Facebook bans UK far right groups and leaders Watch

Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Napp)
I feel i should point out that the idea of freedom of speech is in itself a myth. I mean you can either have free speech or not, to argue there is a middle ground is a ridiculous fudge of the matter.
True it is in itself a myth. I think realistically we do not have free speech.
'The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.'
There's a lot of things we can say which can land you into prison.

'The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.'

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7064246.html (Outdated but relevant)
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
True it is in itself a myth. I think realistically we do not have free speech.
'The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.'
There's a lot of things we can say which can land you into prison.

'The Communications Act 2003 defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”. Breaking the law carries a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.'

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7064246.html (Outdated but relevant)
Just for clarification are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Given that I said the notion of free speech is in itself a myth under the current regime.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Napp)
Just for clarification are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Given that I said the notion of free speech is in itself a myth under the current regime.
Agreeing, it is a myth.
0
reply
Lannister043
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
Good, it had to be done.
1
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Napp)
I feel i should point out that the idea of freedom of speech is in itself a myth. I mean you can either have free speech or not, to argue there is a middle ground is a ridiculous fudge of the matter.
If we are going by the technical definition of freedom of speech, meaning you can say whatever you want without consequences then no, this country does not have freedom of speech and I really don't see the problem with it. Words can lead to actions, so words have to be regulated
Last edited by The RAR; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by The RAR)
If we are going by the technical definition of freedom of speech, meaning you can say whatever you want without consequences then no, this country does not have freedom of speech and I really don't see the problem with it. Words can lead to actions, so words have to be regulated
The question is where do draw the line; I think most people would agree statements that are libellous should give rise to legal action but beyond that justifications get much murkier
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Jebedee)
Not being on these major platforms can sway elections.

No private company should have that power without regulation.
I find it funny that those on the right are suddenly so pro-regulation, and anti big business the second they start to work against them. that's of course despite the right fighting tooth and nail against any proposals in the past to regulate the power and control big business has.
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by DSilva)
I find it funny that those on the right are suddenly so pro-regulation, and anti big business the second they start to work against them. that's of course despite the right fighting tooth and nail against any proposals in the past to regulate the power and control big business has.
I’m not sure I’ve seen so many incorrect generalisations I one paragraph
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Underscore__)
I’m not sure I’ve seen so many incorrect generalisations I one paragraph
It's true though. I've debated countless right wing individuals on here and in real life, who have argued for years that we should just 'let the market do its thing', and have opposed regulations or other government interventions. They've opposed just about any attempts or proposals to rein in and regulate the power of big business.

But if you are right wing capitalist, surely these private companies should be allowed to do whatever they like (within the law) and that should mean they can choose to remove people from their platform for having a different political view?

It's similar to how the right suddenly become all 'pro worker' when one of their own is shafted, like James Damore, despite having opposed just about every pro-worker proposal previously.
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by DSilva)
It's true though. I've debated countless right wing individuals on here and in real life, who have argued for years that we should just 'let the market do its thing', and have opposed regulations or other government interventions. They've opposed just about any attempts or proposals to rein in and regulate the power of big business.
I’m not sure I necessarily see the contradiction, most people on the right believe there should be at least some government regulation on private business. If those people had opposed regulating the power companies in other industries where the market is owned by three or four companies then you have a point.

I also think social media presents a new type of situation. These companies essentially own the platform of expression so I don’t think it’s contradiction to say they should be the subject of new regulation.

(Original post by DSilva)
But if you are right wing capitalist, surely these private companies should be allowed to do whatever they like (within the law) and that should mean they can choose to remove people from their platform for having a different political view?

It's similar to how the right suddenly become all 'pro worker' when one of their own is shafted, like James Damore, despite having opposed just about every pro-worker proposal previously.
With regards to James Damore, I can’t speak for other people but my opinion is that your only employment protection should be the contract you voluntarily sign (I would maybe be in favour of government intervention under some circumstances). I haven’t looked into the James Damore situation for quite a while but I believe he was suing Google for breaching his employment contract by sacking him?

For what it’s worth I don’t believe the government should regulate these sites with any further legislation. If they want to remove Alex Jones or whomever else then they should be free to do so. What I would criticise them for is the inconsistent nature with which they ban people. Who gets banned and who doesn’t shows the political leanings of those sites; I have no issue with them having a politically leaning, I’d just like them to be a bit more honest. If you don’t fit within their accepted socio-political bandwidth then you need to seek or create an alternative.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by DSilva)
I find it funny that those on the right are suddenly so pro-regulation, and anti big business the second they start to work against them. that's of course despite the right fighting tooth and nail against any proposals in the past to regulate the power and control big business has.
Anyone with sense regardless of political affiliation realises that a peaceful society is well balanced between the right and the left. A society dominated by far left or far right is a miserable hell hole. So for you to suggest that anything less than extremist is some sort of cop-out, is a bit ridiculous.

Public utilities must be regulated. Media platforms are now ubiquitous and have surpassed the function of a simple interchangeable service.

I'm sure you support democracy as a concept, so by your logic you should be in support of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? By your logic that absolutist stance would be the only way of staying consistent.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (492)
31.08%
The paper was reasonable (609)
38.47%
Not feeling great about that exam... (258)
16.3%
It was TERRIBLE (224)
14.15%

Watched Threads

View All