Log In
Register
11.46pm
17 October 2013
Offline
Brexit is driving us all crazy……..
If you’re a non-Brit or EU citizen watching this video………Have a look and think where your sympathy would be. Would you want to stay in this ‘club’?
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
QuarryMan9.13am
26 January 2017
Offline Politicians get paid too much… big news. It’s not a problem that is exclusive to the EU, and is prevalent in the political systems of most countries regardless of whether they are EU members or not.
It’s honestly laughable that she sees this as a reason to leave the Union. A reason to push for reform and fairer allocation of taxpayer funds? Absolutely, and I agree with her that the wages and expenses are far too high. But the figures she cites here are little more than footnotes within an economy the size of the EU, and are utterly inconsequential compared to how much access to the EU market benefits the members in terms of trade. What she is doing is being intellectually dishonest, getting people riled up over those figures without providing any context.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
6.32pm
9 March 2017
Offline It looks like our free speech might be in jeopardy as Google and Facebook have a congressional hearing about censoring those who they consider white nationalists and Google fired a warning shot by briefly deleting the channel of prominent right wing YouTuber Hunter Avallone, someone who isn’t even a white nationalist, without any warning.
Personally, i think you should be able to say whatever you want, as long as you’re not putting anyone else in danger, so i hope they lose the case.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
6.53pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline
Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and expect no consequences. If what you say is deliberately hateful towards certain groups or individuals for whatever reason, that is a violation of free speech (although in reality it is very rarely punished)
Then again – Australia doesn’t have free speech so I’m not a leading authority on what is and isn’t free speech!
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
QuarryMan#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
7.00pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
The Hole Got Fixed said
Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and expect no consequences. If what you say is deliberately hateful towards certain groups or individuals for whatever reason, that is a violation of free speech (although in reality it is very rarely punished)
Um, sorry, no. To the best of my knowledge, free speech covers all types of speech, no matter how distasteful, including ‘hate speech’ (which, back in the day, we used to call ‘people being a******s’). It is only speech that directly incites violence that isn’t covered under free speech (e.g. telling others to go commit actual physical violence to other people and/or their property).
*pets inner conservative in the head* okay, you can go back in your kennel now. Thank you. (Though, actually, centrists and classical liberals support free speech too)
Then again – Australia doesn’t have free speech so I’m not a leading authority on what is and isn’t free speech!
I rest my case. 
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
7.06pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline There you are – I told you I’m not a good person to ask…
Let it be clear I do support free speech…
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Beatlebug#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
7.36pm
9 March 2017
Offline Beatlebug free speech is a liberal belief, not a conservative one.
The Hole Got Fixed said
Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want and expect no consequences. If what you say is deliberately hateful towards certain groups or individuals for whatever reason, that is a violation of free speech (although in reality it is very rarely punished)
But what i think Google and Facebook are referring to people who express their far right or alt right views in a civil manner online as opposed to groups like the Westboro Baptist Church.
BTW, they dropped the case.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
8.21pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I’m afraid I disagree with @Beatlebug’s definition of free speech. As defined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, free speech means:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
That would include “speech that directly incites violence.”
No country in the world allows free speech in its purest form because of the effect it would have on society, and rightly so.
Even the US First Amendment has many more exceptions to free speech than just “speech that directly incites violence.”
The First Amendment, broadly, does not allow Obscenity, Fighting Words, Defamation (libel/slander), Child Pornography, Perjury (which would see any fair legal system collapse), Blackmail, Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action (not necessarily violent, could be incitement to civil disobedience), True Threats, and Solicitations to Commit Crimes.
Obviously, not everything that falls within these categories is always prosecuted, but the exceptions are there for instances when legal intervention is viewed as a necessary action for the good of society.
Hate Speech is an exception that many countries, including the UK, have specific laws against. Should the US decide the recent decision by Facebook, etc., to ban White Nationalists from their platforms is against the First Amendment, those companies could soon face legal action from countries that do ban Hate Speech.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, QuarryMan, Beatlebug"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
10.17pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @Dark Overlord said
BTW, they dropped the case.
Erm, sorry, I don’t get that response.
First, it was not a case, it was a hearing by Congress on White Nationalism, Hate Speech, and the role of the internet in spreading it.
In your OP, you seemed to be expressing the view that the actions of Facebook, etc., in banning such things from their sites was an attack on free speech, which you seemed to think was bad.
At the end of the hearing, those organisations and individuals banned by internet social media sites for expressing White Nationalist views and other forms of Hate Speech remain banned by those sites.
There was no climbdown from the internet companies to say they would remove their bans, so I don’t understand your “We Are the Champions” response.
Obviously, for someone like me, who believes that these companies were right in banning such despicable groups and individuals from being able to espouse their hateful views across the world, spreading division, and was something to be applauded, I’m happy. Since you seemed to be criticising the companies for the restrictions they have decided to put on free speech, surprised you think those restrictions staying in place is a victory.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.14am
26 January 2017
Offline I agree with Ron Nasty. Also, in what world is free speech a conservative principle? Conservatism is all about everyone conforming to their place in society in order to achieve cohesion, meaning individual expression and pursuit of happiness take a backseat to that.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Ron Nasty, The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
5.15am
26 January 2017
Offline DO, just because white supremacists are using social media in a civil manner, doesn’t mean they aren’t inciting violence or hatred.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
5.18am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, who has been hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for around seven years after claiming asylum to avoid sex charges in Sweden, and then when that case lapsed, continued to stay to avoid arrest in the UK for jumping bail, has had his asylum withdrawn for breaching its conditions.
The Ecuadorian Embassy invited the British Police into the Embassy where Assange was arrested and taken into custody.
Poor old Julian didn’t seem to be too happy about leaving the Embassy…
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
QuarryMan"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.53am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline How did he breach his bail?
Homestly Assange is the sort of person the world needs imo. Sad to hear about this
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
6.17am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline His bail conditions, @The Hole Got Fixed, like most bail conditions, included the condition that he would surrender himself to the court when requested. He didn’t, instead fleeing to the Ecuadorian Embassy and claiming asylum, to avoid answering sex charges in Sweden.
I have never been a fan of Assange myself. While I acknowledge Wikileaks did expose some things that needed exposing, I felt much of it served no purpose other than to glorify Assange.
And let us be honest, the reason he went into the Embassy was to avoid answering criminal charges in Sweden. Not exactly the highest of moral positions for someone who claims to be all about exposing truth and seeking justice.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.46am
9 March 2017
Offline Oops, i saw the word rescinded and thought that meant they dropped the case. That really sucks that Google and Facebook won.
I would like to point out that a lot of authoritarian SJW’s like to use terms like white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and alt right to describe anyone who they disagree with, even if those people are actually on the left.
Take The Amazing Atheist for example, a bisexual left-wing libertarian who hates Trump and regularly criticizes conservatives. Even he’s been described as alt-right by Vice for his views on feminism and BLM.
As for the whole jumping bail thing, that’s messed up and proves he’s guilty since if he were innocent, he’d have no problem proving it in court.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
6.50am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Ah ok, thank you.
Those sex charges were dropped were they not? So he’s being prosecuted for breaching bail on a case that no longer exists?
My defense isn’t for Assange as a person per se (your last point is a case in point), more as a defense for Wikileaks and justice more broadly. The world needs a hell of a lot more transperency, and Wikileaks was a step in the right direction.
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
6.54am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Sorry for double post
Dark Overlord said
As for the whole jumping bail thing, that’s messed up and proves he’s guilty since if he were innocent, he’d have no problem proving it in court.
I’d hate to have you as one of the 12 jury members deciding if I was guilty of something or not, my God !
That’s not a jump to a conclusion, that’s a jump using a jetpack!
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
7.06am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline The case in Sweden, @The Hole Got Fixed, lapsed because Assange made himself unavailable for questioning, and two years ago they decided it couldn’t remain an active case. Now that he’s available again, they could make it a live case again.
Of course, one of the reasons he offered for avoiding going to Sweden is that he believed the US would apply for extradition from Sweden to face charges in the US. It always struck me odd as a reason since there was nothing to stop the US applying for extradition from the UK (provided an assurance was given that the death penalty would not be sought).
In the last few minutes it’s been announced that he has also been arrested in respect of the UK receiving an extradition request from the US.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.37am
26 January 2017
Offline I don’t know enough about Assange or Wikileaks to make form an opinion, I’ll have to read into it more.
As for Google and Facebook, aren’t they allowed to do whatever they want seeing as its a private company and it’s their own platform?
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
1.07am
17 October 2013
Offline 
Whereas newspapers and the media etc can be sued for their content….facebook positions itself as a platform. The people using it being responsible and accountable for their views not FB.
That’s fine. My problem is if it’s FB that are the arbiters of the limits of free speech only allowing free speech if it’s ‘speech’ that they agree with.
As for Assange he should be tried and sentenced or released according to British law. If he made some people in Washington look stupid…..so what? If he put men and women in danger then he should be held to account.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Beatlebug
5 Guest(s)