Racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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 even; the monopolisation of unregulated power in the marketplace of ideas can have a restraining (and directly censorial) 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?

Quote:

---

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, the criminalisation of activism against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and laws against Holocaust scepticism and 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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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, 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.

Quote:

---

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, 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?...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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.

Quote:

---

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 over the present corporate model.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. 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). 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. 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. The filtering system selects towards obedience and subordination.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

As has already been pointed out to you, the rules of evidence 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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 and I think groups like Media Lens and FAIR do sterling work in scrutinising and exposing the distortions and propaganda of media outlets, such as the BBC, 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 - 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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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 and I think groups like Media Lens and FAIR do sterling work in scrutinising and exposing the distortions and propaganda of media outlets, such as the BBC, 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 - 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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Evil!

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incomin...x-exorcism.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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, 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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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..../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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

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, 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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

lol independant?

---

The separation of powers principle can help ensure as independent a judiciary as possible.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 and here), 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 that your dangerous laissez-faire libertarian philosophy promotes.

On the topic of Trump's re-tweet, I've come across this 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.

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

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 the following, and it's a view with which I concur:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky

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/...5083726784.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/natio...=.c16dd6e391f2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lena H. Sun and Juliet Eilperin

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/2017/12/1...l-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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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/...5083726784.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/natio...=.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/2017/12/1...l-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.

Quote:

---

Amendment I

Congress 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

Quote:

---

Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the 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 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.