Racism

[DannyInvincible]

Does not matter in an uncensored word I would have a right of reply, I can use another platform another news outlet, plus you are also implying his outlet is acting as a censor.

That's the point, or the paradox (https://foot.ie/threads/227011-Racism/page3?p=1946263#post1946263) even; the monopolisation of unregulated power in the marketplace of ideas can have a restraining (and directly censorial (https://foot.ie/threads/227011-Racism?p=1946371&viewfull=1#post1946371)) effect on the diversity of public discourse and upon those less powerful voices in society, in that they have no comparable platform.

And of course it matters in a world without regulation. Just because you have a right of reply doesn't mean the damage to your reputation can be undone. In a world where defamation laws exist, defamation will be disincentivised before the damage can happen and, if it does happen, you'll be compensated for damages and your name/reputation will be vindicated by the state in a public court of law after an analysis of the conflicting claims and evidence.

Because the state performs this role (preferably transparently in an open and democratic society), society can then place credence or reliability upon the verdict. Otherwise, people who may not have the time or resources to investigate the evidence are simply left guessing as to which claim is true and which is false. Simply by creating an element of doubt, a malicious rumour or story can be very damaging to one's reputation. Just because you might have a right of reply doesn't prove your reply to be truthful either; it doesn't mean it will be accepted as truthful.

What other platform or news outlet would you use to reach as wide an audience as those who had defamed you? Why would you assume another news outlet would even entertain you?


I mean I could just post the truth on my twitter account, although not the one twitter had banned obviously. Lot of censorship in operation on twitter and increasingly on the internet free speech is being slowly strangled.
Everyday the west becomes more and more like North Korea or some other totalitarian regime.

And of course you are talking of an already censored world where an elite control 99% of the media, the internet changed that for a while at least but the dark veil of censorship is creeping.

Why did Twitter ban you, if you don't mind me asking?

Do you think your tweet would reach the same audience as a defamatory story about you in the mainstream media? Of course it wouldn't.

Sure, there are concerns in respect of free speech and expression in plenty of Western countries - burqa bans (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/world/europe/quebec-burqa-ban-europe.html), the criminalisation of activism against the Israeli occupation of Palestine (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/16/greatest-threat-to-free-speech-in-the-west-criminalizing-activism-against-israeli-occupation/) and laws against Holocaust scepticism and denial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial) (not that I agree with those professed historians who do cast doubt over the Holocaust or aspects of it, just to be clear) being prominent examples - but I think the North Korea comparison indicates that you're not being remotely serious here. In what way has the West become "more and more like North Korea"? Any examples of where this - totalitarian control over virtually every aspect of public expression - is the case and how?

You say the "dark veil of censorship is creeping"; are you referring to state censorship or are you referring to private/corporate restraints on free speech (because you've placed that statement in the context of an elite controlling 99 per cent of the media)?


Ah so now you are God, the fountain of all knowledge who knows, right from wrong? Scary stuff!

You are the arbitrer of truth?

Where on earth did I suggest I might be an arbiter of truth? As far as I'm concerned, the concept of "right" and "wrong" (or morality, in other words) is a subjective social construct. There is one objective or material reality (or so it appears), although we may all perceive it in different ways as we can only interpret it subjectively, such is our nature. We can still attempt to decipher what that truth is though through using observation and evidence, irrespective of our nature. Just because I'm calling out Trump as a bull****ter doesn't mean I think of myself as an omniscient moral arbiter.

As I explained in a later post (https://foot.ie/threads/227011-Racism?p=1946845&viewfull=1#post1946845), my idea of education isn't about indoctrinating people or imbuing them with my personal moral outlook on life. Rather, it would be to teach them to teach themselves or to how to learn for themselves, so that they have the necessary grounding and resources to ask their own questions, pursue inquiry for themselves and come to their own conclusions; so that they can construct in an informed, considered and well-reasoned fashion their own opinions and moral outlook, in other words.


How do you know the guy was not a Muslim? Do you know him personally?

Eh? It was you who stated that he wasn't a Muslim (https://foot.ie/threads/227011-Racism/page5?p=1946625#post1946625), so I was taking your word for it. You stated: "Turn's out he was not muslim..."

I'd assumed that that had been reported elsewhere and that you were reliably repeating it. Should I doubt you?...


The tweet was not dangerous, nobody died.

Just because nobody dies from something doesn't mean it can't be dangerous or materially harmful. I mean, putting my hand into an operating lawn-mower blade mightn't necessarily kill me, but it would still be highly dangerous and could cause me significant harm; I'd probably lose my hand.

[DannyInvincible]

The tweet as on a Britain First website, had Trump not retweeted it many who followed BF would still believe the guy was a muslim.

So you're saying that Trump actually did Muslims a service?... :confused: Trump was parroting the message; not challenging it. If he'd never re-tweeted the malicious tweet in the first place, fewer people would even have known about it. I only knew of it because he tweeted it - I assume the same applies to you and most other people - but I wasn't aware that it had later been discovered that the the perpetrator wasn't even a Muslim. I'm sure there are thousands who still believe the perpetrator was a Muslim because of Trump's re-tweet.


The powerful already do say what they like.

They do have a powerful voice and platform but they do not enjoy absolute rights and their power is somewhat kept in check by regulatory balances. Personally, I'd prefer a more democratised media (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy) over the present corporate model.


You do not have aright of reply to the BBC.

As you've said yourself above, you'll have the freedom to reply via whatever platform you personally can find to channel your response. It may not reach a wide audience though to prove remedial, which is why prior regulation is ideal, for, if the BBC were to defame you under present circumstances, you are of course protected by law, or by a legally-guaranteed right of reply, in other words. Whilst it may be an imperfect scenario, I do think it's preferable to absolute rights for unrestrained power as it offers individual citizens a comparable platform in terms of power to that enjoyed by powerful corporations.


I can't take them to task over loony feminist propaganda for example.

And indeed commenting on that got me banned from twitter.

What "loony feminist propaganda"? Why, what did you say on Twitter that got you banned? The BBC don't control Twitter, to whose terms and conditions you agree when you sign up besides. I suspect you were banned for breaching those rather than because you challenged something the BBC said. And aren't there other channels for challenging the BBC's perceived narrative? You mightn't reach as wide an audience as the BBC can (as discussed above) but that's because they've part-monopolised the marketplace of ideas, which is a much more dangerous and threatening phenomenon for citizens in a completely unregulated environment. The solution is greater media democratisation rather than introducing absolute free speech rights.


It is active state controlled brainwashing.

The BBC? Or Twitter? Twitter is a private company. How would them banning you for breaching their rules be "active state controlled brainwashing" exactly?

Nor would I say the BBC are strictly "controlled" by the state. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrpFQOdSFcU) Perhaps individuals with governmental connections do have direct control or influence over the BBC; I'm not certain. What I do know, however, is that the BBC are principally funded by the government of the day, which naturally influences their perspectives and content (along with secondary funding from advertisers and the sale of content) (https://www.alternet.org/media/10-brilliant-quotes-noam-chomsky-how-media-really-operates-america). If the BBC were to publish content that is overly critical of the government or seems favourable to dissenting ideas and "enemies" of the government, they might begin to fear for their funding drying up or for whatever inside access they have being curtailed.

Also, those who hold positions of influence within the BBC are from similar backgrounds to other elites and members of the establishment, so you'd imagine they share similar interests and outlooks on life and that this also influences the corporation's undeniably pro-establishment output (https://www.alternet.org/media/10-brilliant-quotes-noam-chomsky-how-media-really-operates-america). It's more so the case that BBC directors, editors and journalists either self-censor themselves to progress within the organisation or their outlook happens to completely align with the BBC's general perspectives (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM). The filtering system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M) selects towards obedience and subordination.


You seem to believe we live in an and an uncensored world which is of course nonsense.

I don't believe that at all. What makes you think I believe that? Sure I've been distinguishing the present world where regulation of expression exists with the hypothetical world that has no regulation and that you're advocating. Plenty of censorship and regulation of expression exists in the real world. Some regulation (such as defamation or privacy laws) can be beneficial to the functioning of a better society for all, in my opinion, and some of it (suppressing state corruption or crimes, for example) is detrimental to that aspiration and is therefore undesirable. If we can rid ourselves of the undesirable forms of regulation or suppression of expression, that would be ideal.


There is of course an uncensored world, which is basically what existed before mass media appeared on the scene to a certain extent anyway, on the local level, not so much on the national level, I mean you can say what you like down the pub so to speak, you don't have someone sitting on your shoulder deleting your words.

That's simply not true. Prior to the proliferation of the mass corporate media, information for a mass or public audience could still be state-disseminated, monitored and censored. Here is some information on censorship during Medieval times and before the printing press was invented: http://hippie.wikia.com/wiki/Medieval_censorship

There was no corporate media in the Soviet Union, for example, but censorship was rampant.

Are you blaming the mass media for perpetrating censorship or are you arguing that they have more so been subjected to censorship? I thought you were denying their limiting influence on diversity or expression above... :confused:

Things that are said down in the pub aren't exempt from the law's application either. Slander is an offence.

[DannyInvincible]

Again you are back to an already censored world with a censor powerful media.

Are you admitting that expression would be monopolised by a powerful and unrestrained media or elite (to an even worse degree than it is now) in the hypothetical world of absolute free speech and non-regulation that you advocate, thus rendering it a dystopian nightmare?


Yes some would fall for anything, Tim would say Bob is a murderer and Bob would say Tim is a murderer, who does uncritical Fred believe?

Neither of course as there is not evidence to support wither claim.

How can you speak for Fred? How do you know Fred won't make a decision based on emotion, preconceptions or prejudice rather than evidence and rationality?

The creation or planting of a seed of doubt can also be very detrimental to reputations and relationships. It's not something you can just dismiss.


There are courts if law both official and unofficial, no censorship is required to make them work, indeed censorship is the one thing that would stop them working.

What courts of law are you referring to where there is no regulation of what can and cannot be said in the court?

As has already been pointed out to you, the rules of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)) are a form of regulation in order to protect against adverse influence and to ensure fairness isn't prejudiced. The benefits of these sorts of rules should be fairly obvious. Legal witnesses must also swear an oath to tell the truth; in theory, this is to confine them to providing only truthful accounts and is to discourage the introduction of false information.


It is only when censorship applies you get problems for example when the judge who is also the biscuit factory owner rule that evidence against his products is inadmissible be cause the witness is unreliable.

Ridiculous example. Just because regulation might exist in a certain society, it doesn't logically necessitate this sort of consequence. Have you a real life example of something like this happening in the modern day in anywhere other than a corrupt state with poorly-developed public institutions? It would be a total abuse of power and a transparent legal system with checks and balances in place (within an overall political system that still has reasonable free speech regulation in order to balance conflicting rights) can protect against a conflict of interest like that arising. A mature democracy with such regulation can also espouse the principle of separation of powers - of the legislature, executive and judiciary - in order to ensure justice and fairness and to act as a check or safeguard against corruption or undue influence of one branch of state over the other(s).


On the elite and the plebs.


There you have a huge inbuilt imbalance of justice.
It is the "old school tie", the "old boys network".


They are the trusted souls who determine truth and justice.

I agree that this bias is a problem, but the hypothetical unregulated world you advocate would worsen this rather than rectify it. The solution is greater equality, democratisation and social justice for all; not absolute free speech.


I am not sure what the example of "my house" is supposed to represent, my house is not a public place.

Well then you're (sensibly) acknowledging that your right to privacy must trump the other person's "absolute right" to express themselves however and wherever they wish (because that's what an absolute right to do something logically entails). You've just made an argument against what you've been advocating up to now. To disallow this other person from using your house as a platform from which to express themselves is a form of restriction upon them because it conflicts with your privacy rights.


It is up to the banks to ensure their systems are secure, not the law, if the banks system is not secure it will not be in business long, the free market protects you, not the law.

You're saying there should be no consumer or data protection laws to protect your/our private and personal data? You honestly can't be serious. Is there a foolproof way of protecting your business against sophisticated malicious or corrupt employees? If so, what is it? Regulations can only help and do no harm here. Who's going to take a chance with an unregulated bank? How would trust be built from scratch? Could you trust them not to sell your data, the selling of which could potentially lead to you being bombarded with phonecalls, e-mails or post from advertisers? You think it's tolerable that customers should just sit back, put their faith in a bank (whose primary interest is its own profit) and hope nothing goes wrong instead of the law ensuring that there are adequate checks and protective mechanisms in place for customers in advance? You expect people to just take their chances with a bank and if a data breach occurs (which is far more likely in an unregulated environment), you say, "Too bad, but let's not dwell on it worrying; the great thing here is that the free market enables you to make an alternative choice from a whole host of other unregulated banks where the very same thing could easily happen. Isn't that wonderful?"


There have been data breaches at companies and of course one the cat is out of the bag no law or censorship can put it back.

No, but protective laws and fines for non-compliance deter malicious or corrupt conduct and also encourage banks to put in place structures and procures that prioritise customer security, thereby reducing the chance or likelihood of such breaches occurring. That is pretty obvious and it really shouldn't need explaining. If a breach does occur in this regulated environment, affected customers can pursue compensation against the bank.

[tricky_colour]

If Trump hadn't tweeted it and thereby attracted the depth of analysis that enabled his and BF's claim to be proven false, many would still believe it, so it's a win for free speech really.

Probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

Yes so you agree with me, I am saying he was right to retweet if because information in never wrong, it is just information
and info helps us get to the truth but not the truth trump wanted on his occasion.

Censorship stops us getting to the truth and that is why it is the root of all evil, indeed censor would be a good name for the devil
or for a devil worshipper.

[edit] Oops I read you quote of me as your words, no wonder I agreed lol.

No is it not stupid, it is perfectly sensible truthful correct and logical, which is why you could not specify any specific fault in it.

[tricky_colour]

Are you admitting that expression would be monopolised by a powerful and unrestrained media or elite (to an even worse degree than it is now) in the hypothetical world of absolute free speech and non-regulation that you advocate, thus rendering it a dystopian nightmare?



It already is monopolised, because there is censorship.

The monopolies in control exercise censorship on their platforms.

If you run a media outlet you should allow people a right to reply to your out
put otherwise you have an unregulated propaganda channel, ie the BBC.









How can you speak for Fred? How do you know Fred won't make a decision based on emotion, preconceptions or prejudice rather than evidence and rationality?


I am giving my option as if I were Fred.
Fred might make any kind of decision based on emotion, preconceptions or prejudice, just as you might/do.

But he at least gets to hear all opinions not one sided propaganda enabled by censorship.




The creation or planting of a seed of doubt can also be very detrimental to reputations and relationships. It's not something you can just dismiss.


There is always doubt in a rational mind, nothing wrong with that.






What courts of law are you referring to where there is no regulation of what can and cannot be said in the court?



the real world, ie down the pub.







As has already been pointed out to you, the rules of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)) are a form of regulation in order to protect against adverse influence and to ensure fairness isn't prejudiced. The benefits of these sorts of rules should be fairly obvious. Legal witnesses must also swear an oath to tell the truth; in theory, this is to confine them to providing only truthful accounts and is to discourage the introduction of false information.


Only free speech "down the pub freedom" protect, censorship harms, it is unfair bias.




Ridiculous example. Just because regulation might exist in a certain society, it doesn't logically necessitate this sort of consequence. Have you a real life example of something like this happening in the modern day in anywhere other than a corrupt state with poorly-developed public institutions? It would be a total abuse of power and a transparent legal system with checks and balances in place (within an overall political system that still has reasonable free speech regulation in order to balance conflicting rights) can protect against a conflict of interest like that arising. A mature democracy with such regulation can also espouse the principle of separation of powers - of the legislature, executive and judiciary - in order to ensure justice and fairness and to act as a check or safeguard against corruption or undue influence of one branch of state over the other(s).


Happens all the time, every state is corrupt.





I agree that this bias is a problem, but the hypothetical unregulated world you advocate would worsen this rather than rectify it. The solution is greater equality, democratisation and social justice for all; not absolute free speech.



Well then you're (sensibly) acknowledging that your right to privacy must trump the other person's "absolute right" to express themselves however and wherever they wish (because that's what an absolute right to do something logically entails). You've just made an argument against what you've been advocating up to now. To disallow this other person from using your house as a platform from which to express themselves is a form of restriction upon them because it conflicts with your privacy rights.



You're saying there should be no consumer or data protection laws to protect your/our private and personal data? You honestly can't be serious. Is there a foolproof way of protecting your business against sophisticated malicious or corrupt employees? If so, what is it? Regulations can only help and do no harm here. Who's going to take a chance with an unregulated bank? How would trust be built from scratch? Could you trust them not to sell your data, the selling of which could potentially lead to you being bombarded with phonecalls, e-mails or post from advertisers? You think it's tolerable that customers should just sit back, put their faith in a bank (whose primary interest is its own profit) and hope nothing goes wrong instead of the law ensuring that there are adequate checks and protective mechanisms in place for customers in advance? You expect people to just take their chances with a bank and if a data breach occurs (which is far more likely in an unregulated environment), you say, "Too bad, but let's not dwell on it worrying; the great thing here is that the free market enables you to make an alternative choice from a whole host of other unregulated banks where the very same thing could easily happen. Isn't that wonderful?"



No, but protective laws and fines for non-compliance deter malicious or corrupt conduct and also encourage banks to put in place structures and procures that prioritise customer security, thereby reducing the chance or likelihood of such breaches occurring. That is pretty obvious and it really shouldn't need explaining. If a breach does occur in this regulated environment, affected customers can pursue compensation against the bank.

It its up to the individual to protect their own privacy and the free market
enables that, companies that breach people trust go bust very fast.

But we are in reality talking about freedom of expression of opinion, not personal data.


AS regard emails and stuff the problem there is censorship and monoplies,
I do not want ISP's and internet sites to collect data on me but I do not have much choice.

I should have a right to see what info they collect, censorship ensures I don't. People who work there can see it but I cant!

[pineapple stu]

information in never wrong, it is just information
and info helps us get to the truth but not the truth trump wanted on his occasion.

What the hell are you talking about, you convicted paedophile?

(Remember, free speech)

Info is never wrong? Have you seen a Dublin Bus timetable before?

One of the cornerstones of your argument seems to be that words can't hurt. Yet I've disproved your claim that no doctor ever wrote "Free speech" as a cause of death (I wasn't expecting to, but then it came up in the book I was reading), but you've conveniently overlooked that in all your subsequent posts.

Can you acknowledge, in light of this new information, that you are wrong? (Again, a cornerstone of your argument seems to be that throwing out outlandish comments leads to them bring challenged and the truth coming to light - but in that case, it must be fundamental to take stuff on board when it contradicts previously held views. Only then can we get to the truth)

[DannyInvincible]

Yes so you agree with me, I am saying he was right to retweet if because information in never wrong, it is just information
and info helps us get to the truth but not the truth trump wanted on his occasion.

Censorship stops us getting to the truth and that is why it is the root of all evil, indeed censor would be a good name for the devil
or for a devil worshipper.

[edit] Oops I read you quote of me as your words, no wonder I agreed lol.

No is it not stupid, it is perfectly sensible truthful correct and logical, which is why you could not specify any specific fault in it.

Sure, Trump had a right to re-tweet it, but it was, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, malicious, and therefore potentially harmful and dangerous. Trump didn't re-tweet the content in order to reveal or seek the truth; the revelation was simply an indirect or incidental by-product of his action and there was no guarantee his misrepresentation would have been corrected simply because he re-tweeted it or put it in the public domain. The utter daftness of your argument is that you're crediting Trump for the later revelation that the perpetrator wasn't a Muslim and framing it as some triumph for free speech, when the very reason Trump re-tweeted the video was because he thought the guy was a Muslim and because he wanted to peddle this distorted narrative that Muslims are "uniquely bad". Indeed, there will be plenty of people who saw Trump's re-tweet who will still be of the belief (considering they may not be aware of the subsequent correction) that the perpetrator was a Muslim specifically because Trump re-tweeted it; this may have stirred prejudice within them or might well have "confirmed" (in their misguided view) their prejudices for them. This is harm caused by misrepresentation and distortion.

And of course information can be wrong. Have you never heard of misinformation or disinformation? Here's an example of false information: "tricky is a murderer."

You can't dismissively say that's "just information". It's totally inaccurate information and could potentially cause severe damage to your reputation and standing in society or amongst your peers if maliciously or ignorantly spread around as "fact".

Sometimes, clashing rights are more important than "the truth". I would protect privacy over "the truth" in many instances. If someone does something in private or possesses private, intimate or sensitive info about something, it doesn't mean that others have a right to full knowledge of such just because these things might also be "the truth".

If person A covertly video-recorded person B using their bathroom or person B engaging in perfectly-legal and consensual BDSM with person C in the privacy of person B's home and then decided to publish that footage on the internet or wherever in order to embarrass, compromise or shame persons B and C because nudity or BDSM happens to be morally frowned upon in certain quarters of society, you say that any law to protect the privacy or reputation of persons B and C should be disregarded here because person A's "absolute right" to free expression trumps it? That's just so utterly ridiculous. Privacy laws to protect persons B and C from person A's malicious activity are obviously a societal positive here.

Out of interest, do you believe in any other absolute rights, besides free expression? If so, what are they? What if they conflict with another "absolute right"?


It already is monopolised, because there is censorship.

The monopolies in control exercise censorship on their platforms.

If you run a media outlet you should allow people a right to reply to your out
put otherwise you have an unregulated propaganda channel, ie the BBC.

Sure, media monopolisation exists now (and such monopolisation can result in de facto restraints on others' expression and indeed can result in private censorship), but legal regulation at least helps keeps otherwise-absolute power in check. In your dystopian nightmare of absolute free speech, monopolisation by the powerful would be much worse than it is now. You clearly have no answer to this. My suggested solution is greater media democratisation; not absolute free speech rights, which is just a nonsensical and delusional head-in-the-sand approach.

Personally, I have many reservations in respect of the BBC (https://twitter.com/JerryHicksUnite/status/939812934443773953) and I think groups like Media Lens (http://www.medialens.org/) and FAIR (https://fair.org/) do sterling work in scrutinising and exposing the distortions and propaganda of media outlets, such as the BBC (http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/search-the-archive.html?searchword=bbc&searchphrase=all), who disingenuously profess to be impartial or liberal, but I'd be interested in hearing why you believe the BBC to be an "unregulated" propaganda channel. The BBC, whilst engaging in plenty of distortion and misrepresentation - or sometimes even outright falsehood (https://twitter.com/DanielCollins85/status/754086608589258757) - in favour of a pro-Western narrative, does not enjoy absolute free speech rights. It has to adhere to (or at least give the appearance of adhering to) at least some protocols, standards and regulations.

And I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. De facto restraint and private censorship in this context result from monopolisation by the powerful and a lack of de jure regulation, or a lack of checks and balances on their power, in other words. Are you saying that monopolisation results from the powerful entities' own de facto censorship or are you saying that it results from de jure censorship? If you're saying it arises from their own de facto or private censorship, then you're undermining your entire argument and admitting that a lack of de jure regulation leads to monopolisation of expression and communication by the powerful. If, on the other hand, you're saying that their monopolisation arises from de jure censorship, can you explain how this is necessarily the case and why you believe this to be so?


I am giving my option as if I were Fred.
Fred might make any kind of decision based on emotion, preconceptions or prejudice, just as you might/do.

But he at least gets to hear all opinions not one sided propaganda enabled by censorship.

But you (or Fred) are not everyone, so you can't assume everyone else would respond to the information in identical fashion. Ideally, Fred would be able to make an informed decision based on evidence over malicious rumour and falsehood. A transparent and independent court of law has a role to play here in separating the fact from the defamatory fiction. That Fred's opinion or uncertainty might be potentially influenced or sustained by defamatory lies or that such misinformation would be allowed to enable a seed of doubt to remain in Fred's mind regarding the allegations relating to Tim and Bob is not ideal. Fred may have been friendly with Tim and Bob prior to the allegations, but now he might have made a decision to cut both of them out of his life because he can't be sure which of the two is the murderer, if one was a murderer at all. That's a detrimental material effect upon at least two completely innocent people's lives there arising directly from your juvenile and ill-considered approach to free speech.

How are facts that are substantiated by clear and reliable evidence the same thing as "one sided propaganda enabled by censorship", particularly in this specific case of Fred, Tim and Bob? You're just repeating meaningless mantra now.

[DannyInvincible]

There is always doubt in a rational mind, nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with having a critical or sceptical approach to life and information - in fact, it can be a good thing - but that's not what I'm talking about and I suspect your attempted conflation to be disingenuous, which is disappointing.

The doubt I'm talking about is the intentional or malicious planting of a seed of doubt in another person's mind through the making of a completely unfounded allegation. Say, an individual falsely informs a wife that her husband has cheated on her. The wife may not fully believe it and she may not want to believe it, but that nagging seed of doubt in the back of her mind - the "but what if it is true?" - that she can now do nothing about might erode the trust that held that relationship together and thus totally destroy the relationship. This would be real, material damage, the carrying out of which can be disincentivised by advance legal regulation (or defamation laws) and can be perhaps satisfactorily remedied through evidence-analysis and the provision of a verdict and compensation for damages by a court of law.


the real world, ie down the pub.

So, not a court of law then?... Gore Vidal once said that "at any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation and prejudice". In spite of that, you feel an actual court of law should be on the same moral and legal pedestal as a procedureless public house, as if anyone can say anything they like about anyone without it potentially prejudicing the subject's rights or freedoms? In fact, I'm getting the sense that you would give greater credence or standing to the unregulated rumour or hearsay of pub-talk, as opposed to the verdict of a court of law governed by strict procedure and rules of evidence.


Only free speech "down the pub freedom" protect, censorship harms, it is unfair bias.

I don't know what this sentence means. Can you clarify?


Happens all the time, every state is corrupt.

Well, give me an example then of this - a judge who is also a biscuit factory owner ruling that evidence against his products is inadmissible because the witness is "unreliable" - recently happening in, say, a western European democracy?

State's may not be a perfect mode of human organisation, but if they can protect and uphold values such as democracy, equality, transparency and social justice, they can, in my opinion, help provide a foundation for a healthy, functioning society from which all can benefit. Maybe there are better modes of organisation towards which we can strive, but I fear that an alternative of unregulated power would be much worse. A healthy society functioning for the betterment of all is about creating a balance and managing trade-offs. Absolute freedom would be a lovely ideal, but it's not possible in a world where other people's freedoms must also be safeguarded. If there was absolute freedom, power would have no restraint, so the solution is to create the necessary balances that keep that power in check so as to enable as much freedom as possible for as many people as possible whilst also protecting competing rights.


It its up to the individual to protect their own privacy and the free market
enables that, companies that breach people trust go bust very fast.

But a healthy society just couldn't function that way. It would be a nightmare society of uncertainty and fear. You wouldn't know who to trust because there'd be no safety net of legal regulation in place, so people would just have to take their chances with purported companies (that might simply have been established to later exploit people's private information before going underground due to the lack of regulation) until they got bitten. And what then? Tough luck to those people, you say? Hardly reassuring.

That's not the sort of society I want to live in and it's simply not a credible position unless you desire societal collapse and widespread paranoia. Let's look at it practically; who's going to give a company, say, their credit card details in the first place if there's no advance legal protection there for the consumer? Only pre-existing companies that had already managed to build up consumer trust (due to having existed in a previous regulated environment) would survive, thus leading to a total monopolisation of the market (or indeed no market at all, if those companies decided to pack it in for whatever reason). You wouldn't be able to establish a new company as nobody would take a chance on you.

How might the vulnerable protect their privacy against invasion by the more powerful and maliciously invasive? How might, say, a sleeping homeless man, who owns nothing except a cardboard box and a blanket for warmth and modesty/decency, protect his privacy against a gang who decide to strip him bare on the street for a cheap laugh, photograph him without his consent in his compromised position and then publish the photos online (without permission obviously). The gang may be charged with assault (or with something related to their physical interference with the man), which is fine, but, according to your position, the published photos should remain in the public domain against the homeless man's wishes and there should be no effort made by the authorities to protect the homeless man's right to privacy by removing or suppressing them because they happen to depict "the truth" and because the gang's "absolute right to free expression" should be upheld no matter what? Mad stuff. Take your head out of the clouds.


But we are in reality talking about freedom of expression of opinion, not personal data.

There's no difference in a world of absolute free expression. Why would it make a difference whether or not it was opinion or personal data if parties had the absolute right to express, share or communicate whatever information they wanted? Your attempt to introduce a distinction exposes a lack of conviction in your position. Unsurprising, considering it's the stuff of total delusion. Are you now admitting then that regulation of expression for data protection reasons would be reasonable and justified? If so, you're undermining your entire argument because you're now acknowledging a potential benefit to regulation.


AS regard emails and stuff the problem there is censorship and monoplies,
I do not want ISP's and internet sites to collect data on me but I do not have much choice.

Indeed, there's an inequality of respective bargaining power between individual consumers and ISPs, but how would the sharing of your personal (e-mail) details be a problem that has arisen from censorship exactly? I'm not sure I understand. It would have arisen due to a lack of regulation, in my opinion; the exact opposite.

And monopolies inevitably arise from a lack of regulation - as power cannot be kept in check - which is what you advocate.


I should have a right to see what info they collect, censorship ensures I don't. People who work there can see it but I cant!

But you do enjoy such a right (conditional upon payment of a fee of £10 and so long as it doesn't compromise the privacy of other people). You can make a personal information request under UK data protection law. Further info here: https://www.gov.uk/respond-data-protection-request

[tricky_colour]

What the hell are you talking about, you convicted paedophile?

(Remember, free speech)

Info is never wrong? Have you seen a Dublin Bus timetable before?

One of the cornerstones of your argument seems to be that words can't hurt. Yet I've disproved your claim that no doctor ever wrote "Free speech" as a cause of death (I wasn't expecting to, but then it came up in the book I was reading), but you've conveniently overlooked that in all your subsequent posts.

Can you acknowledge, in light of this new information, that you are wrong? (Again, a cornerstone of your argument seems to be that throwing out outlandish comments leads to them bring challenged and the truth coming to light - but in that case, it must be fundamental to take stuff on board when it contradicts previously held views. Only then can we get to the truth)

Even a convicted paedophile like your self is entitled to free speech is even if it is make completely false and thus unprovable accusations against me.

The info on a bus time table is always correct, when it coincides with the running of buses is a different matter.

My argument is not based on "words can hurt".

Indeed your post seems to have hurt your own credibility as it makes no
sense, not even sure what your point is.

Wrong about what?

You post make no sense it is full of inaccurate claims.

My point is that free speech is a brilliant things and any censorship is evil.
Your point seems to be you are such an idiot you need a nanny to control what you read, fair enough, hire one, just don't force your nanny on me, I am not an idiot I don't need one.


I can make my own mind up I do not need to be told what to think.

[tricky_colour]

Sure, Trump had a right to re-tweet it, but it was, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, malicious, and therefore potentially harmful and dangerous. Trump didn't re-tweet the content in order to reveal or seek the truth; the revelation was simply an indirect or incidental by-product of his action and there was no guarantee his misrepresentation would have been corrected simply because he re-tweeted it or put it in the public domain. The utter daftness of your argument is that you're crediting Trump for the later revelation that the perpetrator wasn't a Muslim and framing it as some triumph for free speech, when the very reason Trump re-tweeted the video was because he thought the guy was a Muslim and because he wanted to peddle this distorted narrative that Muslims are "uniquely bad". Indeed, there will be plenty of people who saw Trump's re-tweet who will still be of the belief (considering they may not be aware of the subsequent correction) that the perpetrator was a Muslim specifically because Trump re-tweeted it; this may have stirred prejudice within them or might well have "confirmed" (in their misguided view) their prejudices for them. This is harm caused by misrepresentation and distortion.

Trumps intension are irrelevant you are assuming he is competent.

By trying to censor him you validate everything he says.

I don't know it the guy was a Muslim either way, I don't know him, the best way to the truth is
publicity.

The tweet was out there anyway, all the right wingers would have seen it and believed it anyway, now they
know that the claim he was a Muslim has been denied officially.

So Trump has damaged his credibility and people are less likely to believe what he says, thus
free speech has made the world a better place

[tricky_colour]

Out of interest, do you believe in any other absolute rights, besides free expression? If so, what are they? What if they conflict with another "absolute right"?



Yes I do believe in absolute rights so long as they do not directly harm another person.

A right to drink drive for example, but if you cause an accident you face the full consequences,
if you dont have an accident well done!

Sober people have accidents by the way.

Now suppose you tweet I am a peado and the twitter censor allow that tweet because he believes you, but denies me the right to replay "cos twitter bans peados".

I am as good as dead than am I not?

[tricky_colour]

Sure, media monopolisation exists now (and such monopolisation can result in de facto restraints on others' expression and indeed can result in private censorship), but legal regulation at least helps keeps otherwise-absolute power in check. In your dystopian nightmare of absolute free speech, monopolisation by the powerful would be much worse than it is now. You clearly have no answer to this. My suggested solution is greater media democratisation; not absolute free speech rights, which is just a nonsensical and delusional head-in-the-sand approach.

Personally, I have many reservations in respect of the BBC (https://twitter.com/JerryHicksUnite/status/939812934443773953) and I think groups like Media Lens (http://www.medialens.org/) and FAIR (https://fair.org/) do sterling work in scrutinising and exposing the distortions and propaganda of media outlets, such as the BBC (http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/search-the-archive.html?searchword=bbc&searchphrase=all), who disingenuously profess to be impartial or liberal, but I'd be interested in hearing why you believe the BBC to be an "unregulated" propaganda channel. The BBC, whilst engaging in plenty of distortion and misrepresentation - or sometimes even outright falsehood (https://twitter.com/DanielCollins85/status/754086608589258757) - in favour of a pro-Western narrative, does not enjoy absolute free speech rights. It has to adhere to (or at least give the appearance of adhering to) at least some protocols, standards and regulations.

And I think you're getting cause and effect mixed up. De facto restraint and private censorship in this context result from monopolisation by the powerful and a lack of de jure regulation, or a lack of checks and balances on their power, in other words. Are you saying that monopolisation results from the powerful entities' own de facto censorship or are you saying that it results from de jure censorship? If you're saying it arises from their own de facto or private censorship, then you're undermining your entire argument and admitting that a lack of de jure regulation leads to monopolisation of expression and communication by the powerful. If, on the other hand, you're saying that their monopolisation arises from de jure censorship, can you explain how this is necessarily the case and why you believe this to be so?



But you (or Fred) are not everyone, so you can't assume everyone else would respond to the information in identical fashion. Ideally, Fred would be able to make an informed decision based on evidence over malicious rumour and falsehood. A transparent and independent court of law has a role to play here in separating the fact from the defamatory fiction. That Fred's opinion or uncertainty might be potentially influenced or sustained by defamatory lies or that such misinformation would be allowed to enable a seed of doubt to remain in Fred's mind regarding the allegations relating to Tim and Bob is not ideal. Fred may have been friendly with Tim and Bob prior to the allegations, but now he might have made a decision to cut both of them out of his life because he can't be sure which of the two is the murderer, if one was a murderer at all. That's a detrimental material effect upon at least two completely innocent people's lives there arising directly from your juvenile and ill-considered approach to free speech.

How are facts that are substantiated by clear and reliable evidence the same thing as "one sided propaganda enabled by censorship", particularly in this specific case of Fred, Tim and Bob? You're just repeating meaningless mantra now.

Monopolization exists because of government rules which allow and create monopolies rather than discourage them,
government like monopolies, they do not like having their polices questions so creating and controlling is a brilliant idea for them.

And of course your arguments collapse like the twin towers when it becomes clear that the regulators are no better than those
the regulate.

Now you ave real evil at work evil that cannot be challenged, thus you are on your way to your first genocide.


A transparent and independent court of law has a role to play here in separating the fact from the defamatory fiction.

lol independant?

Anyhow how does court work, ie the least corrupt ones which use a jury as possessed to totally evil jury less ones
which are for example looking in to the Grenfell Tower fire murders.

A jury is of 12 men is good a jury of 8 billion is better, that is what free speech gives.

And of course the corrupt Grenfell Tower is lead by some corrupt judge, the corrupt establishment judging the corrupt establishment,
we know already nobody is going to jail, apart form one of the claimants obviously, the scape goat, the sacrificial lamb, you could not make it up.

[dahamsta]

As mentioned recently in the Trump thread, the Current Affairs forum requires facts and data to support assertions, and there's a major falling down here. In particular, tricky_color, you've been presented with several refutations at this point but rather than research your own standpoint you're simply responding with long-winded diatribes, and more recently personal attacks. Bring up your game or you'll find yourself at the end of the censorship you don't believe in.

[DannyInvincible]

As mentioned recently in the Trump thread, the Current Affairs forum requires facts and data to support assertions, and there's a major falling down here. In particular, tricky_color, you've been presented with several refutations at this point but rather than research your own standpoint you're simply responding with long-winded diatribes, and more recently personal attacks. Bring up your game or you'll find yourself at the end of the censorship you don't believe in.

Evil!

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8030859.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Crucifix-exorcism.jpg

[DannyInvincible]

Trumps intension are irrelevant you are assuming he is competent.

By trying to censor him you validate everything he says.

I don't know it the guy was a Muslim either way, I don't know him, the best way to the truth is
publicity.

The tweet was out there anyway, all the right wingers would have seen it and believed it anyway, now they
know that the claim he was a Muslim has been denied officially.

So Trump has damaged his credibility and people are less likely to believe what he says, thus
free speech has made the world a better place

This is just bonkers, and I'm trying to be as polite as possible.

I wasn't advocating censoring Trump. I was simply making the point that his words can be harmful, as you were still peddling the myth (proven false with reference to plenty of examples to the contrary from myself and other posters above) that words cannot be harmful. Anyway, even if I was trying to censor him, how would that necessarily "vindicate everything he says"? It might make him a "martyr" amongst his admirers and feed his disingenuous "we're being silenced by political correctness" narrative, but it wouldn't prove what he says to be right, reasonable or justified. His bull**** would still be bull**** either way.

Your posts can be difficult to follow; so are you saying the guy in the re-tweeted video was a Muslim or that he wasn't a Muslim? If, as you say, "the claim he was a Muslim has been denied officially", then why are you also saying that you "don't know it the guy was a Muslim either way"? Are you saying the claim might be suspect? Have you got a link to any further info on this as I've admittedly not followed the story in a huge deal of detail and your comments are a tad confusing? I've done a really brief Google search but can't find any update on the perpetrator's identity.

Of course Trump's intentions are relevant. It enables us to make a value judgment and criticise accordingly. Trump attempted to propagate a misleading narrative. Don't you realise that the scrutiny and reported contradiction of the content would never have been necessary had Britain First and Trump simply not peddled their nonsense in the first place as nobody would have been misled or misframed then, therefore meaning that nobody would have required any clarification or correction? The world would have been a better place if Britain First and Trump had just given up spreading their bull**** in the first place.

Trump is constantly peddling bull**** and it doesn't seem to be doing his reputation a huge deal of damage amongst his core vote (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/), so your utterly bizarre argument - effectively that Trump's expressions have made the world a better place - is demonstrably false in this instance; his bull**** got him elected president of the most powerful nation on earth, for heaven's sake. He's been an incendiary presence on the global stage ever since, be it in his dealings in respect of North Korea or in relation to Israel-Palestine last week. And yet millions of people still entertain him and regard him as a truth-seeker standing up to "fake news" and "political correctness". The image he conveys is a total inversion of reality, like the slogan of Ingsoc in '1984': "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."


Yes I do believe in absolute rights so long as they do not directly harm another person.

Name two or three rights you believe are absolute. What happens when one person's "absolute right" to do something clashes with another person's "absolute right" to something else?

You do understand what "absolute" means, right? If a right is conditional upon not directly harming another person, then it's no longer absolute. "Absolute" refers to something that is not qualified; something with no condition(s) attached. If a right can be restrained if its exercising will cause direct harm to another person, that is a condition attached.

Anyway, just to get this straight, are you now saying that you would accept a limitation upon any expression that would directly harm another person? Why have we been even having this debate if that's what you truly believe? What a waste of time. You clearly haven't thought too deeply about all of this this. You can't just advocate things left, right and centre without thinking of the logical consequences and contradictions.


A right to drink drive for example, but if you cause an accident you face the full consequences,
if you dont have an accident well done!

... Wow. Are you actually defending/advocating a "right" to drive whilst drunk now? :confused:

Let's dissect this, just to show how utterly ludicrous it is. What about the risk to life and health that drink-drivers pose to other road-users who use the road responsibly? Tough luck, you say, when they're killed in an accident caused by a drunk road-user in an oncoming car? I guess their life wasn't worth putting a legal restraint upon the driver who was over the alcohol limit... What is going on in your head? I suppose you see no value in speed limits either because you feel there ought to be a right to speed, and to hell with other road-users; that they may also suffer the consequences of the speeder's reckless actions is irrelevant? Your apparent guiding philosophy is positively dangerous.


Sober people have accidents by the way.

What's your point? In comparison to driving whilst sober, drink-driving significantly increases one's likelihood of having an accident, which is why there are laws against it; for the greater well-being of all, for one's own safety (considering drinking is proven to give rise to risky behaviours) and for the general safety of those other road-users (because we do live in a world with other people, after all). This is supported by evidence.

Are you Danny Healy-Rae in disguise?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rocekz-FzCc


Now suppose you tweet I am a peado and the twitter censor allow that tweet because he believes you, but denies me the right to replay "cos twitter bans peados".

I am as good as dead than am I not?

You think you would be as good as dead because you got banned from Twitter?

https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/notsure-1.jpg

There is life beyond Twitter.

Or do you mean that, because you were accused of being a paedophile on Twitter and subsequently weren't allowed the opportunity to defend yourself on the platform, you'd be "as good as dead" (in reference back to my hypothetical scenario where an angry mob hunted you down after mainstream media outlets accused you of being a paedophile)? Well, if that is what you mean, then no; of course you wouldn't be as good as dead in this instance, because you would still enjoy the option of a legal remedy - on account of defamation law (which discourages such groundless allegations in the first place) - to protect your reputation, clear your name and sue me or perhaps Twitter for damages if the truth of the injurious allegation cannot be proven.

As an aside, if you really do believe you'd be "as good as dead" because Twitter has banned you after defamatory words were tweeted about you, then aren't you acknowledging that some words can have a potentially harmful effect (although I personally think you're exaggerating the potential for harm in this instance, as I don't see why I would have such sway over the Twitter censors and you'd still have the option of legal recourse anyway).

[DannyInvincible]

Monopolization exists because of government rules which allow and create monopolies rather than discourage them,
government like monopolies, they do not like having their polices questions so creating and controlling is a brilliant idea for them.

And of course your arguments collapse like the twin towers when it becomes clear that the regulators are no better than those
the regulate.

Rules need not necessarily do what you say. Rules can simply attempt to protect or strike a happy balance between competing rights.

I've already acknowledged that it's not possible for those advocating regulation (and I include myself in that) to perfectly define who polices what cannot be said in a pure incorruptible way. Humans are fallible and regulation is inherently imperfect as a result but it is still infinitely more preferable for all members of society than the dystopian alternative of unrestricted private power that you advocate.

Regulators may not be inherently better than those they regulate, but protections can be put in place to reduce the potential for abuse of power. As Noam Chomsky has said (http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34369-why-i-choose-optimism-over-despair-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky), the ultimate task for social policy is to design the ways we live and the institutional and cultural structure of our lives so as to favour the benign and to suppress the harsh and destructive aspects of our fundamental nature. In our specific case, the task for social policymakers is to ensure that the process of regulation is as transparent and democratic as possible and is subject to as high a burden of justification as is possible. For you, however, the objective of social policy seems to be: "Anything goes, and who cares if others suffer your consequences too!" That's just reckless, inconsiderate and counter-productive. Self-destructive even.


Now you ave real evil at work evil that cannot be challenged, thus you are on your way to your first genocide.

What are you on about? Regulation equals genocide?... :rolleyes: Try and be serious.

Regulation can of course be abused, just as unfettered power - which you advocate - can also enable horrors like genocide. As I've said above, the key is putting in place a governing framework which keeps (potentially abusive) power in check and reduces the potential for regulation being exploited to oppress (the vulnerable, in particular).


lol independant?

The separation of powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) principle can help ensure as independent a judiciary as possible.


Anyhow how does court work, ie the least corrupt ones which use a jury as possessed to totally evil jury less ones
which are for example looking in to the Grenfell Tower fire murders.

A jury is of 12 men is good a jury of 8 billion is better, that is what free speech gives.

Are you advocating what might be called "mob rule" and "mob justice" then? I disagree with enforced Diplock-style courts myself and strongly advocate the use of a jury, or perhaps even giving the defendant the option of a jury or bench trail if they so wish, but you don't think that the involvement of least some specialist legal and judicial expertise might help ensure the safe and satisfactory passage of justice? You'd rather the whole procedure was dealt with by (eight billion?) untrained laypeople, plenty of whom may harbour a grudge, with the local pub serving as a "court of law"? How would that work exactly? You don't think there'd be potential for more abuse there in light of the absence of over-seeing legal expertise or governing rules and procedures?


And of course the corrupt Grenfell Tower is lead by some corrupt judge, the corrupt establishment judging the corrupt establishment,
we know already nobody is going to jail, apart form one of the claimants obviously, the scape goat, the sacrificial lamb, you could not make it up.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this point is. Nowhere have I stated that the British legal system is the ideal or some infallible paragon of justice. It has its many flaws and has overseen countless whitewashes and intolerable miscarriages of justice. Indeed, I don't hold much faith in the Grenfell criminal inquiry myself either (and George Monbiot has outlined valid concerns, with which I agree, here (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/05/grenfell-fire-public-inquiry-stitch-up-red-tape-regulation-policy-exchange) and here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNHvwcpHmys)), but you're presenting a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be a case of either the self-preserving British establishment set-up or the lawless libertarian set-up you're advocating; a more preferable middle ground can be found to ensure effective and transparent justice.

As an aside, the Grenfell disaster was actually a direct consequence of the sort of deregulation (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/grenfell-tower-red-tape-safety-deregulation) that your dangerous laissez-faire libertarian philosophy promotes.

[DannyInvincible]

On the topic of Trump's re-tweet, I've come across this (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/trump-spreads-false-anti-muslim-tweet/) where the Dutch authorities clarified that the perpetrator of the attack wasn't a migrant, as had been claimed in the tweet. I can't find any update or clarification on the perpetrator's alleged Muslim identity. Not that it really matters anyway, as it it's hardly proof that Muslims are "uniquely bad" or that only Muslims commit assaults/crimes.

[tricky_colour]

Given I have received unexpected infractions I can't continue the discussion here much as I would like to reply.

[DannyInvincible]

You haven't been banned, as far as I can see. You've simply been asked to back up your assertions with evidence/links, which is a completely reasonable request and it's just the decent thing to do in a debate anyway. If you refrained from deflecting and just dealt with the matters under discussion, that would probably help too. Name-calling doesn't help your case either. I don't think you called me anything and whilst P_Stu referred to you as a "convicted paedophile", it was quite obviously used with a heavy dose of satirical sarcasm in order to expose the ridiculous logic of your position. When you threw that back at him, it just seemed like petty name-calling as I'm not sure how it was supposed to bolster your position. It actually undermined your argument because you appeared to be using the accusation as a way to attack him. Thus, you must believe that some words can have a potentially harmful effect, after all.

You're not entitled to use this platform as you wish considering it is dahamsta who maintains and pays for it, as far as I know. In fact, you're not entitled to use this platform at all; you use it as a guest ultimately with his permission, just like every other user of the forum.

Anyway, this is a sensible summary of the free speech issue by Noam Chomsky:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdvYbG3U_U

He is widely regarded as a strong free speech advocate (and justifiably so), but even he acknowledges that it's not a black-and-white issue and that "even the most passionate advocate of freedom of speech does not believe that, say, I have a right to go into your living room and put up a pornographic poster or something".

On free speech generally, Chomsky once stated (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/688824-goebbels-was-in-favor-of-free-speech-for-views-he) the following, and it's a view with which I concur:


Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you'e not in favour of free speech.

There are still certain spheres in which regulation is sensible and broadly non-contentious, however. Absolutism is just juvenile nonsense that fails to consider logical consequences.

I also came across this Al Jazeera debate - "Should free speech be protected, no matter what?" - between Glenn Greenwald and Stanley Fish (chaired by Mehdi Hassan) via Facebook earlier and thought it was relevant: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2017/12/free-speech-protected-matter-171215083726784.htm

Interestingly, just on the issue of Trump, that great free-speech champion (:sarcastic:), for someone who has publicly complained about the alleged chilling effect of "political correctness" on expression (essentially, his way of attempting to discredit and police liberal or left-wing criticism of his right-wing ignorance and bigotry), it is astonishing that he has taken the move to actually prohibit the use of a list of specified words by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.c16dd6e391f2


Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

It seems these words weren't "correct enough" for his politics. A very dangerous hypocrite is Trump.

Bizarrely, right-wing media outlets are spinning this prohibition on expression as "the Trump administration ... scrubbing the CDC of political correctness": https://worldpoliticus.com/2017/12/16/breaking-the-trump-administration-is-scrubbing-the-cdc-of-political-correctness/

This is inverted reality.

Just on your claim that "the info on a bus time table is always correct" and that "[whether] it coincides with the running of buses is a different matter"; if the info doesn't coincide with the running of the buses, then the info evidently isn't correct. How are you even disputing something as straightforward and self-evident as that? :confused:

[tricky_colour]

You haven't been banned, as far as I can see. You've simply been asked to back up your assertions with evidence/links, which is a completely reasonable request and it's just the decent thing to do in a debate anyway. If you refrained from deflecting and just dealt with the matters under discussion, that would probably help too. Name-calling doesn't help your case either. I don't think you called me anything and whilst P_Stu referred to you as a "convicted paedophile", it was quite obviously used with a heavy dose of satirical sarcasm in order to expose the ridiculous logic of your position. When you threw that back at him, it just seemed like petty name-calling as I'm not sure how it was supposed to bolster your position. It actually undermined your argument because you appeared to be using the accusation as a way to attack him. Thus, you must believe that some words can have a potentially harmful effect, after all.

You're not entitled to use this platform as you wish considering it is dahamsta who maintains and pays for it, as far as I know. In fact, you're not entitled to use this platform at all; you use it as a guest ultimately with his permission, just like every other user of the forum.

Anyway, this is a sensible summary of the free speech issue by Noam Chomsky:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdvYbG3U_U

He is widely regarded as a strong free speech advocate (and justifiably so), but even he acknowledges that it's not a black-and-white issue and that "even the most passionate advocate of freedom of speech does not believe that, say, I have a right to go into your living room and put up a pornographic poster or something".

On free speech generally, Chomsky once stated (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/688824-goebbels-was-in-favor-of-free-speech-for-views-he) the following, and it's a view with which I concur:



There are still certain spheres in which regulation is sensible and broadly non-contentious, however. Absolutism is just juvenile nonsense that fails to consider logical consequences.

I also came across this Al Jazeera debate - "Should free speech be protected, no matter what?" - between Glenn Greenwald and Stanley Fish (chaired by Mehdi Hassan) via Facebook earlier and thought it was relevant: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2017/12/free-speech-protected-matter-171215083726784.htm

Interestingly, just on the issue of Trump, that great free-speech champion (:sarcastic:), for someone who has publicly complained about the alleged chilling effect of "political correctness" on expression (essentially, his way of attempting to discredit and police liberal or left-wing criticism of his right-wing ignorance and bigotry), it is astonishing that he has taken the move to actually prohibit the use of a list of specified words by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.c16dd6e391f2



It seems these words weren't "correct enough" for his politics. A very dangerous hypocrite is Trump.

Bizarrely, right-wing media outlets are spinning this prohibition on expression as "the Trump administration ... scrubbing the CDC of political correctness": https://worldpoliticus.com/2017/12/16/breaking-the-trump-administration-is-scrubbing-the-cdc-of-political-correctness/

This is inverted reality.

Just on your claim that "the info on a bus time table is always correct" and that "[whether] it coincides with the running of buses is a different matter"; if the info doesn't coincide with the running of the buses, then the info evidently isn't correct. How are you even disputing something as straightforward and self-evident as that? :confused:



I have made a lot of assertions, which ones must I back up?


I called Stu the same thing to show how ineffective evidenceless claims are.

If every is making wild claim then none are believed people will only believe stuff back by evidence. *except* when you
have censorship in place and the only repeated hear one opinion (brainwashing).

I didn't cal you anything as you didn't call me anything however were you to make baseless claims against me
I think I am entitled to return the complement.

And as to what something "seems like" well that is not evidence based and you should not act without concrete evidence,
you should not assume your assumptions are correct. That is common sense to me at least.

The problem with regulation of free speech is who gets to regulate it?

Those who regulate will always regulate in their own interests.

I have no problem with free speech of anything so long as everyone gets to be heard.

Real problem of justice occur when one side is free to speak but the other is silence.

You could never have a fair trail when just the prosecution or just the defence spoke for a fair trail, both
but be heard.

What we tend to see if that with libel laws those with the most money tend to be able to silence whoever they
like via threats of legal action.

That is an unjust system to me.

So long as my voice can be heard I don't feel the need to silence anyone.

As for the left complain about Trump censorship of seven words most of them had no problem the censoring of all of Milo's words.

If you are confident of your case you do not need censorship.

That is how I see it.


I am with the US constitution.



Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.






Now that was just fine... untill


Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court). These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States) is a right protected by the constitution, these exceptions make that right a limited one.

Suddenly there are a whole load of exceptions. Violating the first amendment.


Now the first amendment was 1791.

All the "exceptions" seem to have crept in the second part of the 20th century.

A bad bad move. And it has been downhill all the way since then.

[tricky_colour]

Just on your claim that "the info on a bus time table is always correct" and that "[whether] it coincides with the running of buses is a different matter"; if the info doesn't coincide with the running of the buses, then the info evidently isn't correct. How are you even disputing something as straightforward and self-evident as that?

It is always correct as that was what was written.

If asked what the bus time time table said you would simply repeat what it said.

Whether it was as intended is another matter.

[Real ale Madrid]

Good night Tricky?

[DannyInvincible]

I have made a lot of assertions, which ones must I back up?

If you make any assertion, I think it's fair to expect you to be prepared to back it up - the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim and all that - so I'm referring to any assertion of yours that has been contradicted or challenged. There are plenty of reasoned rebuttals of your arguments and claims over the past few pages (not only from myself) that you've just ignored or evaded, only for you to later repeat the same refuted points over and over again like a malfunctioning robot.


I called Stu the same thing to show how ineffective evidenceless claims are.

But this is obvious nonsense. Claims made in a convincing manner can of course be effective towards some end - be that societal manipulation or whatever - even if they are ultimately groundless and unsubstantiated. This is proven fact. What do you think propaganda and public relations are and why do you think they're used as tools of influence on such a widespread basis? They're employed by those who wish to influence because they're effective in directing public opinion.

The US and UK went to war with Iraq on the basis of claims made without evidence, just to use one example of where such claims had serious materially harmful and long-lasting effects. Those claims clearly weren't ineffective; they served US and UK geopolitical interests very well and helped manufacture consent for their military adventure.

Can you therefore accept that your assertion in this instance has been proven false? Unfortunately, based on your prior form, I suspect that you'll just ignore the refutation and might even continue believing your delusion to be true. Ho hum. Whether it's wilful dishonesty or some inability to confront the truth, this is why you create problems for yourself and I'd guess it's probably why you had trouble with Twitter, who you say banned you (although you didn't elaborate as to why).


If every is making wild claim then none are believed people will only believe stuff back by evidence. *except* when you
have censorship in place and the only repeated hear one opinion (brainwashing).

Trump spouts nonsense on a near-daily basis. His nonsense is challenged by the media and others with evidence but plenty of people still believe him, so, once again, this assertion of yours that people will only believe stuff backed up by evidence in the face of competing claims is demonstrable nonsense.


I didn't cal you anything as you didn't call me anything however were you to make baseless claims against me
I think I am entitled to return the complement.

Do two wrongs make a right? Wouldn't responding with counter baseless claims simply make you as bad as the person with whom you're taking issue who has just made the baseless claims against you? Don't you immediately lose the moral high-ground once you stoop to their level?


The problem with regulation of free speech is who gets to regulate it?

Those who regulate will always regulate in their own interests.

We've been over this problem multiple times and I think I've covered it, so I'm not sure why you keep asking. Ideally, there would be no regulation of expression, but where it is necessary due to conflicting rights, it should be democratic, transparent and subject to as high a burden of justification as possible (so as to limit the potential for self-interested or factional abuse). I personally believe that to be much more preferable than unrestrained private power having a monopoly over public expression.


I have no problem with free speech of anything so long as everyone gets to be heard.

But that conflicts with your absolutism, which will inevitably result in the monopolisation of expression by private power, thus leading to an overall restraining effect in terms of diversity of public discourse and who gets heard. Even in a society like the US, which has very liberal free speech laws, private power tends to monopolise the marketplace of ideas. This would be much worse if there was no regulation at all.


Real problem of justice occur when one side is free to speak but the other is silence.

I agree, but reasonable regulation doesn't have to equate to one side having a voice and another being silenced. Who's advocating that? It's a false dilemma and a total strawman. You seem either unable or unwilling to grasp that we don't have to have a debate about extremes. You seem to want to only talk about extremes, as if it's a black-and-white issue, instead of dealing with the difficult and more complex grey stuff in the middle. It doesn't have to be a case of one extreme (absolute free speech) or the other (repressive North Korea-like tyranny); a happy medium can be found with the aim of protecting everyone's rights and well-being as best as possible.


What we tend to see if that with libel laws those with the most money tend to be able to silence whoever they
like via threats of legal action.

I don't see why this should necessarily be the case if someone can prove the truth of their claim.


So long as my voice can be heard I don't feel the need to silence anyone.

If your voice was suppressed, are you saying that that might constitute reasonable grounds for restraining others? That appears to conflict with your general position.


As for the left complain about Trump censorship of seven words most of them had no problem the censoring of all of Milo's words.

Another total red herring, as is so typical of your posts. What does the left's alleged opinion of Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos (I assume that's what you're referring to) have to do with Trump prohibiting a national/governmental public health protection agency (not a left-wing body) from using a list of commonly-accepted scientific/medical terms? Why not just criticise Trump, in line with your professed principles? The left isn't a homogenous monolith either; there are people on the left who are liberal when it comes to free speech rights and there are others who might espouse a more restrictive approach.


If you are confident of your case you do not need censorship.

That is how I see it.

Whether that's true or not, the debate is much more complex than that, because sometimes expression isn't just about the exchange of ideas; it can also be about infringement upon the rights of others. Reasonable regulation can protect those rights.

I'm not arguing that the censorship of ideas is justified, as I like to think that the best way to counter bad ideas is by presenting better ideas, rather than suppressing the bad ideas, but you cannot assume either that everyone who hears your confidently-expressed better ideas will accept them in a thoughtful and rational manner, even if you offer evidence in support of what you're saying. As humans, we have a rational side, but we are also animals guided by emotion and a survivalist instinct. Furthermore, not everyone has an equal platform, so you can't assume everyone will hear your case either, no matter how well or confidently it has been expressed.

As P_Stu pointed out above, you're a perfect example of how a person can just ignore factual ideas and evidence presented to him time and time again by instead sticking his head in the sand and continuing to believe and peddle disproven nonsense.


I am with the US constitution.



Now that was just fine... untill


Suddenly there are a whole load of exceptions. Violating the first amendment.


Now the first amendment was 1791.

All the "exceptions" seem to have crept in the second part of the 20th century.

A bad bad move. And it has been downhill all the way since then.

I think such developments indicate the adaptive or "living" nature of a constitutional document. Of course, there is potential for political bias or abuse in judicial interpretation, but a constitution must be able to adapt to suit the needs and complexities of the society of the day. That exceptions to a defined notion of free speech were deemed necessary is simply a reflection of the evolution of American society from the point when the constitution was first codified. Those who drew up the document obviously had not foreseen or envisaged certain future scenarios that were to necessitate a more nuanced approach to free speech rights.

Also, there is a school of thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Wording_of_the_clause) that says that the inclusion of the word "the" before "freedom of speech" is significant in distinguishing what is actually protected from all speech or expression:


The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…." U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article: "I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath. Like Stevens, journalist Anthony Lewis wrote: "The word 'the' can be read to mean what was understood at the time to be included in the concept of free speech."

[DannyInvincible]

It is always correct as that was what was written.

If asked what the bus time time table said you would simply repeat what it said.

Whether it was as intended is another matter.

You're not saying that, just because some information happens to be written, that makes it "correct", right?

If an old time-table hadn't been updated to cater for a change in bus times or if bus arrival times are so off that you can't rely on the time-table, you surely accept that it would be fair to say that the time-table isn't correct in that what it says doesn't match up with current reality? The bus time-table example is just an example of something that P_Stu used (somewhat jocularly, I sensed) to demonstrate that your claim that "information is never wrong" is total baloney.

Here's another example; if a food company flat-out lie on their food packaging and claim that the food they're selling has no fat in it when the foodstuff is in fact full of fat, isn't that an example of incorrect (and misleading) information? In what sense could you ever say that that information is correct?

[DeLorean]

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

[dahamsta]

Eloquently put and entirely accurate, thank you.


You haven't been banned, as far as I can see. You've simply been asked to back up your assertions with evidence/links, which is a completely reasonable request and it's just the decent thing to do in a debate anyway. If you refrained from deflecting and just dealt with the matters under discussion, that would probably help too. Name-calling doesn't help your case either. I don't think you called me anything and whilst P_Stu referred to you as a "convicted paedophile", it was quite obviously used with a heavy dose of satirical sarcasm in order to expose the ridiculous logic of your position. When you threw that back at him, it just seemed like petty name-calling as I'm not sure how it was supposed to bolster your position. It actually undermined your argument because you appeared to be using the accusation as a way to attack him. Thus, you must believe that some words can have a potentially harmful effect, after all.

You're not entitled to use this platform as you wish considering it is dahamsta who maintains and pays for it, as far as I know. In fact, you're not entitled to use this platform at all; you use it as a guest ultimately with his permission, just like every other user of the forum

[Real ale Madrid]

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.


https://youtu.be/swHAo5JZz6w

[DannyInvincible]

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

Blackface has a long and ignominous history that is best left in the dustbin of the past. Some details on its use by whites in history here: http://black-face.com/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface#History_in_the_United_States

It has long-standing racist, dehumanising and trivialising connotations that might be akin to wearing the N-word, if such was conceptually possible.

This summarises why its use remains a contentious issue today, even if well-meaning: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/advice/a50035/ask-dave-blackface/


Blackface was a key component of the minstrel shows of the early 19th Century, in which white performers would play slaves and free blacks. These portrayals would be built around insulting, degrading, and dehumanizing stereotypes of black people: the aggressive "buck" with his lustful eye on white women; the freed slave who aspired to polite society but couldn't pronounce his words correctly; the unkempt, neglected black children who were disposable even to their own parents. Blackface demeaned black people, and desensitized white audiences to the horrors of slavery. It was bad news.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYCaob7MDA8

What does that have to do with you, now that nobody on Earth was alive during slavery? Why is that still a problem in a country with a black president? Why can't I do it, even if I have black friends and several Kendrick Lamar tracks on my iPhone?

You still shouldn't do it, because it's still insulting. It still evokes that long, horrific period in our country's history, whether you want it to or not. It doesn't matter what your intention is, when the thing you are doing is racist. Look at it this way: you might have learned the C word from taking your woke ass to "The Vagina Monologues," but that doesn't mean it's a word you can say around your grandmother.

Without a doubt, there are some people reading this and thinking: "Everyone needs to stop being so politically correct. I'm not politically correct!" To which I reply: Yes, you are. You know how to alter your behavior to move smoothly through life. You know not to grab a female co-worker's breast and say HONK. You know not to smoke on an airplane. You wouldn't go to a dive bar in Wrigleyville this weekend, find the largest, drunkest guy, and yell "the Cubs SUCK" in his face. When the consequences are getting fired or fined or beaten up, you know how to behave. So why not add "considering the history and perspective of another human being whose daily experience is different from yours in ways you cannot imagine" to the list of reasons you should think before acting?

Guyanese-British Labour MP David Lammy (https://twitter.com/DavidLammy), for one, was specifically critical of Griezemann (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/dec/18/antoine-griezmann-aplogises-painting-himself-black). Sisonke Msimang (https://twitter.com/Sisonkemsimang) is a black South African writer who has written against the use of blackface by white people generally (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/08/boglarka-balogh-blackface-offensive). Julia Craven (https://twitter.com/juliacraven) is an African-American writer who has also advised against its use at, say, Hallowe'en (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dont-wear-blackface-halloween_us_5633b4dde4b06317991244ac), whilst Jenée Desmond-Harris (https://twitter.com/jdesmondharris) is another African-American commentator who has outlined why blackface is so offensive (https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7089591/dont-get-whats-wrong-with-blackface-heres-why-its-so-offensive).

Craven wrote the following:


[F]or so many black Americans, blackface carries unavoidable associations of hate, violence and degradation, and that if you choose to wear it, you're basically broadcasting the message "I don't give a **** about black people's feelings."

So it's not just a case of "politically correct", "serially outraged" or "over-sensitive" white people taking offence at other white people on behalf of black people; black people themselves are profoundly uncomfortable with the notion of white people masquerading as black people.

I don't think many white people would be offended if a black person donned "whiteface" for entertainment purposes, but "whiteface" isn't tied up with a long history of oppression and harmful or subjugating racial stereotyping in the way blackface undeniably is and I suspect, if and when it is used, that "whiteface" is mostly used as a means of ridiculing the concept of blackface by sort of turning it on its head. The power dynamic at play is totally different as white people already enjoy privilege and cultural dominance in Western society. White people don't endure structural or systemic racism, whereas black people do.

Something which is a bit more serious though is that many people of colour attempt to assimilate and conform to the dominant white society and its perceived aesthetic ideals (http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/13/whiteface-is-a-thing-too-lets-talk-about-it-6704665/) by physically whitening their skin. Although Michael Jackson also had vitiligo, he was a very prominent example of a black person who bleached his skin and changed his features through cosmetic surgery, for example, in order to appear white. Skin bleaching is also common in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia because many people of colour feel their natural skin colour will hold them back in life or that it isn't as appealing, beautiful or whatever. This is serious, not because it ought to offend white people, but because so many people of colour feel this way and feel insecure or inherently inferior simply on account of their darker skin colour and non-white appearance.

I suspect Griezemann was probably genuinely ignorant of the history of blackface and was sincerely well-meaning in what he was doing - I'm prepared to take his original explanation (that the costume was "a tribute") at face-value - but that doesn't give blackface a pass. His conditional apology was a bit lame - "sorry if I have offended some people" - and suggests he probably still doesn't fully grasp the fundamental issue, but, as he has been pulled up on it and the problematic nature of what he did has been emphasised to him, I guess he can take this opportunity to learn a bit more about blackface, its racist origins and the history of racial oppression of black people.

[DeLorean]

Ah, thanks, I had no knowledge of its history. Should've probably Googled that before asking! Surprised Tropic Thunder didn't cause more of a stir in that case, but then maybe it did! I do think I can recall some bit of controversy now that I think about it.

[DannyInvincible]

I've never seen 'Tropic Thunder', but, according to this (https://contextualhealing.blog/2009/02/05/tropic-thunder-and-post-racial-blackface/) piece on the film: "The reason that [Robert Downey, Jr. receiving an Oscar nomination for appearing in blackface in the film] is acceptable is that Downey, Jr. is not himself wearing blackface. Rather he is playing a character who dons blackface in a ridiculous illustration of Method acting."

[DannyInvincible]

It already is monopolised, because there is censorship.

The monopolies in control exercise censorship on their platforms.

If you run a media outlet you should allow people a right to reply to your out
put otherwise you have an unregulated propaganda channel, ie the BBC.

'Ofcom to investigate BBC climate change interview': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42400653


Media watchdog Ofcom has launched its first broadcasting standards investigation into the BBC since taking over as its regulator in April.

Ofcom will look into whether Radio 4's Today programme broke broadcasting rules during an interview with climate change sceptic Lord Lawson in August.

The BBC has admitted the item broke its guidelines and said Lord Lawson should have been challenged "more robustly".

[tricky_colour]

If you make any assertion, I think it's fair to expect you to be prepared to back it up - the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim and all that - so I'm referring to any assertion of yours that has been contradicted or challenged.

Every sentence I write is some sort of assertion.

Now you have not detail the claims which I have not been back up.

If you want me to back up a claim I would suggest you detail it rather than making vague references.

I don't know which claim you refer to?

To make it easier for you lets start with my first post.


Most of the people making such remarks, they are best ignored really, don't let them set the agenda, stick to the football.

Do you require me to back that up somehow, are you saying that is a false claims, if you are I'd like you to prove it.

I am being held to an impossible standard ie to defend myself against unclear accusations.

If you like being put on trail for being a "bad boy" and asked to defend yourself, against what exactly????


"I called Stu the same thing to show how ineffective evidenceless claims are. " - me

But this is obvious nonsense.

Well it is obviously nonsense to you, but that is because you are wrong.

You are assuming you know my intention and you can't because you are not a mind reader.

That *was* my intention and I am the only person who can truly know what my intention was.

I could have lied about it of course however I didn't an even if I did you can never prove it, you are not an
omnipotent all seeing all knowing god.

Can of course I do not have the time nor inclination to respond everything in every post. I'd be here forever.


'Ofcom to investigate BBC climate change interview': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42400653

All the government "regulators" are corrupt.

The first thing any organisation does is to buy it's regulator same as the energy companies bought the energy regulator *in my opinion.


But this is obvious nonsense. Claims made in a convincing manner can of course be effective towards some end - be that societal manipulation or whatever - even if they are ultimately groundless and unsubstantiated. This is proven fact. What do you think propaganda and public relations are and why do you think they're used as tools of influence on such a widespread basis? They're employed by those who wish to influence because they're effective in directing public opinion.

"Claims made in a convincing manner can of course be effective towards some end"

Not false claims made in an open and free society were free speech is not censored, if free speech is censored
then such propaganda can be effective, that is what Hitler was a keen censor, propaganda which can be openly
proved false just exposes the propagandist for the liar they are and makes future propaganda less effective.

But with censorship in place the world if you oyster, nobody can challenge your claim.


The US and UK went to war with Iraq on the basis of claims made without evidence, just to use one example of where such claims had serious materially harmful and long-lasting effects. Those claims clearly weren't ineffective; they served US and UK geopolitical interests very well and helped manufacture consent for their military adventure.

Can you therefore accept that your assertion in this instance has been proven false? Unfortunately, based on your prior form, I suspect that you'll just ignore the refutation and might even continue believing your delusion to be true. Ho hum. Whether it's wilful dishonesty or some inability to confront the truth, this is why you create problems for yourself and I'd guess it's probably why you had trouble with Twitter, who you say banned you (although you didn't elaborate as to why).

"The US and UK went to war with Iraq on the basis of claims made without evidence"

Can you expand on that?

As far as I can recall it went to a vote in parliament.

I can't claim to know the minds of those who voted, neither can you be sure of why they voted, you are not a mind reader, and what seems "obvious" to you may well be 100% wrong.

There is however strict censorship in government, particularly on matters of defence, if you reveal such info you can end
up in jail.

We do not know on what basis the decision was made, it went to a vote.






https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png Aye
Labour Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)) (254), Conservative Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) (146), Ulster Unionist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Unionist_Party) (6), Democratic Unionist Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Unionist_Party) (5), Independent Conservative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Conservative) (1)

412 / 659


No
Labour Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)) (84), Liberal Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)) (52), Scottish National Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party) (5), Plaid Cymru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaid_Cymru) (4), Conservative Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) (2), Independent Community and Health Concern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Community_and_Health_Concern) (1), Social Democratic and Labour Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_and_Labour_Party) (1)




But as you know much censorship of information operates in the UK.

https://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq


LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrilytold The New Republic (https://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003): "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

OK so why didn't Department of Energy officials come forward to deny that claim at the time???

But anyhow how a tube can be use is and open question and of course "other equipment" could be anything.


LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is ****ed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

So if people knew it was a lie, why did they keep quiet?

I mean it is really hard to see how *more censorship* would have helped here lol.

I mean basically those corrupt lying governments were would be and still are the ones in charge of the censorship. FAIL!

The argument is ridiculous, that that censorship by by the censors of a corrupt lying government will censor the lies of such a government - ridiculous.

Do you require a prove of that self evident statement?

Just like the Nazi censors kept Hitler to the straight and narrow? LOL.


Trump spouts nonsense on a near-daily basis. His nonsense is challenged by the media and others with evidence but plenty of people still believe him, so, once again, this assertion of yours that people will only believe stuff backed up by evidence in the face of competing claims is demonstrable nonsense.

Citation?

example?

[tricky_colour]

Another total red herring, as is so typical of your posts. What does the left's alleged opinion of Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos (I assume that's what you're referring to) have to do with Trump prohibiting a national/governmental public health protection agency (not a left-wing body) from using a list of commonly-accepted scientific/medical terms? Why not just criticise Trump, in line with your professed principles? The left isn't a homogenous monolith either; there are people on the left who are liberal when it comes to free speech rights and there are others who might espouse a more restrictive approach.

But I though you though censorship was a grand thing, the bedrock of all good?

So why have a problem with Trump censoring words? He is the numero uno, the most trusted, the fountain of knowledge the
one you look up to. You look to authority for guidance and he is your #1. he is your "god" are you challenging your "god" now?
He is the head censor so it is for the greater good.

TRUMP IS THE GOVERNMENT, HE IS SPECIFICALLY *ELECTED"

HE IS THE CENSOR IN CHIEF, THE HEAD OF OPPS.

You should listen to him, not some unelected government department.

Twitter was not elected, it has no mandate from the public to ban anyone.


"Censorship was rampant throughout Twitter . Censorship ensured that people could only see what the Twitter wanted people to see, hear what they wanted them to hear and read only what the Twitter deemed acceptable.

Replace Twitter with Nazi Germany as that gets you to the original text.




The problem with regulation of free speech is who gets to regulate it?

Those who regulate will always regulate in their own interests.

We've been over this problem multiple times and I think I've covered it, so I'm not sure why you keep asking. Ideally, there would be no regulation of expression, but where it is necessary due to conflicting rights, it should be democratic, transparent and subject to as high a burden of justification as possible (so as to limit the potential for self-interested or factional abuse). I personally believe that to be much more preferable than unrestrained private power having a monopoly over public expression.

I cannot recall you ever answering it satisfactorily to my mind. You maybe have made so response but it cannot ever answer it
as we are talking about a fundamental truth here, which is that censorship will never get you closer to the truth in an ideal world.

Whilst there maybe some issues with free speech they are nothing in comparison to those of censorship.

I can't clearly recall you giving any convincing response. Maybe you post a video, diverted, can you put it in a sentence *of your own*,
I remember some vague argument about someone breaking into my home and putting porn on the wall but breaking and entry is a crime already. I have no probs with false association, I have been called a pedo. I am not dead nor am I living in fear.

I don't remember you ever having clear answer to that one, but now you guess you will fall back on some "I already answered" claim.

Maybe you did give a clear concise answer, if you did and I missed it it should be no trouble to repeat it.


I think such developments indicate the adaptive or "living" nature of a constitutional document. Of course, there is potential for political bias or abuse in judicial interpretation, but a constitution must be able to adapt to suit the needs and complexities of the society of the day. That exceptions to a defined notion of free speech were deemed necessary is simply a reflection of the evolution of American society from the point when the constitution was first codified. Those who drew up the document obviously had not foreseen or envisaged certain future scenarios that were to necessitate a more nuanced approach to free speech rights.

No the constitution covers the fundamentals, without free speech you have nothing, it keep the powerful in check and the constitution was I think was written by those not holding power so much, as opposed to amendments written by existing governments/elite to tighten their grip on power.

It was not and "evolution" but a corruption.

We can see freedom of expression being crushed on the internet we had it for a long time and nobody died, however as censorship
is increase people will die, mark my words.

You look at any state and the more censorship you have the worse it is.

I am not afraid of what anyone has to say so long as I have the ability to respond.

When I have no ability to respond I am very afraid.

Those who drew up the document were well aware of the value of free speech, as it did not exist where they fled from.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_washington_146824?src=t_freedom_of_speech

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/freedom_of_speech

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/freedom_of_speech


If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/benjamin_franklin_717896?src=t_freedom_of_speech


Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin


Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Robert Kennedy

And of course the last one is the most important, without free speech you are blind and powerless to what is happening in the
world.

You are no longer a person.

You think there is some benefit in being blind, guided by some trusted person.

No thanks, I trust my own eyes and ears to stop me walking over a cliff.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Robert Kennedy
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/robert_kennedy_745917?src=t_freedom_of_speech

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Benjamin Franklin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/benjamin_franklin_717896?src=t_freedom_of_speech


Also, there is a school of thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Wording_of_the_clause) that says that the inclusion of the word "the" before "freedom of speech" is significant in distinguishing what is actually protected from all speech or expression:

The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…." U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article: "I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath. Like Stevens, journalist Anthony Lewis wrote: "The word 'the' can be read to mean what was understood at the time to be included in the concept of free speech."



That is just nonsense and gobbledgook.

I have no problem with false testimony under oath, I assume everyone if lying.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to lie, but of course I also have the freedom not to believe, there is no problem there.

But in court we listen to *all* the evidence, one side is almost by definition lying, otherwise there would be mouthing to judge.

This U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is part of the problem. He is stupid beyond belief, everyone convicted in court
has lied under oath by definition as have those who supported his innocence.

You have to assume as a starting point that everyone is lying or may be lying and give a verdict based on your judgement beyond reasonable doubt.

[Fizzer]

The problem Tricky is the same one that’s been there since the beginning of this thread,that is that you simply don’t understand what free speech means.That you would quote Robert Kennedy in support of your poisonous,hate-filled nonsense without any sense of irony would be funny if you weren’t such a worrying, warped person. Robert Kennedy was a pioneering campaigner for equal rights and for free speech.You are a campaigner for the’right’ for rascists to abuse ethnic minorities.There is no such ‘right’ nor should there be in any civilized society.

[tricky_colour]

Good night Tricky?

Was it? For me? I am not at liberty to disclose that information. :p

[tricky_colour]

The problem Tricky is the same one that’s been there since the beginning of this thread,that is that you simply don’t understand what free speech means.That you would quote Robert Kennedy in support of your poisonous,hate-filled nonsense without any sense of irony would be funny if you weren’t such a worrying, warped person. Robert Kennedy was a pioneering campaigner for equal rights and for free speech.You are a campaigner for the’right’ for rascists to abuse ethnic minorities.There is no such ‘right’ nor should there be in any civilized society.

Actually I am aware that when JFK made that speech free speech in the USA was already much compromised which was a problem for me I though about deleting it, Indeed I didn't fully watch is as it did not seem to be what I was expecting. seems I didn't not though.

I prefer short quotes I posted after. They were much clearer than JFK's ramble.

Indeed he started talking about foreign governments, I though he was gonna talk about in the USA LOL!!

(I mean, right so the USA is perfect and everyone else corrupt? lol)

Robert Kennedy didn't seem to succeed in removing the restrictions made to freedom of speech after the constitution was written so I ave no respect for him.

I am a campaigner for free speech and that of course include hate speech.

I believe racists have as much right to free speech as anyone else and I would defend that right
even though I might profoundly disagree and find disgusting what they say. 100%

Because that is my right to know about the world in which I live, without that I am not a human being equal to all other human beings.

I do not want to be a second class citizen, you want be to be one, but bizarrely you believe in equality.

I am an ethnic minority btw I am Irish in the UK.

I have no problem with folk giving abuse to me so long as I can reply.

So abusive speech is OK with me, however that is not a license for physical abuse I do not subscribe to that as you seemed perhaps to imply?

Oh and its it OK to abuse people who are not ethnic minorities? That implication seems to be that is just fine? Is that the case? And why? Are we not all equal?

It is not just about the freedom to speak but the freedom to listen.

If you do not want do know what is going on in the world in which you are living I would say you are insane.

You can't have democracy without knowledge and freedom to listen.

Seriously I think anyone who wants what can see hear or read so be censored is making a big big mistake.

If you do I ask you who is your ideal censor?

I'd love to hear your answers to that one!

I mean do you not even trust yourselves?

But we have talked a lot about internet censorship, now it is time to take a look at how censorship worked in the real world and who uses it.


https://i.pinimg.com/474x/e8/d1/90/e8d19081d1c70fd5124f5f6ea47da16d--tied-up-cops.jpg

[tetsujin1979]

The Jonas Brothers?

[tricky_colour]

This is obviously ill-advised given the world we live in, but is it actually racist? - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42387727

Why was it insensitive and who did it upset exactly? Would us white folk get upset if a black man applied some white face paint if order to look like Marilyn Monroe for a fancy dress party?

Is it feeding into the stereotype that there are a lot of black NBA basketball stars? If so, so what, there are.

Now, Chris Smalling dressing up as a suicide bomber... I can see why that would cause a stir.

I guess given the number of own goals Richard Dunne has scored I guess going to a party dress as a suicide bomber would be quite appropriated.

Heard the one about the suicide bomber who went to a fancy dress party dressed as Richard Dunne?

The censors seem to think the population are mindless morons who will blindly believe and follow every thing they read.

Now I don't think that at all, I see the population as intelligent human beings able to think for themselves.

I guess that is because we tend to see the general population as a reflection of ourselves?

[pineapple stu]

Tricky - you still haven't addressed the issue of "free speech" on a death certificate. You say it's never happened, therefore free speech is harmless. I say it has happened, and have given an example. A particularly relevant example, given it involved the politics of the North which saw an awful lot of hate speech and an awful lot of death over an awful long time. As far as I can see, my example fundamentally hits at the base of your view here.

I think you either need to refute my counter-point or change your view.

[tricky_colour]

Tricky - you still haven't addressed the issue of "free speech" on a death certificate. You say it's never happened, therefore free speech is harmless. I say it has happened, and have given an example. A particularly relevant example, given it involved the politics of the North which saw an awful lot of hate speech and an awful lot of death over an awful long time. As far as I can see, my example fundamentally hits at the base of your view here.

I think you either need to refute my counter-point or change your view.


What this?


Twelve people were killed, and the city coroner, TE Alexander, in reporting his finding that the cause of death was gunshot wounds in each case, gave his view that inflammatory and provocative speeches from "so-called leaders of public opinion" were responsible"

Think he said gunshot wounds not free speech.

The cause was nothing to do with free speech, indeed it was free speech which brought about an end to such things.

They actually cause goes back a long way in history and it certainly was not caused by free speech, at least I think so however I am not 100% what you refer to but the general cause was a lack of civil rights and that includes free speech.


There is a lot of hate that goes around and a lot of it is now expressed via speech. Often it is expressed by a bullet.

If you don't discuss problem you can't resolve them and means listening to "hate speech".

Suppressing "hate speech" leads to more violence and it is a made up nonsense term anyway as some hate speech is perfectly acceptable, the way it goes is the hate speech of the powerful is just fine but the response from those they are attacking is unacceptable.

Speech is the least harmful way of making a point.

[tricky_colour]

The Jonas Brothers?

I looked for picture of "bound and gagged" that was one of the free images that was postable.

[pineapple stu]

What this?



Think he said gunshot wounds not free speech.

The cause was nothing to do with free speech, indeed it was free speech which brought about an end to such things.
Why do you think the cause was nothing to do with free speech when the doctor - who was a lot closer to it than you or I - said that free speech was exactly what caused the death (even if bullets had to take the official blame)?

[tricky_colour]

Why do you think the cause was nothing to do with free speech when the doctor - who was a lot closer to it than you or I - said that free speech was exactly what caused the death (even if bullets had to take the official blame)?

Firstly you have not said exactly what incident you refer to.

Secondly free speech was not the cause, it was the underlying politics of the troubles.

Are you referring to the attack on the bloody Sunday civil rights march?

I have no idea why he said that, I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored.

He was the coroner, he was not even there.

The problems were rooted in mass unemployment and protestants not wanting catholics to have jobs or homes.

To say it was due to free speech is nonsense as the free speach laws were broadly the same before and after the incident.

[tricky_colour]

Why do you think the cause was nothing to do with free speech when the doctor - who was a lot closer to it than you or I - said that free speech was exactly what caused the death (even if bullets had to take the official blame)?

Firstly you have not said exactly what incident you refer to.

Secondly free speech was not the cause, it was the underlying politics of the troubles.

Are you referring to the attack on the bloody Sunday civil rights march?

I have no idea why he said that, I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored.

He was the coroner, he was not even there.

[pineapple stu]

Firstly you have not said exactly what incident you refer to.
It was a young man's death in the North.


Secondly free speech was not the cause, it was the underlying politics of the troubles.
What is politics if not free speech?


Are you referring to the attack on the bloody Sunday civil rights march?
No, I'm referring to this particular death; the one the coroner ascribed to free speech.


I have no idea why he said that, I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored.
This for me is the crux.

Why do you have no idea why the coroner blamed free speech? Why do you think it would rather have been censored? Is it because it suits your argument?

The reality is that if it disagrees with your argument, you should have a good reason to dismiss it. "I don't know why" isn't a good reason.

Your argument for ultimate free speech is that people aren't idiots, and will adopt to new arguments as they are made. But you're disproving this argument even as you type.


He was the coroner, he was not even there.
But the coroner, while not present at the actual death, was certainly present at the overall environmental issues - ie the culture of hate speech against either side of the divide in the North at the time. Why do you think you have the authority to dismiss his findings?

[Real ale Madrid]

I looked for picture of "bound and gagged" that was one of the free images that was postable.

This "debate" is just not fair. It's like Man Utd v Dublin Bus.

[pineapple stu]

This morning when I got to the train station, the real-time display said my train was seven minutes away. A minute later, the display said my train was now one minute away. Some conclusions, with reference to this thread -

> My train was both seven minutes away and one minute away at the same time. Obviously impossible.
> One piece of information was wrong (But tricky tells us this is impossible)
> Seven minutes was correct with the information available at the time, but in light of new information, this was revised to one minute. But tricky doesn't seem to hold to this either given how he's still arguing that no coroner ever declared free speech as a cause of death even after he's been given an example of this exact thing happening.
> I'm lying and none of this actually happened - but information can't be wrong, so that's not possible.

I don't think any other explanation can be given. Yet any of the explanations above is basically impossible according to tricky.

So - where was my train?

[Charlie Darwin]

This morning when I got to the train station, the real-time display said my train was seven minutes away. A minute later, the display said my train was now one minute away. Some conclusions, with reference to this thread -

> My train was both seven minutes away and one minute away at the same time. Obviously impossible.
> One piece of information was wrong (But tricky tells us this is impossible)
> Seven minutes was correct with the information available at the time, but in light of new information, this was revised to one minute. But tricky doesn't seem to hold to this either given how he's still arguing that no coroner ever declared free speech as a cause of death even after he's been given an example of this exact thing happening.
> I'm lying and none of this actually happened - but information can't be wrong, so that's not possible.

I don't think any other explanation can be given. Yet any of the explanations above is basically impossible according to tricky.

So - where was my train?
Nowhere near you, considering you were standing at a bus stop.

[pineapple stu]

Partial credit!

It was the stop for the bus from Phibsboro to Tallaght, but that doesn't exist.

So is it a bus stop if I tell you that a random spot on the path is a bus stop? Evidently yes, because info can't be wrong.

[Charlie Darwin]

If it doesn't have the latest LOI scores on it it's not a bus stop. QED.