LeMaquis Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 But isn't that the point of having mods? If people know that a thread will be deleted if they post enough rubbish on it then the mods are allowing posters to effectively censor the forum. I don't actually support the pulling of the debate. However there will be a point where the debate has become so inane it might as well be pulled. I assume different mods will take different decisions - pull or clean up. In this case it suited the right-wingers to keep the debate going given their agenda. If they went over the top then that's their fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 I wouldn't censor posts like that as they just show the poster up to be the irrational buffoon he is. However when people start posting crap like that then it shows that the level of debate has descended into the absurd. The mods may then decide to pull the debate accordingly. What good is a debate when someone is arguing that black is white and white is in fact black. I can understand why some forums would close a thread that has descended into 'going nowhere' bickering but why delete a thread entirely that also contains serious debate on important subject matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The claim of 'distress' needs to be deemed reasonable doesn't it? I don't think it it is that easy to fall foul of public order laws. Do you have some examples we can look at? Yes, here are some. The gay horse is my favourite. http://reformsection5.org.uk/#?sl=3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Censorship of this site IMO is because of advertising revenue being affected. Some companies wouldn't want their products being on the same page as some of the left wing drivel on here It isn't just this site. I note that the BBC has shied away from showing cartoons relating to the Charlie Hebdo story. Is it fear, political correctness or political censorship? Do any of those reasons justify censorship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It isn't just this site. I note that the BBC has shied away from showing cartoons relating to the Charlie Hebdo story. Is it fear, political correctness or political censorship? Do any of those reasons justify censorship? I said on another thread that the very best response to this would be for as many media outlets as possible to publish the cartoons. They should then also all allow right of reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 I said on another thread that the very best response to this would be for as many media outlets as possible to publish the cartoons. They should then also all allow right of reply. Why do you think some of the media are not? I must confess that I find it particularly disturbing that the BBC coverage appears to be so constrained. Not only do they appear to be shying away from things that might cause offense but they seem to be playing down division and playing up unity with their coverage. A lot of Muslims have spoken out about how little coverage there is of the tit-for-tat reprisals that followed the Paris attacks and I have to agree. If feels like the BBC is censoring with rose-tinted reporting in order to play peacemaker... that isn't their role. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 11:29 ---------- Yes, here are some. The gay horse is my favourite. http://reformsection5.org.uk/#?sl=3 They are examples of accusations that were dismissed. Granted, we need to ignore silly complaints before they get to court and preferably before arresting people but common sense and free speech prevailed in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) It isn't just this site. I note that the BBC has shied away from showing cartoons relating to the Charlie Hebdo story. Is it fear, political correctness or political censorship? Do any of those reasons justify censorship? I watched BBC 24 last night and there was a discussion regarding the cartoons but non of the cartoons were shown..which seemed to run counter to the backslapping of freedom of speech Hebdo has recently suffered from. I personally think a lot of journalistic hypocrisy is floating around at mo.. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish Our governments constantly bleat on about not bowing to blackmail while watching journalists being hacked to pieces. Yet it seems the news media are bowing to blackmail. ---------- Post added 13-01-2015 at 12:05 ---------- You could be right... ... it will be interesting to keep a watch on which threads get deleted and which get properly 'modded' over the next few months though! The best way of avoiding that is to stay within the content of the thread rather than making it a SF/policy thread..which actually isn't up for debate if it ventures outside of its rules...which is exactly what has been done on this thread. Zamo has actually raised an important point only to be latched onto by thread killers. Edited January 13, 2015 by skinz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I watched BBC 24 last night and there was a discussion regarding the cartoons but non of the cartoons were shown..which seemed to run counter to the backslapping of freedom of speech Hebdo has recently suffered from. I personally think a lot of journalistic hypocrisy is floating around at mo.. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish Our governments constantly bleat on about not bowing to blackmail while watching journalists being hacked to pieces. Yet it seems the news media are bowing to blackmail. The Je Suis Charlie thing genuinely irritated me. You're not 'Charlie' by holding up a banner and aimlessly walking around with Paris for a bit, protected in a large group of like-minded people. Charlie Hebdo prided itself in taking no prisoners in its mockery of religious and political icons. The contributors weren't going to be told what to do and how to use their powers of free speech. You can't blame the owners of public forums for pruning things which may offend potentially dangerous minorities. They're not going to risk being shot in the face just so they can protect a user's right to post a non-inflammatory picture of Mohammad on one of the threads (not that this has happened, but a an example). It's the right of a government to protect its citizens against such things, and if people don't feel safe exercising their free speech then their government is failing. In a European country you shouldn't have to abide by a non-indigenous religious law for real fear of reprisals. Unfortunately, European countries have changed. Politicians have bent over backwards to accommodate immigration and diversity, and now two opposing cultures are nose-to-nose in the same neighbourhood. Just look at Sweden! I think free speech against religion without fear of reprisal is a thing of the past. Attacks such as the Je Sui Charlie one aren't going to stop. Religion isn't going to cease to exist and religious fundamentalists aren't going to die out as nothing is diminishing their numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 They are examples of accusations that were dismissed. Granted, we need to ignore silly complaints before they get to court and preferably before arresting people but common sense and free speech prevailed in the end. Mostly you are right but the street preacher was fined and convicted. Others went to court. One of the Muslim poppy burners was also convicted under this act. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048895/Law-poppy-burning-fanatics-dock-faces-axe.html But besides the arrests it is my belief that the Public Order Act section 5 is specifically designed to inhibit free speech; to prevent people giving their opinion freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Its disappointing the thread in question was removed, not only because of it being a major news event, but also because there were so many interesting contributions. I would have welcomed the usual intervention or comment from a moderator prior to the decision, but perhaps the reason they chose to remove it is due to reported complaints, and lack of time to deal with offending posts. Edited January 13, 2015 by janie48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now