Jump to content

The normalisation of the far-right continues


Guest Bob Mahelp

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said:

WTF has this got to do with me, Fatty?

Thank you.

Always interested on your views when a far-right nogoodnik is shitcanned from a media platform.

Also, I think they banned her for saying that your cat is a fanny. Shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
7 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Why is this happening now? Not complaining, just noticed Reddit and YouTube purging all the especially unsavoury elements of their website.

Could be connected with the big boys pulling their advertising from Facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

How long do you suppose this has been going on? I mean internet based radicalisation of white men in general, would it be about the last 10 years that it's been a serious problem? I'm trying to figure out if the demographics are altering as whenever I see footage of proud boys or whatever it seems to me like they're mostly moving into their late 20s and 30s. The statue defenders by comparison seem to be dominated more by baldy Phil Mitchell shaped racist men who pre-date reddit etc. with only a smattering of younger guys. Tom Harwood types are probably quite a small minority now I'd guess, so is there a generational thing going on? Am I being too optimistic to think todays 20 year old guys are mostly looking at these people and seeing them as the tragic cases that they are & this is going some way to explain why there's this movement to get them all to f**k?

Think Trump specifically was a galvanising factor since these groups saw, and believed they were responsible for, their guy getting elected to the most powerful office on earth.

Re that last question there's a whole generation of downwardly mobile young men who feel less and less of a stake in society and I don't think that's going to change. Ofc it's the case that more and more people in general have less of a stake in society and every opportunity to address that is being closed off so it's probably gonna get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with these people who are being banned, but I don't take pleasure in seeing free speech supressed.
But there are rules on those platforms.

There is also very little in the way of free speech without consequence anywhere in the world. It's an easy thing to say but what actually is "free speech"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve_Wilkos said:

I don't agree with these people who are being banned, but I don't take pleasure in seeing free speech supressed.

We’ve never had free speech here. Try going out onto your nearest high street and telling everyone who passes that your boss is a rapist and see how free your speech is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Antlion said:

We’ve never had free speech here. Try going out onto your nearest high street and telling everyone who passes that your boss is a rapist and see how free your speech is.

There's a difference between Breach of the Peace/causing fear and alarm and Free Speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tutankhamen said:

There's a difference between Breach of the Peace/causing fear and alarm and Free Speech.

And free speech is what we’ve never had. The UK has some of the strictest libel and slander laws in the world. Injunctions and super injunctions can be taken out to prevent certain things being said publicly or written about. A whole raft of laws cover the arts (dictating what can be shown in cinemas and on TV). There are laws protecting religions and races.

As soon as anyone starts grumbling about “free speech”, they need to be directed to any history of UK and English censorship, libel law, and licensing. They’re essentially whining about losing something that had literally never existed on these islands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Antlion said:

We’ve never had free speech here. Try going out onto your nearest high street and telling everyone who passes that your boss is a rapist and see how free your speech is.

Defamation is not a criminal breach so you’d need to cause fear or alarm through your actions - then it’s breach of the peace. Difficult to say whether that behaviour would, but it is mighty oddball so it is arguable. Nothing to stop your boss suing you and the onus of proof would be on you but it’s difficult to see why defaming people without proof of your allegations should be unchallengeable or uncompensatable. 

Edited by The OP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The OP said:

Defamation is not a criminal breach so you’d need to cause fear or alarm through your actions - then it’s breach of the peace. Difficult to say whether that behaviour would, but it is mighty oddball so it is arguable. Nothing to stop your boss suing you and the onus of proof would be on you but it’s difficult to see why defaming people without proof of your allegations should be unchallengeable or uncompensatable. 

Not criminal, but civil. Go out and say whatever you like about people and you’re likely to find yourself sued for it under civil law if not arrested for causing a breach of the peace (depending on what you’re saying). As far as I know, no one has argued for “free speech” in the UK, but rather for freedom of expression (particularly political expression). To argue as though we’re a people who are having our once inalienable right to free speech eroded is disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Not criminal, but civil. Go out and say whatever you like about people and you’re likely to find yourself sued for it under civil law if not arrested for causing a breach of the peace (depending on what you’re saying). As far as I know, no one has argued for “free speech” in the UK, but rather for freedom of expression (particularly political expression). To argue as though we’re a people who are having our once inalienable right to free speech eroded is disingenuous.

Yes of course various human rights are balanced by other rights. If we had an absolute right to liberty there’d be no prisons, if we had absolute freedom of assembly trespassing wouldn’t be a thing and if the right to a private life was unrestricted there would be no newspapers or criminal investigations (and conversely if we had complete freedom of the press no one would have the right to a private life).

Just because the right to freedom of speech is limited to prevent harm to others doesn’t mean we don’t have it. It strikes me as a specious point you are making.

Edited by The OP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...