Muttleythefrog

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

What he/she said :beer: :T

Oh hello... I've always liked a woman in authority.

Let's see how this experiment goes..lol