Demonstrations, Riots and Disorder Across the UK Following the Southport Attacks

[Anna B]

20 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

People have free speech but it's not free from consequences.

 

Plus there is a million miles difference between free speech and hate speech,  between free speech and publishing defamatory, false, manipulated and deliberately provocative statements on a public platform. 

 

Free speech doesn't extend to targeted attacks against certain individuals or groups of people which could be deemed discrimination, harassment or bullying.

 

Free speech doesn't extend to groups of thugs gathering together to harass, cause property damage, create violence and intimidation. 

 

I agree with some of this, but they could start by better defining what hate speech actually is in law.

At the moment it seems to be whatever the authorities think it is, so the goalposts move all the time. 

Yes there needs to be a degree of flexibility depending on circumstances, intent etc, but that should be at the behest of the judge; that's what they're paid for.

Meanwhile the law itself should be clear, concise and public knowledge so everyone knows where they stand, or it should be scrapped altogether

 

 

 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

People have free speech but it's not free from consequences.

 

Plus there is a million miles difference between free speech and hate speech,  between free speech and publishing defamatory, false, manipulated and deliberately provocative statements on a public platform. 

 

Free speech doesn't extend to targeted attacks against certain individuals or groups of people which could be deemed discrimination, harassment or bullying.

 

Free speech doesn't extend to groups of thugs gathering together to harass, cause property damage, create violence and intimidation. 

Speech does not cause property damage but it can be intimidating and cause harassment, if you let it

[*_ash_*]

1 hour ago, The_DADDY said:

Thats the thing with free speech. 

Either everyone has it or no one does.

 

I don't want to continue my waffling about China, but they do have this right policy right in my opinion. 

You can post on sites approved by the government, but you have to register using your own details. 

 

Personally, I agree with this. You don't have to use your own name, so you do have free speech to this extent... it's not like I can post and everybody knows who I am... but all the crap posted on these English allowed sites can be completely anonymous. Why?

 

see next part answering Prettytom...

43 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

Nobody does have it.

 

Once people realise that, everything becomes a bit nicer.

I don't necessarily agree with banning all these Twitter, Facebook etc... but I would put in a condition to using them in the UK that you have to sign up, or confirm your identity with a passport (or similar). 

That would stop it. 

 

If this isn't acceptable then, I would do what China does and block them all. 

 

Tell me what benefit these sites have to the country? 

 

Answer: Keeps people in touch with each other... well China has that. I have that too with my Wechat account. 

43 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Strange that certain factions didn't complain about Twitter when it was a left leaning platform, even the former owner Jack Dorsey admitted it was biased towards the left.

 

 

Odd eh?

Newspapers have always had slants towards political parties, but social media, I don't know. See above for my answer to the problems.

26 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

People have free speech but it's not free from consequences.

 

Plus there is a million miles difference between free speech and hate speech,  between free speech and publishing defamatory, false, manipulated and deliberately provocative statements on a public platform. 

 

Free speech doesn't extend to targeted attacks against certain individuals or groups of people which could be deemed discrimination, harassment or bullying.

 

Free speech doesn't extend to groups of thugs gathering together to harass, cause property damage, create violence and intimidation. 

I agree with this post, and although I don't expect you or others to agree with my ideas of copying China, but this bold is correct for there too. People can write what they want, and although some of it gets censored, it's not before it spreads. But it has consequences. 

[HeHasRisen]

14 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

They’ve made a right mess of Fargate. 

Owt happening yet?

[Meltman]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

Owt happening yet?

Hasn't that bit of a job been finished yet?

[*_ash_*]

4 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

I agree with some of this, but they could start by better defining what hate speech actually is in law.

At the moment it seems to be whatever the authorities think it is, so the goalposts move all the time. 

Yes there needs to be a degree of flexibility depending on circumstances, intent etc, but that should be at the behest of the judge; that's what they're paid for.

Meanwhile the law itself should be clear, concise and public knowledge so everyone knows where they stand, or it should be scrapped altogether

 

 

 

You're slightly missing the point that I just posted... 

 

I could sign up to Twitter or whatever using any name, hide my IP and write what I want... meaning the authorities needed thousands of hours to find all these IDs of people. 

 

Actually, Twitter used to have a thing I believe where it was a blue tick or something meaning that the person has proven who they are... 

 

this is the right idea.. I would make this mandatory and no one can use the format unless they have done the same thing. Otherwise I would block the site. 

 

If you try and think of this without thinking of China for a moment, can you think of any negatives to my suggestions?

[*_ash_*]

23 hours ago, lavery549@yahoo said:

Protesting against protesters. 

 

Why not just stay at home?

They're protesting against 'hate', because they hate them. 😂

 

If anything, these protests hinder the police. If just a few hooligans turned up and try looting shops then the police could just go and arrest them, but these people will almost certainly have a few people behind them to attack the opposition, distracting the police, while the looters move in. 

 

 

 

 

[Delbow]

1 hour ago, The_DADDY said:

Thats the thing with free speech. 

Either everyone has it or no one does.

 

 

Do you think people should be free to doxx you? Because I don't.

[*_ash_*]

8 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

but these people will almost certainly have a few people behind them to attack the opposition, distracting the police, while the looters move in. 

actually, I used my VPN to watch BBC news earlier, and noticed that when describing the 'two sides'

 

1 side were described as 'far-right thugs/hooligans/can't remember exactly

1 side were described as 'as 300 men' 

 

The 300 men where quite obviously Pakistani shouting 'alluaakbar' - and it struck me as very modern day BBC style. 

Regardless of who were the defenders, or attackers (both looked as bad to me) - this is just the type of thing that fuels more of it. I also saw a brief glimpse of Starmer also referring to them as 'far-right thugs/hooligans/ etc. 

 

They might well be this... I almost don't care anymore, I'm trying to make a life in Asia where I don't see any of this ****e, but IMO, it's all part (even if small) of the problem. 

The forum here also has this, in the form of things like brexit, where the 'correct people' consider everyone who voted brexit as uneducated morons. This is just on a bigger scale. 

 

 

[The_DADDY]

12 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

Do you think people should be free to doxx you? Because I don't.

Does doxxing come under free speech?

Probably not in my opinion.