The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Another nail in the coffin of free speech.

Scroll to see replies

While final solution may not be exclusive to that sort of thing, I do have to say that, in this context at least, it does sorta sound like she's calling for a cleansing. Whether that was her intention or not is unknown. Considering how stupid this woman is at the best of times, it wouldn't surprise me if it was just a poor choice of words.
Reply 41
Avatar for Mair18919
Mair18919
OP
15
LBC is not a state institution, so them firing Hopkins is not 'another nail in the coffin of free speech'. It just means they don't want to be associated with certain narratives, which, in an free market, is entirely up to them!


I am sorry but you are wrong. LBC has always set itself up as a tolerant unbiased media furthering freedom of expression. That should include expression of views you disagree with. Those eager to join i the slandering of Hopkins probably have barely more than the vaguest idea what her views are, let alone the ability to challenge them on her program.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

― George Orwell
Original post by Mair18919
Appalling language from someone on the support team to describe a broadcaster who has committed NO CRIMINAL OFFENCE, whose only 'offence' is to hold views you disagree with.

Salman Abedi is a "scumbag" not Katie Hopkins.


Are support staff not allowed to voice there opinion?
Reply 43
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by PeacefulPrayers
I'm reporting your comment, disgraceful from a TSR support team member


I thought you like free speech.
Reply 44
Avatar for BB8
BB8
10
Original post by Mair18919

Do you agree that advertisers (corporate interests) dictating who and what political views we are allowed to hear aired is a shocking state of affairs i a so called free society?


Nobody is dictating who or what political views you are allowed to hear. You can listen to a different station, watch whatever tv channel, go on the internet, or whatever. The only thing LBC is dictating is the political views put out by them. Are you saying that they have to hire anybody, regardless of whether that person shares the views the channel wants to represent them?

If you don't agree with LBC, then don't listen. They can't stop you going somewhere else, buddy.
Reply 45
Avatar for Beth_H
Beth_H
16
Original post by Mair18919
I am sorry but you are wrong. LBC has always set itself up as a tolerant unbiased media furthering freedom of expression. That should include expression of views you disagree with. Those eager to join i the slandering of Hopkins probably have barely more than the vaguest idea what her views are, let alone the ability to challenge them on her program.

― George Orwell


I don't think "free speech" means what you think it means.
Reply 46
Avatar for Mair18919
Mair18919
OP
15
Original post by BB8
Nobody is dictating who or what political views you are allowed to hear. You can listen to a different station, watch whatever tv channel, go on the internet, or whatever. The only thing LBC is dictating is the political views put out by them. Are you saying that they have to hire anybody, regardless of whether that person shares the views the channel wants to represent them?

If you don't agree with LBC, then don't listen. They can't stop you going somewhere else, buddy.

Earlier poster said LBC were pressured by advertisers to remove her.
Reply 47
Avatar for BB8
BB8
10
Original post by Mair18919
Earlier poster said LBC were pressured by advertisers to remove her.


Ah cool, sorry I only skim-read the thread.

Yeah I don't agree with money being the motivator behind her being fired. Unfortunately that's the way the world is nowadays...
Original post by Mair18919


I'm sorry, but has she been imprisoned?

Has she been killed?

Is she not able to type or speak now?

No? Then how could you suggest that she had lost her "right" to say things people don't wanna hear?

Or are you saying it's a "right" not to be fired under any circumstances?
She wasn't sacked due to her view - her view has been very consistent on this and she wasn't sacked when she aired similar views.

She was sacked due to insensitivities towards what I assumed to be a big group of patrons.

Was it a "thought crime"? No.

It's no longer a "thought" when she typed that out in public. Or do you think libel is a "thought crime", too?

It's not a "crime" when the government isn't arresting her.
Original post by Mair18919
Katie Hopkins has been sacked from LBC.

LBC likes to think of itself as freer and more tolerant of all political views than the BBC, which is why it's very sad that she is being sacked for a trivial possible 'thought crime'.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/26/katie-hopkins-leaves-lbc-radio-final-solution-tweet-manchester-attack

The words 'final solution' do not have the exclusive meaning of a Holocaust reference, and nobody knows if Hopkins intended that. The fact that she deleted it herself suggests it wasnt intended.

So a thought crime yes?
She loses her job without any evidence proving she is guilty.


Freedom of speech prevents the government from passing laws to restrict your speech. It has nothing to do with private media corporations firing provocative attention-seekers.
FFS The right to free speech only stops the government from infringing on your right. If all you are is a professional **** talker like Katie Hopkins, everyone else is more than entitled to tell you to shut your face. A commercial company is more than within their rights to fire someone they think is going to cost them more money than they're worth, which in KH's case would not be very much.
Reply 52
Avatar for Mair18919
Mair18919
OP
15
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I'm sorry, but has she been imprisoned?

Has she been killed?

Is she not able to type or speak now?

No? Then how could you suggest that she had lost her "right" to say things people don't wanna hear?

Or are you saying it's a "right" not to be fired under any circumstances?


No. I am saying she should not be fired because of a political view expressed on a private Twitter account and which does not break the law, especially by a radio station which purports to be tolerant and unbiased.
Its not as if LBC holds a clear open political bias such as the Guardian does. It claims to allow its presenters freedom within the law. We now know this is not true,

In this case even her enemies are accepting she was not advocating extermination of Muslims.
Reply 53
Avatar for Mair18919
Mair18919
OP
15
Original post by Gwilym101
FFS The right to free speech only stops the government from infringing on your right. If all you are is a professional **** talker like Katie Hopkins, everyone else is more than entitled to tell you to shut your face. A commercial company is more than within their rights to fire someone they think is going to cost them more money than they're worth, which in KH's case would not be very much.


We have employment protection to guard against such arbitrary sacking. I suspect this is why LBC are avoiding the word, and that she has had a substantial severance payment.

She is a popular presenter and will be much missed.
Original post by Mair18919
No. I am saying she should not be fired because of a political view expressed on a private Twitter account and which does not break the law, especially by a radio station which purports to be tolerant and unbiased.
Its not as if LBC holds a clear open political bias such as the Guardian does. It claims to allow its presenters freedom within the law. We now know this is not true,

In this case even her enemies are accepting she was not advocating extermination of Muslims.


So first of all, how is that quote you quoted relevant to her situation? She didn't lose her right to say things people don't wanna hear.

She was NOT fired because of a political view. She has expressed that political view many, many times through the years and was still hired in the first place. She was sacked for being insensitive to another religious group, one that holds actual power.

And she could be fired for practically anything. LBC is a private business so they could fire for eating chicken at home if they want and there's no "should" or "should not" about it.

You can choose not to follow LBC any more due to this, but it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Original post by Mair18919
We have employment protection to guard against such arbitrary sacking. I suspect this is why LBC are avoiding the word, and that she has had a substantial severance payment.

She is a popular presenter and will be much missed.


Employment protection isn't to protect your from sacking for acting like a *****.

Ha! Popular presenter, yeah that's why all the presenting job she's had have tanked, no one's going to miss her.
Reply 56
Avatar for Mair18919
Mair18919
OP
15
Original post by Little Toy Gun


She was NOT fired because of a political view.

She was sacked for being insensitive to another religious group, one that holds actual power


How is advocating stronger action to deal with terrorism not political?

On your second point, refusing to be 'sensitive' to religious groups wishes to constrain our right to free speech is itself a political stance, and a courageous one.
Original post by Mair18919
How is advocating stronger action to deal with terrorism not political?

On your second point, refusing to be 'sensitive' to religious groups wishes to constrain our right to free speech is itself a political stance, and a courageous one.


Because she was NOT sacked for advocating stronger action to deal with terrorism. She has aired similar views in the past and was hired despite those views.

She's so courageous she deleted the tweet afterwards. Looks like you just enjoy throwing words you don't really understand around, huh? First "thought", then "crime", and "freedom of speech" and "losing her right to say things don't want to hear", now "courageous".
Original post by Little Toy Gun


And she could be fired for practically anything. LBC is a private business so they could fire for eating chicken at home if they want and there's no "should" or "should not" about it.



I find these arguments odd. Firstly private business can not juts fire anyone for any reason they like. There are laws that forbid it.

Secondly if the dominant economic order discriminates against your freedom of speech your freedom is near pointless and has no influence and is in affect getting censored.

It just so happens I'm quite happy to live in a society where the dominant economic order discriminates against people who think it is fine to advocate genocide.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you