Freedom of Speech
The FB post shared, does a great job at explaining what I and so many others have been up against, throughout all of social media, for far too long. Hopefully, things are changing for the better.
Thoughts?I have my hand up... I have been the recipient of having posts removed or not posted due to censoring at both FB and Twitter.
I am all for free speech and leaving it to me if I believe what others post.Amen and hear, hear!
I have both hands in the air, along with a hearty woop woop!
It's not complicated.This is Board is unacceptable and needs to be dismantled, Hopefully, Republicans in Congress will do their job, and stop this form of government overreach. This is out ann out shows this administration is making an attempt to stifle free speech and outwardly promote propaganda, it's a communist ploy to push one-sided speech.
Although there is a positive that will come out of this, it will provide Republicans that are running in Nov a wonderful example of the Democrat's plan to push their leftist leaning agenda. This new push to stifle free speech will ultimately serve Republicans well, and really promote Republicans to get out and vote.
This is all speculation.
First of all Elon Musk is a businessman. And freedom of speech gives you more money in your pocket than censorship.
This is as well the danger of hate speech, as hate speech sells on social media as it gets lots of angry people reacting on it and extremists defending it. Dollar signs in the eyes... Hate speech, like sex sells.
Just as lies sell better than the truth.
That's why we are in such an information war on social media with plenty of lies and conspiracy theories.
The truth is not important, what's important is that people are active every second of the day on social media and news outlets. It's about money, not about truth or respect.
So don't worry, "free speech" including hate speech will be there aplenty because it sells.
I think it would be great if Elon Musk used Twitter to ban the hell out of the Marxist Woke left for about a year or so just to give them a small taste of their own medicine. Just so THEY know what it feels like to be Banned.
Although a part of me gets where you are coming from KC...TRUST ME, we would
be defeating the purpose and assisting with the "shackling" of this Nation.I agree with this and believe the small minority will get louder and push harder because of their own fears. They will not succeed because they are holding us down with threads.
My son, who thinks outside the box, would like to see Elon Musk press the delete button and get rid of Twitter once and forever.
Food for thought.
The moderator of Twitter, (who cancels everyone who offends her) and who makes millions per year, broke down in tears when Elon took over the site. Most likely, she is crying over her non-millionaire future.If he does, the majority will go on, comfortable in their skin, content in their beliefs and in their lives, still looking forward...
The one's most affected will be crushed, but maybe they'll finally learn to "think outside the box", in order to see the bigger picture for a change.
Two of the best decisions I made in the last 10+ years.
Never posting on Twitter. The number of people who have had their lives ruined because of one tweet, made a decade in the past and brought to light and used against them, is larger than you'd imagine.
Ending my activities on Facebook, deleting ALL political content, and leaving ALL political groups soon after Trump was elected... I could see what was coming, I was expecting a Night of Long Knives type of purge, it never reached that level of seriousness, but many were banned their pages (including business page access) shut down for simply being Republican or Conservative or Patriotic or Pro-Trump.
They silenced a sitting President... imagine what they could do to you?-Lost a job because of FB posts.
-Have never used twitter, always thought it was trite and trivial.
-Leon Musk totally rocks.
Of course, in not being American my views are different (different country, different cultural values). Unlike most Americans, as a Brit I do consider ‘free speech’ that causes harm or incites others to cause harm as hate crime.
Elon Musk buying Twitter may give Americans what they want e.g. free for all speech, regardless to whether it causes harm to others or not; but once the new ‘Online Safety Bill’ becomes law in the UK Elon Musk will personally become responsible for any Twitter content that can be viewed in the UK, and so unless he wants to face criminal charges he will have little choice other than to ensure undesirable speech that could be viewed in the UK is taken down promptly.
The bit of legislation that I know Americans will hate is that “lawful but harmful" speech will be illegal under the new law. And Companies like Twitter and Facebook who breach the new law could face fines of up to 10% of their annual global revenue, or be blocked from operating in the UK.
And it’s what the British People voted for; the proposed Bill was in the Conservative Government’s Election Manifesto, and its legislation which the British people do support.
A couple of links and a short video for further info:-
• All you need to know about the Online Safety Bill: https://youtu.be/eqMAcqkuZ5w
• https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati … -factsheet
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_BillIf it was me, I would just stop all operations in the UK and tell the UK to go F off.
But that is just me, I would avoid the UK, and many other places in the world, if I were operating a social media site.
Bad as America is, I find the UK utterly deplorable in many aspects, void of many of the freedoms we take for granted here in America.Yep, I appreciate Americans like their freedoms at any cost; even if it means harm to others. But it is a type of ‘freedom’ that I (as a Brit) abhor.
I don’t see the UK being void of freedoms, just freedoms moderated to respect others; with freedom comes the duty of responsibility not to harm others e.g. ‘hate speech’.
So I guess you’ve got the society you want (a free for all); and in Britain we’ve got the society that we’re happy with e.g. freedoms with responsibility so as to be considerate and not cause harm to vulnerable people.Ken, And I would think that is just what Musk will do if the UK becomes a problem due to their laws. He seems very much a man that takes simple routes to solve problems. I think this is one reason he went private.
I think Musk is in for an awakening of how difficult "free speech" is these days.
Musk will face Jonathan Greenblatt (Greenblatt served in the White House as Special Assistant to Barack Obama and Director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation) CEO of the ADL and the legacy media who will unite in their efforts to derail Musk, they will contact Visa, Paypal, and any advertisers on Twitter to cut off revenue.
This is what they do, they go after the advertisers and payment processors to make sure anyone that goes against the ADL/Legacy MSM narrative cannot make any money.
Thus they crush all dissenting voices. It's very dirty, dishonest, and shady, but they have been doing this since 2016.
But perhaps Musk knew this getting into it, he has already talked about using Dogecoin and other forms of crypto currency, this may be a real foray into not only getting a platform free from the MSM narrative and censorship, but also get away from institutional banking authority that can crush almost any business in existence.Total mobile app downloads for Twitter was 17m, including 6m iOS app downloads and 11m Android app downloads.
If Google and Apple decide to kick Twitter out of their app stores that may put it under.They would create a martyr if they did that.
GAI don't think they care, Faye made a good point, Google and Apple could shut it down with ease... I think they will give Musk some rope, so they can gather enough "proof" of justification for doing so, and will do just that.
Musk has a work around for that, most people don't realize he has Tesla phones and his own Tesla platform that can take the place of Android and Apple.
I believe there are two reasons why he hasn't put them into mass production, he has had no need, and he has not developed Starlink to the level where it can support an independent network which does not rely on or require "outside support" or co-operation.
The Tesla ecosystem will be able to function without any outside assistance, it will not require internet or phone platforms from an outside company, you will have your cars, power, smart home system, etc, all within Tesla... there will be no need for Google or Apple... maybe Microsoft, for Office, Computers, etc. ... maybe...... will all this give him power? to use for good?
... will it take away power from companies/cooporations that maybe should no longer have power?
Is Mr. Musk a globalist or a nationalist ... for America?
Is he having fun?It will be a choice, for those that can afford it.
You will not need to be dependent on the Grid for power, you will not be dependent on AT&T or Verizon for your phone or internet services, you will not be dependent on Gas (oil companies) to run your car.
You will not need to depend on Insurance companies to cover that car, you will not need to depend on Apple or Android to have a cellphone.
There will be another choice, and it will likely become the choice of a good portion of the Working Class and Upper Class, as they will be the only ones to be able to afford it, and they will be the ones that have no desire to be dependent on the Government, nor do they want to be tied to escalating costs of Gas, Electricity, and other services.
Interesting points. I think Musk will land on his feet. I think he is very fired up about his new project.
Has he said he will charge? I would think he might be going with making money on ads. Maybe hoping to surpass users of other social media. It would be a big task.
So from what I gather from this post, in your opinion, when those of us to the right of center are discriminated against and silenced, the world is a better place?
Here is the question to ask:
Do you feel good knowing the government created a Misinformation (Disinformation) Board to rule over what information is proper for you to see?
Here is another one:
Do you trust a government that asked the FCC, FTC and DOJ to step in and stop Elon Musk from acquiring Twitter based on their belief that it is a "direct threat to American democracy and free speech"?
How is being allowed to express REAL news and REAL fact-based knowledge a threat to free speech?The FCC, FTC and DOJ are all American Government bodies; and I have no opinion on how trust worthy or otherwise they are; and most certainly, the system used in the UK is designed to prevent any British Government from influencing or subverting information published on Government Department Websites. That’s why sensitive Government Bodies, such as the Office of National Statistics, the Electoral Commission, and Ofcom etc. are kept at arm’s length from the Government; and are only answerable to Parliament, not to Government. So yes, I do trust information published on Government British websites.
Trump, from what I saw, did repeatedly publish misinformation on Twitter from anti-vaxxer conspiracy websites; so I think it was justified that he was banned – no one is above the law.
As regards China and Russia, Ofcom have banned both from the British media platform.
• UK broadcast regulator Ofcom revokes licence of China’s CGTN (Feb 2021): https://youtu.be/KFYHqa-P5n8
• UK media regulator revokes Russian broadcaster RT’s licence (March 2022): https://youtu.be/MuA5SOI3haI
. Social media: Ofcom to become Britain’s first internet regulator (Feb 2020): https://youtu.be/IXxaO7HJUAc
No, if you read the links carefully you will note that British Newspapers, some of which are right-wing, are exempt from the new proposed law.
During the ‘Consultation’ period, known as the ‘white paper’ in British politics; the British Newspapers lobbied the Government, asking them not to include the British Press in the proposed legislation, on the grounds of ‘Freedom of the Press’; and in return the British Press offered to ‘Self-Regulate’ if the Government did make them exempt from the new legislation.
To quote from the Wikipedia article:-
• “The Bill seeks to protect freedom of speech by imposing a legal requirement to ensure that content moderation does not arbitrarily remove or infringe access to journalistic content.
• Large social networks e.g. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter would be required to protect "democratically important" content, such as user-submitted posts supporting or opposing particular political parties or policies.
• The government stated that news publishers' own websites, as well as reader comments on such websites, are not within the intended scope of the law.”
The new Legislation, which is being introduced by a ‘right-wing’ Government, is not intended to discriminate against and silence the right of centre. The new Legislation is intended to stop harmful content including for example ‘misinformation’ promoted by anti-vaxxers, and Russian propaganda during election time etc.
And although I am a Socialist I do in this instance support our right-wing Government in this matter, as does the main opposition party in Britain.I wasn't referring to the links shared, I was questioning your personal observations.
My personal view is that I do support the ‘Safety Online’ Bill introduced into Parliament by our Conservative Government.
And in my personal view the new Legislation, which is being introduced by a ‘right-wing’ Government, is not intended to discriminate against and silence the right of centre. The new Legislation is intended to stop harmful content including for example ‘misinformation’ promoted by anti-vaxxers, and Russian propaganda during election time etc.
In my personal view I do support the enforcement of the Hate Crime Legislation we have in the UK (and across the EU) for the reasons stated in my comments above.
Just a thought --- What if Musk cuts to the chase, and just cuts the UK off Twitter. The company is private, and he certainly would just be wiser to cut the UK than to deal with problems that could arise from UK laws. And his personality is that of a person that does cut to the chase.
I note that 16 million UK citizens tweet. What do you think UK citizens might feel if cut from Twitter?
Does the UK have anything that offers a Twitter form platform?One thing for sure; Brits will not be bullied. If Musk doesn’t like it then that’s his choice. There may be 16 million UK citizens with Twitter accounts, including me, but most people I know spend more time texting on their Smart Phones and on Facebook than on Twitter – I don’t think Twitter would be missed that much.
Besides, the UK is not alone; the EU on the 23rd April 2022 approved their ‘Digital Services Act’ which is now set to become law on 1st Jan 2024. The European Union reached an agreement on the Digital Services Act on 23rd April 2022 – legislation dedicated to policing hate speech, disinformation, and other harmful content online. The EU says the new law will make big tech firms more accountable for content created by users e.g. a similar approach to the UK legislation.
Therefore, will Muck also cut off the whole of Europe as well as the UK, so that Twitter becomes predominantly just an American thing?
What is the EU (European Union) Digital Services Act and how will it impact Big Tech? https://youtu.be/ES-KfZeeh34Europe does have a history of being afraid of free speech. Maybe this is why it has been possible for so many dictators to come to power in Europe. These laws just tell me Europeans are more open to having what they say silenced by the government.
Makes sense why so many people from Europe came to the United States and continue coming here. It is a place for people who want to be free of the tyranny of government.Your comments seem a little contradictory to me, and inaccurate.
It's not about censoring free speech, its about moderating speech to protect the vulnerable e.g. hate crime; and filtering out harmful misinformation e.g. conspiracy theories by anti-vaxxers.
Yep, wars and dictators were the norm in European history; for thousands of years, until the formation of the EU hardly a decade went by where one European country wasn't at war with another; England in particular being in the thick of it all most of the time.
BUT; times have changed, and these days the EU is a far more liberal and socialist country than the USA will ever be.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, harping on about your perception that everyone wants to emigrate to the USA; well for your information, the UK has a similar problem with people wanting to immigrate to the the UK. The USA may attract some, but not everyone wants to live in the USA; it's not to everyone's taste.
And FYI, Europeans are not silenced by their government, we have far greater open and transparent government and democracy across most of Europe than you do in the USA; and plenty of opportunity for people to express their opinions.
In the chart of the Political parties in the European Parliament below. The politics of the Republicans in USA align with ECR party on the right, and the Democrats align with the EPP on the right - so in comparison with the EU, the USA, with just a two party system, is far less democratic - just my opinion!
It's not about censoring free speech, its about moderating speech to protect the vulnerable e.g. hate crime; and filtering out harmful misinformation e.g. conspiracy theories by anti-vaxxers."
This makes sense. Common sense. We no longer have any sort of sense in America. Many people want an "anything goes" policy of speech. And in terms of disinformation, We have completely blurred the line between reality, truth & lies in America. A whole lot of folks support the idea of truth being a matter of personal percetion. When people don't like an idea, a "fact" or an event they simply claim "fake news" And they adopt their own perception of reality. People here, believe the wildest of conspiracy theories without hesitation.- like anyone knows what is true and what is not?
If we can discuss all the the truths and the untruths we will eventually figure out what is true and what isn't. Expose them all!
Why not?Because people will never come to an agreement. Because people have more of an interest in fighting for their "side" then they do in determine truth. They want the narrative of "truth" that fits their desired reality.
How many more elections will we call rigged when we don't like the result?This runs through Democrat and Republican affiliation. I don't think so much through libertarian or independent voters. The past 5 years have shown people that if you don't agree with something or you don't like it you can just call it fake and say that you don't believe it. You can deny it's reality or existence. We have countless examples of that. Anyone and everyone can do this now And they absolutely are doing it. We are headed toward a 2024 election that will most likely be called rigged again. Either side can use that excuse, right? It's already been put into play as legitimate. We don't have to acknowledge any truth we don't like anymore. America has come to the point of separate reality, We all have our own versions of truth and perception that we can twist ourselves into pretzels supporting. You see it in the media, You see it on this forum. We have countless media personalities who make a living on blurring the line between truth and lie. They have following, they have believers. Does anyone believe fact anymore? I don't think so. People don't care about truth or fact. They care about supporting their "side" well of course those who are beholden to a side.
We know that politicians lie. Recently they are caught on tape. But do we care? The answer seems to be no.
I'm not for making a case for either party like my life depended on it. I think there's a lot of trash in both.
It’s not so much a question of “what is true and what is not” especially when it comes to politics, for example Socialist governments believe in the ‘bottom-up’ approach in economics, while Conservative governments believe in the ‘top-down’ e.g. Conservatives will argue that if you ensure the Bosses get big fat profits then some of their wealth will filter down to their workforce in the form of higher wages (top-down approach); while Socialists dispute that and argue that if you look after the bosses they’ll just keep most of the wealth for themselves, so it’s far more equitable if you ensure the workers have a good income in the first place e.g. with the help of benefits, minimum wage laws etc. and then the extra disposable income they have will be spent, so that the bosses earn profits by people spending more (bottom up approach).
In the above, there is no right or wrong answer; just a different political view of economics.
I think Fayetteville Faye hit on it when (above) she stated:
“We have countless media personalities who make a living on blurring the line between truth and lie.”
In the UK both TV and Radio are Heavily Regulated to ensure that the TV presenters don’t blur the line between truth and lie. In the UK reporting on TV has to by law be “impartial, unbiased, balanced and accurate”; and to achieve that the TV Channels not only have to give equal time to both sides of an argument, but they also have to be good at ‘fact-checking’. And fact-checking, once you know how, isn’t that difficult to do; I was taught how to ‘fact-check’ at college, and again in the civil service.
Sean Hannity And Tucker Carlson Are Too Biased To Air In UK, Regulators Say: https://youtu.be/q5cD2T6UnGg
How to Fact-Check Online Sources: https://youtu.be/Kim9ujIU874
I have to give Leftists credit for describing who they are each time they rant about others. Thank you for making it easy. You’ve just given us a near perfect description of the Progressive mindset.
But I understand.
Algorithms. You cannot know what you’ve never learned.
There exists a standard for truth. As someone else here stated, It’s not complicated.What is the standard of truth? Was the 2020 election rigged?
And lol I'm not a "leftist" whatever your perception of that is.
A study looking at the subject from Ohio State University:
Overall, both liberals and conservatives were more likely to believe stories that favored their side – whether they were true or not.
The differences in beliefs were often stark.
For example, participants rated this true statement that received widespread social media engagement when it came out: “Investigators for the DHS Office of the Inspector General have identified poor conditions in several Texas migrant facilities, including extreme overcrowding and serious health risks.”
Results showed that 54% of Democrats correctly said that the statement was “definitely true” – compared to only 18% of Republicans.
Another statement – a false one – was “While serving as Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia, selling 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to that country in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.”
Here, only 2% of Democrats said this was “definitely true,” but 41% of Republicans did.
“These are important factual claims, yet we see vast partisan differences in belief,” Garrett said.
https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more … alsehoods/First of all, you strike me as a very sincere person who is a Democrat. Progressives act differently than moderate Democrats.
Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.
Truth: the true or actual state of the matter
Truth: conformity with facts or reality
(dictionary.com)
I will only add that AI can and has influenced elections.
Yeah, you'd like being run by a partisan political hack like Nina Jankowicz?
"When people don't like an idea, a "fact" or an event they simply claim "fake news" And they adopt their own perception of reality. People here, believe the wildest of conspiracy theories without hesitation."
I don't think the left and Democrats are going to change any time soon."Oh yes government elitists telling us what is or isn’t true. Or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica or anyone for that matter to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books—they’re all fact, no heart … Face it, folks, we are a divided nation … divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart … Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen—the gut.” Stephen Colbert.
I agree, america has changed.
Each of us is on a spectrum somewhere between the poles of rational and irrational. We all have hunches we can’t prove and superstitions that make no sense. Some of my best friends are very religious, and others believe in dubious conspiracy theories. What’s problematic is going overboard and letting the subjective entirely override the objective; thinking and acting as if opinions and feelings are just as true as facts. The American experiment, the original embodiment of the great Enlightenment idea of intellectual freedom, whereby every individual is welcome to believe anything she wishes, has metastasized out of control.
America has mutated into Fantasyland.
A third of us believe not only that global warming is no big deal but that it’s a hoax perpetrated by scientists, the government, and journalists. A quarter believe that the government has, in league with the pharmaceutical industry, hidden evidence of natural cancer cures. Almost a quarter believe that vaccines cause autism, and even more that Donald Trump won the 2020 election . A quarter believe that our previous president maybe or definitely was (or is?) the anti-Christ. According to a survey by Public Policy Polling, 15 percent believe that the “media or the government adds secret mind-controlling technology to television broadcast signals,” and another 15 percent think that’s possible. Remarkably, the same proportion that believes U.S. officials were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Sandy Hook and Parkland were false flag operations carried out by actors. Many believe that Hillary Clinton is head of a child blood drinking, trafficking cabal located in the basement of a pizza parlor. Or that wildfires are the product of Jewish space lasers. The list goes on.
Why are we like this?
Being American means we can believe anything we want; that our beliefs are equal or superior to anyone else’s, experts be damned.Today, each of us is freer than ever to custom-make reality, to believe whatever we wish.
Truth in general has become flexible, personal, subjective. But do we need to call out the dangerously untrue and unreal? Do we need to make America reality-based again? Or do we just keep enabling fantasy land?
“We risk being the first people in history to have been
able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive,
so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them.”
— Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to
Pseudo-Events in America (1961)
"censoring free speech, its about moderating speech to protect the vulnerable e.g. hate crime; and filtering out harmful misinformation e.g. conspiracy theories by anti-vaxxers"
And who determines this? A governmental political partisan? This statement seems to make Europeans appear to be very gullible. Different mind-set here. It appears as if the concept of free speech is beyond Europeans. Americans don't view themselves as subjects of a monarchy...we are free citizens. Free speech is one of our rights. It is one of the many reasons so many Europeans came to the United States.
"And FYI, Europeans are not silenced by their government, we have far greater open and transparent government and democracy across most of Europe than you do in the USA; and plenty of opportunity for people to express their opinions."
You hold on to that fantasy. People in Europe are put in jail for the most ridiculous things involving speech. NO...you do NOT have free speech. This is one of many, many articles about Europeans shutting down free speech.
"10 Terrifying Times Europe Recently Said “No” To Free Speech"
https://listverse.com/2019/10/04/europe-no-free-speech/
FYI...I don't care about European political parties.Fact Check:-
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/listverse/
“These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Overall, we rate Listverse Right-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the conservative right. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to the occasional use of poor sources as well as frequently publishing information related (not endorsed) to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.”
In reading the article in the link you provided, it is decidedly right-wing and anti-European biased, and one of the first examples it gives is false:-
The article states, quote:-
“And British comedian and YouTuber Mark Meechan was clapped in irons for teaching his pug to perform the Sieg Heil.”
The actual fact is that Mark Meechan was NOT clapped in irons, he was just fined £800 ($1,000); and it was not just for teaching his pug to perform the Sieg Heil; he was fined because he published a video on YouTube where his “dog, prompted by the command "Sieg Heil", raises his right paw in the manner of a Nazi salute, watches a speech by Adolf Hitler (footage shown from the Triumph of the Will), and responds immediately when Meechan asks if he wants to "gas the Jews". It ends with images of Hitler and Buddha the dog depicted with a toothbrush moustache similar to Hitler's.”
In my mind what Mark Meechan did is unacceptable, and quite rightly the British courts also considered his actions unlawful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan
FYI it’s not Government who determines what is acceptable; in the case of the UK, in the first instance it’s Ofcom, and in the final analysis it’s the Courts – and if the crime is serious enough trial by jury e.g. a person’s fellow citizens would determine a person’s guilt or incense.
Ofcom is not a Government Department; Ofcom is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries in the UK.
Ofcom is NOT answerable to the Government, it is only answerable to Parliament e.g. to prevent an unscrupulous government from using the system for its own political gain.That dog story drew a response from me that reminded me of those books about the difference between men and women: Men Are From Mars, Women are from Venus.
That you think it is okay that a comedian was "just" fined a $1000 for a joke that was in poor taste is such a stark example of our European and U.S. differences of perspective.
Aren't you guys allowed to "just" change the channel?
GAIt’s not just a joke in poor taste; by its very nature it promotes fascism, which is a criminal offence under the hate crime laws in the UK and EU. And this link demonstrates just how such laws justified are:- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 … membership
Yeah, of course normal sensible people don’t watch such trash; but some people (a small minority) can be influenced by such material e.g. why it’s a crime to incite others to violence under the hate crime laws.I don't disagree with your premise, I just disagree with the lines drawn by your laws.
GAThat's fine, it would be a strange and worrying world if we all agreed on everything. Difference of opinion is what can make politics interesting - as long as it stays civil of course.
It's not "civil" when police break down your door for an "inappropriate" comment you make online, and take you to jail.
What you consider "protective" I consider outright tyranny and oppression.
And that is what has taken ahold of the UK and EU. Censorship, limits on speech, confiscation of property and liberty for expressing an opinion not acceptable to the ruling authority.Your comments is pure American right-wing propaganda, the police in the UK do NOT break down your door for an inappropriate’ comment you make online, and take you to jail. The police can only break down your door once they have obtained a search warrant from a judge; and for a judge to issue a search warrant the police has to convince the judge that there is reasonable evidence that you have committed a ‘Serious’ crime such as terrorism or drugs.
A typical example is in this link:- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 … house-city
And in such cases, the reason they break down the door (raid) is so that the criminal doesn’t have time to destroy evidence e.g. on their computer or flush drugs down the toilet etc.
And you are not taken to jail prior to being judged in a court of law unless it’s a very serious crime such as murder or terrorism.
And there is not censorship in the UK or EU that limits free speech, the laws make hate crime illegal; and in my opinion hate crime should be illegal. Also, property is only confiscated if you’ve committed a crime and that property is evidence.
And the suggestion that in the UK & EU “Liberty for expressing an opinion not expectable to the ruling authority” is just more American right-wing propaganda. Nothing is censured, you are free to be as critical of the ruling authority as you like, and besides, in relation to on-line content, it’s not the authorities who determine what is within the law, in the first instance its either the police or Ofcom (who are independent of the Government); and in the last analysis it’s the courts who decide, who (in the UK) are independent of the Government because of the principle of the ‘Separation of Powers’.
In fact if you’re talking about Censorship; FYI, while violence is far more heavily censored on British and European TV than in America, sex is far more heavily censored on American TV than on TV across Europe and in the UK – A prime example is the British Comedy film made in 2009 called “The Boat That Rocked”; based on true events. When it was released in the USA it was renamed “Pirate Radio” and approximately 20 minutes was cut from the film (mostly sex scenes) e.g. the British version contains a lengthy orgy on board ship with loads of naked men and women having communal sex (soft porn).
Yup, this post and this mindset is why America still deplores much about the UK.
Not saying I agree with that example (as I didn't check it out) but the perspective you present is just more proof of how tightly controlled the populace of the UK is.
We fought a war to be free from the UK the last thing Americans want is to be any more like it.It’s up to the Americans to decide what sort of America they want, the same as it’s up to Europeans to decide what sort of Europe we want; after all we all live in free democracies, so we all should be free to choose the paths we want.
Its up to Musk to decide.
I am sure he will ignore the UK and EU demands, and if that is not possible, he will likely pull Twitter from those countries.
Its not like you guys have free speech anyways... and I doubt there are any significant revenues at risk.I share the same view. I don't think Musk will have any back and forth with other countries about what is accepted from his new platform. He just seems to avoid conflict, and just say --- bye-bye...
I said “It’s up to the Americans to decide what sort of America you want”, you say it it’s up to Musk? That sounds like a dangerous path to me, a businessman controlling what information you are feed!
If you truly believe we don’t have free speech in Europe then you’re the victim of your own American right-wing propaganda, which will distort reality even further in America if Musk gets his way. Thankfully the UK has legislation in place to prevent people like Musk from allowing harmful propaganda (lies) on their platform, and by 2024 the EU will have passed similar laws.
You can keep all your ‘free for all’ free speech in America, and all the hate crime and harmful prejudices that goes with it; I’m just grateful that we’ll have free speech that isn’t hateful and prejudice in the way that Americans seem to love.And it is what we have had in America all along.
Zuckerberg controls Facebook. Bezos the Washington Post, Carlos Slim the NY Times, Michael Bloomberg owns Bloomberg Media, etc. etc.
Musk doesn't subscribe to their beliefs of controlling the narrative and what information is available. So yes, many, including his billionaire compatriots, are none to happy with his takeover of Twitter.
But I wouldn't be surprised if those billionaires collectively pull the strings in DC to get them to censure or take control of Twitter. Musk has made enemies of most of them, from the Big Oil to Bill Gates, from Jeff Bezos to the Auto Industry, there are many powerful people who despise Musk.I have seen over the last few years just how "free" the people in the UK and EU are. Your governments are closer to China and Australia than America in terms of freedoms.
Freedom to move freely about, to say what you believe, taxation on earned income, to be vaccinated or not, etc. etc.
America's hope is to turn from Europe and become less like it, and I suspect this will happen as we fill our ranks with millions of new people every year from places like Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and they bring with them the memories of the horrors of Socialist and Totalitarian leaderships and the desire to be free, to prosper and control their destiny by keeping for themselves what they work so hard to earn.
America's future prosperity lies in not being influenced by Europe, but rather to stop fighting wars for it, stop caring at all what their opinions are... the sooner the EU and UK are relegated to part of our past rather than as some sort of partner to the US, the better.Speak for yourself, Ken!!
Tell Arthur that yours is just a far rightwing point of view, hardly representative of the opinion of reasonable people here.
I certain warned him about the reactionary scourge that has been rearing its ugly head in American politics.Speaking of speaking for yourself, what is that reactionary scourge reacting to?
GADemocrats, reasonable and enlightened people that are never defined nor found in a Rightwinger type.
I don't think that is what that scourge is reacting to. I think it is likely to be reacting to the message, not the messengers.
GA
In about a month, half of our states will essentially own and control a pregnant woman's body. Her body will become a ward of the state for 9 months.
No Ken, we are moving toward totalitarianism in this country.Faye come on, you make it sound as if women aren't sharp enough to figure out what causes pregnancy nor how to prevent it! Please stop dumbing us down, it does us zero favors.
Not all women want to have their rapists or their step daddy's baby. Not all women are up to the task of caring for a catastrophically disabled fetus that is identified early on. Not all birth control is 100% effective either. Many don't have access to birth control. Southern States have been systematically closing family planning clinics. Some may only have one such clinic in the entire state.
I heard an interview with Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves this morning and it really brought my own views more into focus. He was asked What the plans were in his state for the nearly 3,000 that seek abortion yearly in that state . He mentioned nothing about increasing access to birth control, nothing about maternal or prenatal care. He did talk about bolstering their foster care system which has been consistently dragged through the courts over its inability to keep children in its care safe from abuse. I think of myself as sort of a "whole life person" If you want them born, let's see healthcare in place before and after, let's see universal childcare along with preschool. When I don't see or hear these plans going along with forced birth, I can't help but think it's anything but The exercise of sheer control and cruelty. These states will prevent safe abortion But they won't curb or stop abortion whatsoever.
Most disturbing from Governor Reeves interview was the fact that He is clearly leaning toward a contraceptive ban as he talked about life beginning at fertilization.
"That sounds like a dangerous path to me, a businessman controlling what information you are feed!"
Could it be any worse that a politician controlling it? Government censorship has never worked well anywhere in the world, while business has always had the lock on what is said. About the only exception is the guy on the street corner with a megaphone - he can always speak to a tiny crowd...unless government shuts him down.
Yep Ken, as others above have pointed out you’re spouting American right-wing propaganda; not just spouting misinformation (lies) about UK & EU, but Australia as well e.g. from my Australian cousins, who we keep in close contact with, I know that the false image you are portraying of Australia is fake (American right-wing propaganda).
As regards your list without details of your misguided beliefs of restrictions to freedoms in the UK:-
1: Freedom to move freely about? The only time there was restrictions on movement was during the lockdowns during the pandemic – A policy adopted by many countries around the world at that time to limit the spread of the virus and to ‘save lives’.
2: Freedom to say what you believe? Really, if I had such restrictions as you suggest it would be difficult to express my views on this forum and other social media platforms. And if you’d pay any attention to the new ‘Safety on Line’ Bill, which will soon become law, you will know that in that Legislation the British newspapers will be exempt from the Regulations so as to maintain the principle of ‘Freedom of the Press’, and political debate is excluded from the Regulations.
3: Taxation on earned income? Really, don’t you have taxation on earned income in the USA – I think you do!
4: Freedom to be vaccinated or not? Again, you are the victim of your own American right-wing propaganda. In the UK the covid vaccination was always, and still is voluntary for all except the UK Conservative Government was planning to make it compulsory for all front line health workers (for obvious reasons to protect patients from infection by medical staff), but at the last minute did a U-turn anyway; and besides only 5.7% of NHS didn’t get vaccinated voluntarily because the UK had one of the lowest vaccination hesitancy in the world. The only countries where the vaccination was mandatory for all adults were Ecuador; Vatican City; Austria; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; Micronesia and Indonesia. In Italy, Greece and Malaysia mandatory vaccination was for just the elderly, and Costa Rica and Ecuador were the only countries were vaccination was mandatory for children.Yep, I agree with you Wilderness; and that’s why in the UK information is NOT controlled by Government, and is publically available for all to scrutinise. In the UK important information is collected and published by ‘Independent’ Government Departments; Government bodies that are NOT answerable to the Government, but answerable to Parliament only. In the UK there are 20 such ‘Non-ministerial Government Departments’ e.g. that operate independently of the Government, and they are:-
• Charity Commission for England and Wales
• Competition and Markets Authority
• Crown Prosecution Service
• Food Standards Agency
• Forestry Commission
• Government Actuary's Department
• Government Legal Department
• Her Majesty's Land Registry
• Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
• The National Archives
• National Crime Agency
• National Savings and Investments
• Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
• Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)
• Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual)
• Office of Rail and Road
• Serious Fraud Office
• Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
• UK Statistics Authority (ONS)
• Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat)
ONS (office of National Statistics) (which is NOT Government controlled) is probably one of the most important sources of information in the UK as it collects all data relating to the economy and all aspects of society e.g. unemployment, inflation, death rates and statistics on causes etc., population growth, immigration etc. etc. etc., and all is published in the public domain for all to see, including the opposition parties, who can then use the data to challenge the Government on its performance during election time.
ONS: Working with the UK Data Service: https://youtu.be/jDyalG1pxo4
"it’s the Courts – and if the crime is serious enough trial by jury e.g. a person’s fellow citizens would determine a person’s guilt or incense."
So, the courts aren't part of the government?
" It ends with images of Hitler and Buddha the dog depicted with a toothbrush moustache similar to Hitler's.”
So what? You can't handle someone's comedy? It's like that in Russia and China as well.
All the stories in listverse actually happened. "clapped in irons" is just a figure of speech. It means the government took action against him.
Again, you DON'T have free speech in Europe.
Go into the main part of London and hold a sign that says "The Muslim Religion is a Cult Religion" and see what happens to you.Correct, the Courts are NOT part of the Government; unlike the USA, in the UK & EU we do have a proper ‘separation of power’ in respect to our juridical systems.
In the USA the Federal Government appoints new Supreme Court Judges, and they are selected according to their politics. Whereas in the UK & EU the Supreme Court Judges are not picked by Government and their politics is their own personal private affair.
Also, in the UK & EU when a Supreme Court makes a decision, that decision is supreme e.g. the only way it can be changed is by the Government passing new Legislative law, which is easier said than done. For example, in the UK if and when the Supreme Court makes a decision that the Conservative Government doesn’t like, the Conservative Government can’t just turn around and change the law, because it’s not in their Election Manifesto and therefore the House of Lords would be able to block such new Legislative laws if they wish.
You obviously haven’t been paying much attention to British Current Affairs in recent years; otherwise you would know that the Conservative Government has been taken to Court on quite a few occasions since 2016 for alleged breaches to the Constitution; and each time the Government lost. Also, over the past few years the Conservative Government has been found guilty and fined by the courts for breaking the law; each time the Conservative Government has lost in the Courts. So don’t try to make out that the British Courts are part of Government – this isn’t America.
Sorry, but the video isn’t good humour, it’s in bad taste, and satire is no defence for promoting or inciting hatred in others. In Europe, satire that promotes Hitler (fascism) is hate crime, and quite rightly too.
Yeah, I can handle satire that promotes prejudices and hate crime, I just don’t watch it; but there are people who do watch that sort of stuff and are influenced by it – hence the harm it does by allowing such prejudicial and hate crime material to circulate.
Sorry matey but to "clapped in irons" does mean to put one in jail, often abruptly. "Irons" refers to shackles or handcuffs (just Google for a definition if anyone has any doubts); but then of course you knew that, all you are doing (as the article you posted tried to do) is to use emotive language and false descriptions to try to convey a false impression (misinformation).
Why do you suggest I go to London specifically, to slag of Muslims; is it because you believe the ‘fake news’ promoted by Trump that falsely claimed that parts of London are ‘no go areas’, where event the police don’t go because of Muslims?
Besides why would I want to slag off Muslims, I’ve got nothing against them.
If I did what you suggest in London I doubt it would get much response, perhaps a few verbal response if the wrong person heard, but most would ignore it; the likelihood of physical abuse would be low.
But I bet that if I came to America and started to slag off the Americans in the streets I would run a high risk of being shot!
YES WE DO have free speech in Europe, as I previously stated: “It's not about censoring free speech, it’s about moderating speech to protect the vulnerable e.g. hate crime; and filtering out harmful misinformation e.g. conspiracy theories by anti-vaxxers.”
What we don’t have in Europe is a ‘Free for All’ where anyone can say anything regardless to what harm it may do to others."In the USA the Federal Government appoints new Supreme Court Judges, and they are selected according to their politics. Whereas in the UK & EU the Supreme Court Judges are not picked by Government and their politics is their own personal private affair."
You're kidding...right? Members of Britian's Supreme Court are appointed by the Queen. One person. In the United States they must be voted in by representatives of the people. Some federal courts they are appointed, but the ALL have to be approved by elected officials.
"the UK & EU when a Supreme Court makes a decision, that decision is supreme e.g. the only way it can be changed is by the Government passing new Legislative law"
Guess what? Same in the United States.
"Why do you suggest I go to London specifically, to slag of Muslims"
I suggested nothing. I merely stated a hypothetical situation. IF you came to the United States and started saying bad things about the United States, it would depend on how you said it. It you did it in a crude, ignorant manner, you would probably be confronted. If you were polite and stated what you disliked about the United States respectfully, I think you may have some supporters.
"Sorry matey but to "clapped in irons" does mean to put one in jail, often abruptly. "
Sorry matey, but I've been to the UK a couple of times. Sayings and words between the US and UK are different. The first time in England, I was shocked to hear someone say they were "going out for a fag." In the United States fag is a very derogatory term for a homosexual. I could go on, but I'm sure you see things are different. In Australia someone described something to me as a "piece of piss." I was confused. Turns out, they meant it was something easy to do.
"YES WE DO have free speech in Europe,"
NO you don't. I don't think you grasp the concept of free speech. You have those in authority control your speech and that controls ideas. Once ideas are controlled reality becomes whatever those in authority choose it to be.
There are historians who believe this is the recipe for dictators...which Europe has more than its fair share.
This is the reason free speech is so very important.
"What we don’t have in Europe is a ‘Free for All’ where anyone can say anything regardless to what harm it may do to others."
Why not? Aren't mentally strong enough to handle words spoken to you?
Europeans want the government to protect them from being offended. To be so weak-minded you make words a person hears responsible a their behavior and not the choices they make, seems pretty sad to me. You'd be surprised at how many people I've spoken to in Europe who agree with me.I’ll cover just your first point first in this comment, and get back to the other points later:
Your first is just another example of how ignorant you are of facts in the UK and EU.
Yes, Judges to the Supreme Court is appointed by the Queen on the Advice of the Prime Minister, but neither the Queen nor the Prime Minister has any say in the appointment e.g. it’s just a rubber stamp exercise.
The Judges are actually chosen by an ‘Independent Selection Commission’. The Independent Selection Commission is made up of:-
• The President of the Supreme Court.
• A senior Judge who is not on the Supreme Court.
• One member from each of the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and by law at least one of these has to be a layperson e.g. not a lawyer.
The Supreme Court is required by statute to have judges with knowledge of, and experience of practice in, the law of each part of the United Kingdom. And politics is not a factor; in fact so much so that nobody knows the politics of the 12 Supreme Court judges. In judgement on any case there are always an odd number of judges that sit, varying from 5 to 11 judges dependent on the importance of the case under consideration.
Once the Independent Selection Commission has made its decision, the name is given to the Prime Minster. The Prime Minister is required by the Constitution to recommend this name to the Queen and is not permitted to nominate anyone else. In turn the Queen is obliged to officially appoint the chosen candidate, just as she is legally obliged to give Legislation passed in Parliament Royal Assent.
And guess what it’s not the same in the USA. In the USA the White House has significant influence of the appointment of new Supreme Court Judges, and politics plays a major role; currently about a 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court. You can’t hide the facts, there was a lot of controversy over appointing new Supreme Court Judges when Trump came to power, and again, just as he was due to leave Office e.g. another fight to get another Republican appointed as a Supreme Court Judge around the time of the last Presidential Election.Now I get to explain to you your ignorance of the American court system.
"In the USA the White House has significant influence of the appointment of new Supreme Court Judges"
No, there is a committee who provides recommendations for possible candidates to the US Supreme Court to the president. The president then chooses which candidate will go through the confirmation process. If the candidate is unacceptable to the US Senate, they do not have to start the confirmation process for the president's candidate. At the end of obama's presidency he provided a nominee for the US Supreme Court. The US senate, controlled by Republicans, didn't start the confirmation process until after he was out of office. That is the right of the US Senate. A candidate for the US Supreme Court must answer questions about their appointment before the US Senate in a public hearing. Then there is a vote taken and the US Senate either approves or does not approve a new Supreme Court judge.
"You can’t hide the facts, there was a lot of controversy over appointing new Supreme Court Judges when Trump came to power, and again, just as he was due to leave Office e.g. another fight to get another Republican appointed as a Supreme Court Judge around the time of the last Presidential Election."
President Donald Trump didn't "come to power" he was elected by the people.
Of course, there was controversy. The Democrats didn't get something they wanted, so they threw one of their child-like tantrums. It happens all the time. Democrats haven't matured to the point where they can comprehend the way government works isn't designed to just give them what they want.
The process to get a new US Supreme Court judge was followed during President Trump's time in office as it has been done for the past 200 years. We are a representative republic and representatives elected by the people are the ones make the ultimate choice on who serves on the US Supreme Court.You are trying to pull a fast one over me.
No the Senate Judiciary Committee does NOT provide recommendations to the President for possible candidates to the USA Supreme Court. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the President to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court.
The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, thus a president may nominate anyone to serve, and the Senate may not set any qualifications or otherwise limit who the president can choose.
The only role the Senate Judiciary Committee has is to conduct hearings and votes on whether the candidate nominated by the President should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report.
So not only does the President nominate new Supreme Court Judges, but also the president may nominate anyone to serve regardless to their level of qualifications and experience, because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice e.g. politics being the prime motivator in the selection!
So in the USA it is very political, because the Executive nominates the candidate and the Legislature approves the appointment; and thus (as in recent times) new Supreme Court Judges are chosen because of their politics – blurring the principle of the ‘separation of powers’ and politicising the Juridical system.
Yep, where you said
“I merely stated a hypothetical situation. IF you came to the United States and started saying bad things about the United States, it would depend on how you said it. It you did it in a crude, ignorant manner, you would probably be confronted. If you were polite and stated what you disliked about the United States respectfully, I think you may have some supporters.”
Well, yes, so what are we arguing about then; what you’ve said about the USA equally applies to Britain.
Yeah, I know there are huge differences between American English and British English; I’m not that stupid to not know that. But what does that have to do with the term “clapped in irons”, ‘clapped in irons’ means to put someone in chains (jail/prison) in any language; American English or British English. If you think otherwise then show proof; but I think you are just trying to change the meaning of the phrase in a feeble attempt to prove that your link above was not peddling false information (misinformation).
Sorry to disappoint you, but we do have ‘free speech’ in Europe. Your suggestion that the authorities control our speech and ideas in Europe is just hogwash; and attempt by you to discredit the type of free speech we have in Europe because it’s weakens your case for justifying your ideology of ‘free for all’. If you’re argument had any truth in it then we would have just a one party state (like Russia and China); but the political spectrum in the UK and EU is far wider than in the USA, proving that freedom of expression is not hampered by European laws that tackles hate crime and the publication of disinformation that may harm others, or incite others to do harm.
Yep, typical callous ‘right-wing’ American attitude, where in response to my comment where I said "What we don’t have in Europe is a ‘Free for All’ where anyone can say anything regardless to what harm it may do to others." And you replied with “Why not? Aren't mentally strong enough to handle words spoken to you?”
My concern isn’t me, if I was that sensitive I wouldn’t spend so much time in these forums. The people that a ‘free for all’ hurts, in American as much as anywhere else, isn’t just Muslims or Blacks or Elderly and inform people that you seem to enjoy slagging off, but also all the children who commit suicide because of cyberbullying.
So it’s not a case of Europeans wanting their governments to protect them from being offended; that’s just your own American right-wing propaganda twist that you’re putting on the situation to make it sound what it’s not (disinformation). The whole point of the Legislation is to protect the vulnerable, including children, from cyberbullying, racial abuse etc. etc.
Yeah sure, I’m sure if you speak to enough people in Europe you’ll find some who agree with you; it would be a strange place if we all thought alike.
We have a far wider spectrum of political views in European politics than you’ll ever have in the USA, with some European political parties being far more right-wing than your right-wing politics in the USA (just as there are a lot of political parties in the UK and the EU that are far more left-wing than you’ll ever see in the USA).
It would be a strange place if everybody thought the same, so of course you’re going to find people (a small minority) in Europe who agree with your thoughts; just as there are a lot of Americans (some in this forum) who conversely disagree with you."The whole point of the Legislation is to protect the vulnerable"
Right, because nothing protects people better than putting people who teach their dogs tricks in jail or jailing a person who posts a picture of a poppy burning or arresting a person for pretending to be a ghost. I could go on, but I'll stop here.
Who was protected by putting these people in jail?
That is about as totalitarian as it gets. It is beyond ridiculous to put people in jail for such things.
Again, if someone is so easily controlled by the words of others, it shows a weak mind to me. It illustrates a lack of desire to make people responsible for their actions and a need to blame others for their behavior.
Again, since you can be jailed for making ghost sounds or posting a picture of a flower...NO you don't have free speech in Europe. I could go on, but facts are facts. Most left-wing, weak-minded and emotionally needy Europeans don't have the mental tools necessary to handle the opinions of those who disagree with them.Now you’re just being silly. No one is going to be put in prison for teaching their dogs tricks, burning a poppy or pretending to be a ghost; you are deliberately taking harmless words out of context and creating a ‘false’ narrative’ to give the fake impression that that was the reason people were prosecuted for ‘hate crime’ in the UK.
All you are doing is using false narrative to create right-wing American political propaganda in an attempt to try to discredit something that disagrees with your beliefs and politics.
Whereas in actual fact it’s not the objects (dog, poppy, ghost etc.) but the message being conveyed that is the crime (hate crime); the dog, poppy and ghost are nothing more than just props.
And where you say, to quote: “if someone is so easily controlled by the words of others, it shows a weak mind to me.” For your information it’s not just Europe and the UK, it is a worldwide issue. Studies have shown that young adults under the age of 25 who are victimized by cyberbullying are twice as likely to commit suicide or self-harm: In 2018 the USA had the 3rd highest rate of cyberbullying in the world with 26% of children being victim to cyberbullying; compared to the UK, which is 13th at just 18%.
Under UK Law, Hate Crime is an act which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
And under UK Law, Hate Speech (which is separate to hate crime, and only carries a maximum prison sentence of just six months) is where a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, if he/she intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
So I’ll repeat again, in the UK you do NOT get jailed for just making ghost sounds or posting a picture of a flower, but if you make ghost sounds or show a picture of a flower as a prop in a production that is hostile or prejudice against someone because of their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity then that is a crime in the UK.
So in the UK and the EU, unless you intend to post material which is likely to cause harm to others then you are free to say what you wish. So yes we do have ‘free speech’ in the UK & EU, but we don’t tolerate despicable behaviour that harms others e.g. children committing suicide because of cyberbullying."No one is going to be put in prison for teaching their dogs tricks"
Tell that to Mark Meechan who went to jail because he taught his pug to do the nazi salute and posted it on YouTube. This is a fact.
Tell that to Linford House who was arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook. This is a fact.
Tell it to Anthony Stallard who was arrested for making ghost noises in a cemetery. This is also a fact.
There are too many more examples to even try to post them all.
To arrest someone over these things makes the UK authorities look more than just ridiculous to me. Yes, to be upset to the point where you arrest someone over something like these incidences idiotic.
I'm sure in your mind you think there are people who would say, "You know, I never had any desire to be a fascist, but once I saw a pug on YouTube give a Nazi salute, it made me the fascist I am today. If it wasn't for that pug on YouTube I would be different."
I imagine you believe such a thing is true.
So, if you are okay with this, you don't grasp the concept of free speech. This and MANY other examples show how there is NOT free speech in the UK. Probably because you don't grasp the concept of the importance of it.
If you think I'm being silly, it's because the things people get arrested for in the UK associated with free speech are very silly. There is no other way to describe it.
Yes, handling someone's free speech requires a strong mind and emotions.
Well, Readmikenow; as I said above, dogs, flowers and ghost noises are just props, you don’t get jailed or arrested for posting them on-line; you get arrested for the message or intent behind the props, if that message conveys a message of hate or intent to harm others, or incite others to do harm etc.
As with Mark Meechan, he wasn’t jailed because he taught his pug tricks, he was jailed because he promoted Fascism.
As with regards to Linford House, he was arrested under a public order offence (a minor offence) because his actions caused "harassment, harm or distress" to witnesses. In this case on ‘Remembrance Sunday” he posted a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook along with the message “How about that you squadey cunts.” which military personnel who fought to defend Britain’s freedom in the second world war on seeing the message posted complained to the police.
But the full facts of the case is that Linford House, although arrested, was not charged because he was apologetic and it was arranged for him to meet those he upset in person, to whom he apologised in person; and so the matter was dropped.
As regards Anthony Stallard; he pleaded guilty for using threatening or abusive words or behaviour likely to cause distress. His case was conducted in a magistrate court, which means that it’s only a minor offence; for which he was fined just £35 ($43).
Anthony Stallard wasn’t prosecuted for making ghost noises, he was prosecuted for harassment. He had also been previously fined for harassment, so it wasn’t his first offence, and he did cause criminal damage to gravestones while in the cemetery but the courts dismissed that charge, presumably because there was a lack of evidence against the defendant.
And as I said, he was not persecuted for making ghost noises; his offence was that he and a group of his friends, while on their way home from a night out drinking went to the cemetery and started playing football in the cemetery (hence the damage to the grave stones); and while in the cemetery drunk, and playing football, they engaged in rowdy behaviour e.g. disturbing the peace; the fact that one of them threw their arms in the air and said “woooooooo” is immaterial to the offence, if he'd been shouting "I like apples" his rowdy behaviour would still have been disturbance of the peace in the early hours of the morning. Then I suppose you'd be arguing that people get arrested in the UK for liking apples?
As I said above, you deliberately take harmless words out of context and create a ‘false’ narrative’ to give the fake impression that that was the reason people were prosecuted for ‘hate crime’ in the UK.
Whether you want to believe it or not there are people who are influenced by what they are exposed to on Social Media; if that wasn’t the case then there would be no point in all the American right-wing propaganda trying to convince people of a twisted reality.
If you truly think we don’t have free speech in Europe then you are deluding yourself by your own propaganda, because I, like any reasonable minded European, can express myself and my views and opinions on any topic freely, without the need to commit hate crime.
Yeah, handling insults in American style free speech requires a strong mind and emotions, which you and I may have; however it is a known fact that cyberbullying for example is responsible for suicides including children suicides, and that cyberbullying is a far more serious issue in the USA than in Europe. And this may be reflected in the fact that suicides are far more common in the USA than in England? In 2020 in the USA there were 45,799 suicides; compared to just 5,224 in England and Wales during the same period.
So you might have strong mind and emotions, and can take insults like water off a ducks back, but from the stats it would suggest that a lot of your fellow Americans, including children, are just as vulnerable to cyberbullying, and just as likely to commit suicide because of it as children anywhere else in the world.Your view is not based on facts.
"No one is going to be put in prison for teaching their dogs tricks"
Tell that to Mark Meechan who went to jail because he taught his pug to do the nazi salute and posted it on YouTube. This is a fact.
Tell that to Linford House who was arrested for posting a picture of a burning poppy on Facebook. This is a fact.
Tell it to Anthony Stallard who was arrested for making ghost noises in a cemetery. This is also a fact.
There are too many more examples to even try to post them all.
"In 2020 in the USA there were 45,799 suicides; compared to just 5,224 in England and Wales during the same period."
Guess what? The United States has a bit larger population than the UK, so it stands to reason those rates would be larger in the US. Nice try.
Sorry Readmikenow but you are deliberately twisting the facts to match your American right-wing narrative.
The reason Mark Meechan was sent to prison wasn’t because he taught his dog tricks, the reason he went to prison is because he promoted fascism –which is hate crime.
Linford House was arrested because on Remembrance Day he posted a comment and picture on Facebook that caused "harassment, harm or distress" to witnesses to those who fought in 2nd world war, because of the message he was conveying in his post, and the veterans of the 2nd world war reported him to the police – but he was not charged for any crime because he meet the veterans in person to apologise for his actions, which included calling them cunts.
Anthoney Stallard was NOT arrested for making ghost noises in a cemetery, he was arrested for rowdy behaviour while drunk and playing football with others in a cemetery; causing criminal damage to some of the gravestones. What he said at the time had no bearing on the case; if he’d been singing ‘singing in the rain’ while drunk and playing football in a cemetery in the early hours of the morning, causing a disturbance to the residents in the neighbouring properties, the police would still have been called out and arrested him for disturbing the peace in the middle of the night.
Guess what, the USA’s population is five times bigger than the UK, and the number of suicides in the USA almost 9 times higher. So taking the difference in population size into account people are almost twice as likely to commit suicide in the USA than in the UK.
But of course in the USA you are more than happy to allow and encourage people to promote the KKK, I’m sure; but in Europe such hate organisations are not tolerated.
As I said previously, you deliberately take harmless words out of context and create a ‘false’ narrative’ to give the fake impression that that was the reason people were prosecuted for ‘hate crime’ in the UK. Either that or you are hopeless at checking the facts because you never read beyond the headlines, and draw your own conclusions from the headlines without checking to see what the full facts of the case are."Linford House was arrested because on Remembrance Day he posted a comment and picture on Facebook that caused "harassment, harm or distress" to witnesses to those who fought in 2nd world war, because of the message he was conveying in his post, and the veterans of the 2nd world war reported him to the police – but he was not charged for any crime because he meet the veterans in person to apologise for his actions, which included calling them cunts.
Anthoney Stallard was NOT arrested for making ghost noises in a cemetery, he was arrested for rowdy behaviour while drunk and playing football with others in a cemetery; causing criminal damage to some of the gravestones. What he said at the time had no bearing on the case; if he’d been singing ‘singing in the rain’ while drunk and playing football in a cemetery in the early hours of the morning, causing a disturbance to the residents in the neighbouring properties, the police would still have been called out and arrested him for disturbing the peace in the middle of the night."
No, that's the interpretation of why they were arrested. Their actions speak for themselves. The reason the authorities got involved or even needed to get involved also speaks for itself.
And again, I say there are many incidences that prove there is no free speech in the UK, Canada or even Australia.
There are too many incidences in these countries of people being arrested for silly things to challenge the argument.
Again, you struggle to comprehend the concept of free speech and its importance.
Sorry Readmikenow, but you just latch onto headlines, and stick to them like a dog with bone, regardless to the underlying facts. Headlines are used to catch the reader’s attention and often give a misleading picture of the true events.
As I said before, you deliberately take harmless words out of context e.g. flower, dog, ghost etc., and then create a ‘false’ narrative’ to give the fake impression that that was the reason people were prosecuted for ‘hate crime’ in the UK.
You detest the authorities tackling fascism in Britain, as you believe that fascists should have ‘freedom of speech’ so by the same token you also support allowing the KKK ‘freedom of speech’?
If Americans have far more freedoms than European, as you keep claiming, then why are there 53,290 Americans serving life without a chance of parole; compared to just 68 people in the UK who are serving life without chance of parole. And also why have a total of 1491 convicts been executed in the USA since 1976, while in the UK the last executions were in 1964?
I understand free speech, I use it all the time; what I don’t do is hate speech; which is something that you struggle to comprehend the concept of, and its importance.
And to prove the point I am going to say three words to you, which by your definition I am prohibited from saying because of British censorship laws: “Flower”, “Dog”, “Ghost”; now are you going to report me to the British authorities for using prohibited words?
There we are; I've even posted an image with all three prohibited objects in one image - so you now have no choice other than to tell the British Authorities that I have broken British laws by posting an image containing a dog, flower and ghost in it.
A person is denied free speech as soon as they say "No" to their parent.
Very interesting. There are all sorts of offshoots.
The football coach in Tacoma, Washington, argurd it violated his constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise When he regularly gathered the team to pray immediately after games. The Supreme Court is signaling moving toward greater accommodation for religious expression in public schools. Which in turn I suppose that would open up greater expression on all fronts.
Can teachers claim free speech when they want to express opinions in the classroom?
I don't think Musk will be bullied either. I just think if he saw the UK could lead to legal problems with his platform, he could just not offer the platform in the UK.
It is very much the same in the US Facebook has many more users than Twitter. FB 2.912 billion monthly active users, 330 million monthly active users. Twitter is used more by liberals than conservatives. It never really took off with conservatives, for reasons you might guess.
Hey, we just don't know Musk's plans as of yet. It will be interesting to watch .Yep, I'm sure Musk is not one to be bullied either; but nobody is above the law. So if Musk wants to operate his Twitter platform in other countries outside of America then he is going to have to comply with the laws of those countries - that's his choice. Whatever he decides will impact on his revenue one way or the other e.g. fewer using the service may mean less profit?
I don't think he cares at all about "profit" from the UK.
It isn't worth the effort to conform to their demands. 16 million people is nothing in the grand scheme of things.I wasn’t thinking of just the UK, the EU is also introducing similar Legislation.
"I don't think he cares at all about"profit" from the UK."
I don't think he cares at all about "profit" from the UK or the EU.So - what does it matter to the rest of the world if Twitter became almost exclusively an American only Service. The sort of Twitter you want is one that is crammed packed with conspiracy theories, untruths and misinformation galore - That's not the sort of Media platform that is welcome in Europe.
"The sort of Twitter you want is one that is crammed packed with conspiracy theories, untruths and misinformation galore ."
That's right. Europe has their own social platforms that are crammed packed with conspiracy theories, untruths and misinformation galore.
It's the only way socialists maintain power in any government.That's what a large number of people thrive upon here. The conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation are treated as fact by a good deal of our population.
They don't want anyone sorting through it or fact checking it. They want their right to create and live in an alternate reality with their own "facts"Yes, but liberals and those on the left have a right to "create and live in an alternate reality with their own "facts."
I don't think this should be taken away from them under any circumstances.
Even the liberals and the left have a right to free speech!
I shouldn't be too sure, I'm one of those 16 million; but we're not fanatic about it, most Brits spend for more time on Facebook and texting on their smart phones than using Twitter.
It matters to the world, as to the reasons WHY he bought Twitter in the first place!
Simply because you and Faye believe that opening up Twitter, making it more fair and balanced, by insuring that conservatives {such as myself} also have a voice there...doesn't make it a platform for "conspiracy theories, untruths and misinformation galore".
If you're into one-sided conversations, start your own service, maybe you can name it, Britter...
Ha, ha just got'ta love the humor. BtW . . . what about Parler where Free Speech thrives? Or, Truth Social? What is the fascination with Twitter? Is it that they have a larger market place? What happens to twitter is physics . . . entropy.
Parler
https://parler.com/
Truth Social
https://truthsocial.com/
You realize a Republicans as well as Democrats identity is dependent on what they are not, not on what they are. It is a symbiotic relationship.No one has a problem with the exchange of different views. You're missing or misunderstanding the point. You have a difficult case to prove that Twitter has not been and continues to be a hotbed of misinformation, disinformation and at times some very threatening language. In a previous post I listed just a few people expected to have their accounts restored by Mr Musk. I've listed the tweet content that got banned. If you feel like that type of conversation is beneficial, you have that right. Personally, I don't feel that a tweet calling for a beheading and that head to be put on a pike outside the White House is very useful.
Again you're trying to make this a partisan issue and maybe for you it is but It is not for me. It's not that simple. I'm talking about the content of tweets. Regardless of the party affiliation the user may have....and I believe that you are "missing" or "misunderstanding" the point, but that's okay, we aren't getting anywhere in this back and forth. Do we ever? Lol
Not to be argumentive, but Twitter has and is full of disinformation. Onesided misinformation. That when proven to be disinformation the tweets remain. It would seem some are OK with that. Many here in America are not.
It would seem some will need to leave the playground and look for a new safer space.
Yes, it is very much common sense if someone whats to set up business in another country they are expected to follow the laws of that country.
Many were shocked to see Musk take the company private. We all are curious about how he hopes to make money. That is left to be seen.
He has proven himself to be a good businessman, I would think he will go the way of Google making big bucks off ads.
Ultimately we will need to wait and see if he is successful with Twitter.
I don't think he will set up shop in countries where their laws will subvert what he feels is free speech. It would seem to defeat what he claims to have bought Twitter for.
Here in America many of us feel our free speech was taken away on Twitter. It's clear many do not accept this as fact, but many of us on the right have experienced Twitter's removing our voice.
Keep in mind Musk has not claimed "all goes"..."Yes, it is very much common sense if someone whats to set up business in another country they are expected to follow the laws of that country."
I guess I'm ignorant of the realities and functions of the internet. How is providing a platform, In America, that those in other countries can reach, "setting up business in another country"? How can we possibly require every business on the net to follow the laws of every other country? Does anybody follow the laws of China or Russia?
It would seem to me that it is up to the country to deny that servers in their country NOT be able to find Twitter, not the other way around.No expert, but yes social media as well as search engines, e.g. Google, comply with countries restrictions. Again, no expert. I looked earlier seeing in 2012 Twitter announced it can block content by country. I am sure it is through the magic of algorithms.
Twitter Announces It Can Now Block Content By Country by NPR (01/27/12)
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … by-country
Google Says Number Of Government Requests For User Info Jumps by NPR (10/25/11)
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way … info-jumps
About country withheld content from Twitter Help Center
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-p … by-country
I found it interesting while at the same was a little in awe.That's a good point. We have it backward. If Twitter is a U.S.-based company, and it is the non-U.S. users that are asking for access to that company, then isn't it a plausible claim that those users that are asking to use Twitter are the ones 'doing business' in their nation and that they should abide by the laws, not the other way around.
Europe prohibits the import of some of our foodstuffs because it doesn't follow their rules, (meet their standards), so why shouldn't they do the same for Twitter? Don't allow access if it doesn't meet their standards. If those user demographics are important—enough to Twitter, then it's a simple do-or-don't decision for both sides.
I wonder what 'hidden rocks' that thought will run into? Is Musk maverick enough to say that to those EU nations?
GAThat wasn't actually my point. Why is it up to Twitter to determine the origin of the site asking for access (through all their proxies) and deny it? Why isn't it up to the country regulating their citizens? Twitter is not a police entity - they merely supply access to those that want it, and (it seems to me) that if there is a demand that access not be given then it is up to those making that demand to deny it. As you point out, Twitter is an American company, operating under American law, not a European one.
Unless, of course, they have servers or other presence in Europe. Then it makes sense that Europe could require them to follow European law.I must have really missed your point. Your response is what I thought I said. Anyway, yeah, what you said . . .
GAWhen a user signs up to become a member of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, or any other social media platform; they have to give their country as part of the signing up process. Then for that user the media platform e.g. Twitter is then operating in that user's country, and has to comply with the Internet laws of that country.
I would think if the UK or for that matter Musk does not want to share Twitter with another country due to their given laws, they can stop its purchase of the app from Google or Apple. China blocks Twitter. Apps can be available in some countries but not all.
Yes, it would be up to the country or the business owner. I mean Musk could dictate where his app can be available. As could the UK ban its availability. It sounds like the UK has laws that would truely not permit all free speech.
NATHANVILLE shared this --- Besides, the UK is not alone; the EU on the 23rd April 2022 approved their ‘Digital Services Act’ which is now set to become law on 1st Jan 2024. The European Union reached an agreement on the Digital Services Act on 23rd April 2022 – legislation dedicated to policing hate speech, disinformation, and other harmful content online. The EU says the new law will make big tech firms more accountable for content created by users e.g. a similar approach to the UK legislation.
Therefore, will Muck also cut off the whole of Europe as well as the UK, so that Twitter becomes predominantly just an American thing?
What is the EU (European Union) Digital Services Act and how will it impact Big Tech? https://youtu.be/ES-KfZeeh34Again, why is Twitter (Musk) responsible to police the actions of a foreign citizen, ensuring that that citizen obey their country's laws?
I can visit Amazon UK and buy merchandise. If the US does not want me to do that it is up to the US to stop me, not the UK. Although the UK could make it illegal for me to visit they would have a hard time enforcing it...unless Amazon cooperated.
But if Amazon has no presence there, how will the UK force Amazon (or Twitter) to follow their laws unless the UK limits access to their citizens. I just don't know if Twitter has any presence anywhere outside the US, and doubt that it is necessary anyway. As I say, I can reach Amazon in the UK and Brits can reach a US site, including Twitter.Twitter is available all over the world but has been banned in several countries.
Twitter can simply not offer the app in the given country.
Countries can block a given internet site. As many have with Twitter.
It would seem to me that if a country had internet laws in regards let's say to hate speech, and they allowed the Twitter app to be available in their country -- they would need to realize their law would not be enforceable - say if the site allowed hate speech. It would be the country's option to ban the site if they felt the site was unacceptable. or going against their internet regulations in regard to hate speech. It's not up to the site to follow any other rules than their own or the laws of the country they are set up in.
If the UK objects to the conduct being allowed on Twitter, they would have no way to enforce their own internet laws on an American-owned site. They would have the option of blocking it.
" As I say, I can reach Amazon in the UK and Brits can reach a US site, including Twitter."
You could not reach either if the site or business decides not to make mitself available in your country.
A quick response in respect to the point of International law, which you and others are questioning. I'm no legal expert either (although I did do law at college). Anyway, from a legal aspect, these laws are in effect dealt with very much in a similar manner to how copyright laws are dealt with internationally.
Anyway, quoting from the DMLP, an American law company, they say on the matter:-
"If you post something online that upsets someone in another country, that person may use several means to contact you about their complaint: sending a cease-and-desist letter or e-mail; filing a lawsuit; and/or sending a subpoena. If a lawsuit is filed against you, it could be in a U.S. court or in a foreign court. Either way, your initial response should be the same: Don't panic, but also don't delay.
One big issue when it comes to a lawsuit or threat involving a foreign court is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the power of the foreign court to hear the case and exert power over you. In some countries, the fact that the material at issue is posted on the Internet and available worldwide—including in the country in question—is enough for the courts of that country to have jurisdiction over a case, at least according to that country's laws.
Yeah, well have to wait and see what happens; but the so called free speech that the American right-win are claiming had been removed by Twitter is predominantly potentially harmful misinformation; quite often material from conspiracy websites that’s being promoted by right-wing politics. If that’s the sort of free speech you want, then I’m not interested.
I hope so.
You know, I've really gotten tired of the UK and EU.
They seem to be the source of so many of our problems.
They are always in need of OTHER PEOPLE's energy, be it the Middle East or Russia, and that always seems to involve the USA to come and "fix things" for them.
They don't pay their way for NATO, they whine and complain about trade agreements that are already grievously more beneficial to them than America.
Their politics suck royally, the EU is run by a bunch of bureaucrats that aren't elected, they are chose by untouchable elites and don't give a crap about what the people want.
We got enough problems here in America, we could do without the UK and EU all together.Yep, I fully agree with you on your first point: Most NATO members in Europe don’t pay their fair share. The agreement is that each NATO member spends at least 2% of the GDP on Defence. Of the 30 NATO members (all European except the USA) only 8 actually spend more than 2% of their GDP on Defence; those countries being:-
• Greece = 3.59% of its GDP on Defence.
• USA = 3.57% of its GDP on Defence.
• Poland = 2.34% of its GDP on Defence.
• UK = 2.25% of its GDP on Defence.
• Croatia = 2.16% of its GDP on Defence.
• Estonia = 2.16% of its GDP on Defence.
• Latvia = 2.16% of its GDP on Defence.
• Lithuania = 2.03% of its GDP on Defence.
The two wealthiest countries in the EU, Germany and France, only spend – France = 1.93% and Germany = 1.49% of their GDP on Defence. The worst offender is Luxemburg, who only spends 0.54% of their GDP on Defence.
So as regards NATO the USA has every right to complain.
Back in 2012 the EU Commission did propose an EU Army, but that was vetoed by the UK; however, since Brexit France has resurrected the idea of an EU Army. So maybe one day Europe will be able to stand on its own two feet militarily, without the USA needing to bail it out?
As regards your second main points e.g.” the EU is run by a bunch of bureaucrats that aren't elected, they are chose by untouchable elites and don't give a crap about what the people want” - neither statement is correct.
Prior to 1979 your first statement was largely correct; but since then EU politicians in the EU Parliament have been elected by the people in General Elections once every five years – and contrary to any misinformation you may have read, what you might think of as a bunch of bureaucrats e.g. the European Commission (civil service) only drafts the laws. All EU laws have to be voted on and passed with a majority vote by both chambers (sometimes a qualifying majority e.g. 55% or 66% in favour):-
To Become EU Law, both the EU Parliament and the EU Council have to vote and pass the proposed legislation.
The EU Commission (who draft the Legislation) consists of 27 Commissioners; one Commissioner from each Member State. Each Commissioner is appointed by the Government of their own Member State e.g. President Emmanuel Macron would appoint the French Commissioner.
The EU Council are the 27 Government leaders of the 27 Member States e.g. President Emmanuel Macron (elected by the French people) is the French member on the EU Council.
The politicians in the EU Parliament are elected directly by the people, once every five years; just like any other democratic election.
How does the EU pass new laws? https://youtu.be/8C0Kq7ioOpk
In a nutshell: The EU Commission is the Executive; and the democratically elected EU Parliament, and the EU Council (Heads of States) is the Legislative, and the EU Court is the Juridical – In other words the principle of the ‘Separation of Powers’.
Finally, the problems you have in America seems to be of America’s own making!I'll give you the elected aspect of the EU leadership as I am not inclined to research it at the moment to reinforce what could easily be a faulty position.
Though I doubt there is a whole lot of "choice" the people have... like here in America, where we have the "choice" between who those pulling the strings of the Democrat Party choose to nominate and the Republican Party choice.
Only one time in my lifetime did an "outsider" break into that arena and represent something other than the canned and controlled politician the Party leadership chose to put forth, that was Trump, and we saw how well received that was by the establishment.
My MAIN contention was the issue the EU and UK have relating to energy needs, how dependent they have been on the Middle East and/or Russia, and how that has cost the USA.
Our politicians and our Military Industrial Complex may love getting involved in one war after another due to Europe... but I'm tired of it, tired of the lies, tired of the nonsense, the arrogance, the entitled leadership of the EU... fight your own wars, deal with Russia yourself, the Middle East yourself, figure out how to not be dependent on them for energy... or go fight the wars yourself.Well actually we have a far wider choice in the EU & UK elections than you do in USA elections. The USA is only a two party system, a choice between Republican and Democratic only; and both are political on the right in European politics – So not much choice there for the American voter.
In contrast there are 7 main political parties to choose from in the European Elections, and in the UK General Elections, a similar number.
In European politics the parties range from the ‘far left’ (further left than the British Socialist Labour Party) to on the far right the ‘Identity and Democracy’ (ID) political group which is even more right-wing than the Republicans in the USA.
In the Chart below, the Republicans are similar to the ECR party, and the Democrats in the USA are similar to the EPP party. For comparison with British politics; the ECR is similar to the British Conservatives; Renew Europe (left of centre in European politics) is similar to the British Liberal Democrats, the Green Party obviously would align with the British Greens, and Labour would align with the S&D party on the left: - So far greater choice during European and UK elections than USA elections. And furthermore the voting in European Elections is ‘proportional representation’, so every vote counts and the people get what they vote for.
You’re only partially right on your last point; yeah, parts of Europe, most particular Germany, are highly dependent on Russian gas. 40% of the gas Germany uses comes from Russia.
But countries like the UK and Norway are not dependent on Russia; both the UK and Norway produce gas, with around 50% of the gas used by the UK coming from UK waters, while most of the rest is imported from Norway.
And as we speak, the UK is at an advanced stage of transition from fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal to Renewable Energy, to meet its legal target to be net carbon neutral by 2050; and in fact, most European countries are far more advanced in transitioning away from fossil fuels than the USA.
I can appreciate you sentiments, and I don’t like American involvement in European affairs any more than you do; but the reality is, is that we do need each other – If Europe fell to Russian control (Germany’s control during the 2nd world war), it would make the world a far more dangerous place for America.
Probably not, actually.
I remember the 70s and 80s very well, world seemed a much safer, much saner place in those days, when Russia controlled a fair share of Europe and influenced half of the Middle East.
I am a heck of a lot more afraid of the arrogant, out of touch, elite snobs we have running our country today... people who consider it laughable that Russia would dare use a nuke... until it does.
People who are far more concerned about Domestic threats (in other words controlling their own populace and securing their own power) than anything else.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/document … 7MAR21.pdf
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00 … -SD001.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ … mony_0.pdfI remember the 70s and 80s to, the 'iron curtain', and living in Europe I was fully aware that Russia was as much of a threat to Europe and world peace then as it is now.
Reports are that Elon Musk will be restoring previously banned Twitter accounts in the name of free speech.
They will include Steve Bannon who was removed When he called for the beheading of Dr Fauci.
Also, Holocaust denier Charles Johnson who received his ban when he tweeted for donations to help him "take out" the head of the BLM organization at the time. Sandy Hook denier, Alex Jones
Along with a good mix of white supremacists such as David Duke, Qanon loyalists and those who spread neo Nazi propaganda.
Is this a cause for celebration? Considered a win for free speech?“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.” ~ Elon Musk . . .
Former top Trump aide Steve Bannon's podcast was permanently suspended by Twitter and had an episode yanked from YouTube after he implied that FBI Director Christopher Wray and leading government infectious-diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci should be beheaded and have their heads put on pikes outside the White House.
Bannon during the podcast said,
"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci."
"Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man," Bannon continued.
"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone – time to stop playing games."
Who believes Mr. Bannon was wrongly banned? Reports are that Mr Musk will reinstate accounts that were deactivated for violating Twitter policy. Should these types of statements be welcomed back?I think Americans have the ability to weigh and judge what they hear and see.
We all know we have heard and witnessed many adverse statements from both sides over the past years. Some are so vile that it makes one wonder how did we come to this, One that has always sickened me. A man that accused Trump of being responsible for 200,000 deaths of Americans.
"Trump is responsible for the deaths of 200,000 Americans... " Biden
He said it over and over and over... Should I offer how many died is Bidens 14 months? Is he responsible?
Free speech allowed Biden to make that statement... Was it true? Ultimately one could say yes because Trump was the president at the time these people died. As Biden is now.
I weigh and judge that statement Biden's statement. Yes, I saw it as uncalled for cheap politicking, but I also realized he has a right to free speech. We have a right to decipher, weigh and judge words...
Yes, people lie, they seek to spread mistruths, and yes, even share inappropriate hyperbolic, such as the Bannon statement.
It is not up to anyone to decide what can be said, it's up to us to have the common sense to weigh and judge words.
If we stifle free speech we do ourselves a disservice in my view.
Bannon should not have been banned --- The statement was not made on Twitter. Twitter reached out and judge his words, and appointed themselves as police of free speech.
Bannon did not violate Twitter's policy, that statement was not offered up on Twitter.
And reports are not from Musk, but media. Many on the left spread this form of misinformation, as you have done here. These are reports, not truth... But you have the right to share reports that hold no truth... You have the rights that are offered by free speech.
Covid deaths this year have now surpassed the toll in 2020 with 350,000 since Biden's Inauguration Day. It would seem that Mr. Biden has done no better than Donald Trump in defeating Covid despite the benefit of vaccines, better therapies, more information in regard to the virus, and more clinical experience. The left politicized Covid by holding Mr. Trump responsible for a disease that was always going to be hard to defeat.
But now appear to ignore that Biden is responsible for over 350,000 American deaths. The virus was no surprise to Biden, he was provided tools to stop death? Did he? Tools that were produced under Trump, tools that Trump did not have the benefit of having until he worked to supply them.
350,000 Americans are dead, not able to sit at the dinner table... Was that not the statement he made to vilify Trump?
Free speech gives me the right to weigh and judge Biden's words... As you have judged Bannon's.The statement was from Mr Bannon's podcast but the clip was also tweeted on his Twitter account which was called the war room at the time.
"The @WarRoomPandemic account has been permanently suspended for violating the Twitter Rules, specifically our policy on the glorification of violence.”
Tweets, news articles that are intentionally and verifiably false are designed to manipulate people’s perceptions of reality and have also been used to influence politics. But they have also become a method to stir up and intensify social conflict. Stories that are untrue and that intentionally mislead readers have caused growing mistrust among American people. In some cases this mistrust results in incivility, protest over imaginary events, or increasingly in violence.
Edgar Welch The "pizzagate" shooter acted on tweets. He was convinced that the pizzeria contained a hidden pedophilia trafficking ring led by Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign. Tweets can lead some folks to take action.
False claims of a stolen , rigged election incited a riot at the capitol. We could go on and on with specific examples of tweets leading to real world consequences.
I'll pose this question. If an individual or group uses a social media platform to encourage acts of violence against another person or another person's property, then does the social media company have an ethical obligation to employ corrective measures to remove such posted content?
Also to consider: Should these platforms continue to be shielded from liability ( section 230) for the content created by their users? Or should it be revoked?
So as the tweets continue to roll out that teachers must be stopped in their quest to change their students gender or identity, If and when an individual takes it upon themselves to "liberate" children and shoot up a school building, Should there be accountability?"I'll pose this question. If an individual or group uses a social media platform to encourage acts of violence against another person or another person's property, then does the social media company have an ethical obligation to employ corrective measures to remove such posted content?"
That leading question prompted a thought; what if it read this way:
"I'll pose this question. If an individual or group uses their telephone to encourage acts of violence against another person or another person's property, then does the telephone company have an ethical obligation to employ corrective measures to remove such posted content?"
Your comment just caused me to pause, is telephonic communications comparable to social media communications?
GAI would say no, in my opinion. The interface is different. A tweet can seen by millions in a fraction of a second and spread exponentially just as quickly.
At what point is a person responsible for their own actions? Is it really fair to blame something someone has read for their behavior?
So, if you blame the words a person reads for their actions; aren't you saying people aren't responsible for their actions and making the words they read or hear responsible for their behavior?
That just doesn't seem right. I believe a person should be responsible for their behavior no matter what they've read or seen or hear. No matter what their childhood, or life experiences.
Every person has the power to make choices for their behavior and should be held responsible for them.I am in complete agreement with people being held responsible for their actions. Folks who have committed violence that was inspired through Twitter tweets have been punished And should continue to be punished. Somehow I feel that the people damaged by these tweets wished more would have been done sooner.
I will pose these questions though because it goes beyond personal accountability and responsibility.
If an individual or group uses a social media platform to encourage acts of violence against another person or another person's property, then does the social media company have an ethical obligation to employ corrective measures to remove such posted content?
Also to consider: Should these platforms continue to be shielded from liability ( section 230) for the content created by their users? Or should it be revoked?
So as the tweets continue to roll out that teachers must be stopped in their quest to change their students gender or identity, If and when an individual takes it upon themselves to "liberate" children and shoot up a school building, Should the platform have accountability in letting such a tweet stand."If an individual or group uses a social media platform to encourage acts of violence against another person or another person's property, then does the social media company have an ethical obligation to employ corrective measures to remove such posted content?"
I would say...depends on how something is said.
Can I ask you if Rap Lyrics that involve such things as killing police, raping women as well as drug use, should be banned? Should the rapper who makes this type of music be held responsible for the actions of others who do these things after listening to this music?Well you make a very interesting segue there. Personally, I abhor this type of music. I wish it didn't exist. And yes I think it does contribute to a culture of victimization of women and a glorification of violence and drugs. A record label isn't looking to be socially responsible. They're looking to make money. I suppose we could say the same of Twitter. When we have a more volatile, incendiary and controversial platform maybe more are drawn to it. I do not like either one. I suppose I'm calling for corporations to have some social conscious. Probably laughable huh?
I wasn't arguing against your main point, but I think the answer should be the same for both entities. Consider your reasoning for a different answer, it's a matter of scale for you. The act is the same but it is the reach that makes your determination. I see the act being the determinant.
Otherwise, relative to social platforms, I also think they should have an ethical responsibility, but that isn't support for demanding that they do.
Hate speech and 'inciting' speech—relative to 'censorship', is one of those porn-like issues; we all know it when we see it, but none of us can define it for anyone but ourselves. That's why I am strongly against banning, who gets to decide?
In this case, it should be the social media platforms that decide. It's their business so they get to decide. I think there are equally canceling options for the individual posts. Don't shoot the messenger because you have a problem with the message. Just because I don't like banning doesn't mean that it is never the right choice.
GAI think you might enjoy this light hearted review of the reaction to Musk's purchase of Twitter.
Save yourself 3 minutes and forward it to the 3:20 mark where it gets very revealing.
https://youtu.be/Et4wlp8A8Os
I read your comment. I have no wish to comment. I have shared my views in regard to free speech. I stand for free speech and am against it being silenced by this faulty administration or any leftist that hopes to promote silencing free speech. I will promote and support free speech.
That's all she wrote.It makes no difference to me who the administration is at the time. I feel that tweets glorifying or encouraging violence should be moderated. I don't think they add any value to a society that's violent enough.
Support of free speech??
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper charges in a memoir out May 10 that former President Trump said when demonstrators were filling the streets around the White House following the death of George Floyd: "Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?"
https://www.axios.com/mark-esper-book-t … 7b43d.htmlJust adding to the discussion for the curious. The following article from Accessible Law, UNT Dallas College of Law has cleared up some things for me regard social media's rights with free speech since they are a private actor and not a governmental one.
The Limits of Free Speech in Social Media
https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/lim … cial-media
While on my journey of discovery I pondered do we have a right to free speech in the workplace. So far the following article by the National Law Review says sometimes.
Free Speech and Expression in the 2021 Workplace
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fr … -workplaceI always wished that conservatives were at least as concerned with the well being of a child after it is born rather than chasing after zygotes.
McConnell said that he opposed federally supported school lunch programs because it would encourage kids to be lazy.
Republicans drag out the usual platitudes when asked about what happens to unwanted children that they had required to be carried to term. The most destitute and deplorable states with the worse records regarding care for anyone now tell me that they will gin up adoption and other services to compensate for their draconian law. Yeah, and I got beach front property in Nevada for sale.......
If this is the kind of mindset of Republicans and the Right, I have no use for them."chasing after zygotes"
You do realize that 8 states have legalized late term abortion.
This is nothing less than legalized infanticide.
I guess if you get comfortable killing children in the womb it's just a matter of time until you get comfortable killing children outside the womb.
I'll never understand the determination of taking an innocent and blameless unborn life.Does that make it easier for you? Referring to babies with flesh and blood, just like you, as zygotes? That makes you no better than Margaret Sanger.
A just fertilized egg is not a flesh and blood baby. But your side offers draconian punishment even expecting women to bear children to term under circumstances of rape or incest.
I am not speaking of FORCED sterilization, so I am not Margaret
Sanger, AB. That was done to black and other women of color under government auspices, I am sure that the Right had no problem with that at the time.
"While California’s eugenics programs were driven in part by anti-Asian and anti-Mexican prejudice, Southern states also employed sterilization as a means of controlling African American populations."
Sounds pretty rightwing to me......Buck v. Bell, which remains legal precedent, despite being partially repudiated in the 1942 case Skinner v. Oklahoma, gave the American eugenics movement the legal backing it needed to achieve its wildest dreams. The exact number of forced sterilizations that were performed as a result of the movement’s success is unknown but estimated to be north of 60,000.
The Supreme Court 8 to 1 said yes, forced sterilization was not unconstitutional. That decision was written by the esteemed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. This wasn’t just a decision that said, “Well, we’re not going to intrude on the right of states,” or anything like that. This was a rousing, clarion call saying, “Yeah, Virginia should sterilize her (Carrie Buck) , and we need to sterilize more of these people. There’s a tide of unfit people are coming and are going to overwhelm the country, we need more eugenics.” That’s kind of the Carrie Buck story.
If the current Supreme Court destroys the right to privacy, states could jail women and doctors for abortion and contraception offenses. They could also compel women to be sterilized for "unfitness" to reproduce just as Virginia sterilized thousands.Oliver Wendell Holmes, AB? He was an associate justice on the Supreme Court from 1902-1935. This has been always been a racist culture, could I expect any less of a decision from the Supreme Court that long ago?
It is only progressives and liberals that even attempted to bring these attitudes and practices to heel.
Your last paragraph is telling, once the Right to Privacy disappears any number of heretofore unimangined ideas and concepts will now be more than embraced by the political Right. Is that what you want?"once the Right to Privacy disappears any number of heretofore unimangined ideas and concepts will now be more than embraced by the political Right. Is that what you want?"
I posted this. And yes this is where we are headed if Roe is overturned. Buck v. Bell was never overturned
Heartbeat detected at just 5 1/2 to 6 weeks.
Deleted
She may have started it, but is it the same eugenics organization she envisioned over 100 years ago? No more than the Democrats are the same political party that they were 100 years ago.
Yes and Yes, the Dems are just the same, doing the same miserable things they've always done. That's why the Republican Party was born, bringing us Abraham Lincoln and an end to slavery once and for all.
Why do you think she started Planned Parenthood Cred?
You forget, I am the one speaking for the RIGHT for babies, of all skin colors, to live, why would I be happy with Margaret Sanger? She was as bad as Adolf Hitler.
Does that preclude women having the right to control the process on their own accord not involving forced sterilization?
I am not happy with Margaret Sanger, but just like Woodrow Wilson, they are both dead and have been dead for a while and so they take their ideas and vision to the gravesite where they belong.Planned Parenthood supports the woman's right to choice, I stand for that.
The organization is not about eugenics or forced sterizations while that may have been true in 1916. It is not today.No, it is about realizing Margaret Sanger's vision and bringing it to fruition. The black population should be twice the size it is now. But its not, this would bring Ms. Sanger such incredible joy. But, you keep on believing that I'm wrong and you're right.
Where is your evidence of what the black population would have been without Sanger? I question the veracity of your statement. You are grasping at straws as any eugenics program in the past could not possibly nor did not have so far reaching an effect on African-American populations.
As you keep believing I am wrong and you are right. I am AFrican American and I would tend to know more about the subject at hand as being directly affected than you would.
Related Discussions
- 14
Is Your Freedom Of Speech At RIsK?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media...
- 201
Elon Musk Makes Offer To Buy Twitter And Take It Private
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Elon Musk Offers to buy Twitter for $43 Billion dollarsThe link is a Google search quey. Pick your source for details. The short story is that we are about to see a battle of titans. America's richest man vs. the capital interests involved with Twitter. Musk has offered $43 Billion, and `they' say...
- 18
Elon Musk is standing in the way of Global Totalitarianism
by Ken Burgess 3 months ago
Last night, around 8 p.m. local time in São Paulo, Brazil, Federal Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes announced a criminal investigation into Elon Musk, the owner of X, formerly known as Twitter, for allegedly spreading disinformation, obstructing justice, and allowing people who De Moraes...
- 162
The Case Against Free Speech
by Tessa Schlesinger 4 years ago
A few hundred years ago, the church and the state had a filthy habit of killing and imprisoning people because they didn't agree with the current king or the current pope. As a result of the Enlightenment, 'freedom of speech' came into being. It meant that the State and the Church couldn't imprison...
- 40
Home Ownership!! What to do, What to do? The American Dream?
by Tim Mitchell 4 months ago
American dream of owning a home is dead, majority of renters sayNote: All of the referenced have plenty of graphics for a skim.by The Guardian (Mar 12, 2024)https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 … GTUS_email"The American dream of owning your own home is dead, according to the majority...
- 96
Free Speech and the Importance of X
by Ken Burgess 5 months ago
In a free society, all citizens must be able to pursue their own paths, set their own goals, and think for themselves.In America people are free to express their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or wrong... in recent years our government, in collusion with Social Media...