GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

Irishdude said:
This seems on point. This poor bloke was arrested and harassed after posting a photo on LinkedIn of himself firing a shotgun at a range in the U.S. Charges were later dropped but not before the fellow had his phone and computer seized and his life disrupted. This sort of thing seems to be getting out of hand in the UK.

Access Restricted
Click to expand...
That's nuts. He posted a photo of himself doing something perfectly legal and commonplace in the U.S. WTF? We have some insanity here in the U.S., but Great Britain seems to be trying to top us.
 
Antoli said:
Clicking on a thread about free speech and then complaining about debate is like walking into a bakery and complaining that there is bread.
I believe in healthy debate, that’s how ideas get tested instead of just waved away.

And since you’ve decided to announce that I "just want to argue," I’ll invite you to present your evidence.
If you’re going to psychoanalyze my motives, you might as well back it up with something more than a feeling.
Click to expand...
I quote:
"Clicking on a thread about free speech and then complaining about debate is like walking into a bakery and complaining that there is bread".

What exactly does that mean? I have no idea.

I am interested in debate. It's good, positive. Makes people think. The problem with free speech today is..........................social media. Words expressed impact more people then ever before and the social dynamic of "social Media" adds an influence that is totally out of proportion to it's content or relevance to everyday people. That is the problem. Who decides what is acceptable. Not acceptable. We are all humans on this planet, subject to our own bias and opinions. This is the problem and it is not likely to go away. Is there a solution? No! No law, no ordinance, no restriction that will stop what social media has given us to deal with.

Elect favorable representatives to your opinions and beliefs.....................well, guess who just decided what free speech means..........you and your vote. People, as I said, just want to live their lives, raise their families and pay their bills. They want a better life as far as they can provide. They don't want constant debate. More stress than they already have. Then they turn to social media to see how their friends are doing and find that the world is going to hell and we are all doomed unless we rise up and fight!

Fight what? Fight who? I'm to tired and I have to go to work in the morning. You get what I am saying?
 

rbtvgo said:
I quote: "Clicking on a thread about free speech and then complaining about debate is like walking into a bakery and complaining that there is bread".

What exactly does that mean? I have no idea.
Click to expand...

It means exactly what it says. If someone clicks into a thread about free speech and then complains that people are debating, that’s like walking into a bakery and asking why there’s bread. The topic itself guarantees discussion. That’s the point. You also shifted the conversation. I was talking about free speech as a legal principle, what governments are permitted or forbidden to police. You changed the subject to people being tired of arguments on social media. Those are two entirely different issues.

Whether people get stressed by online chatter has nothing to do with whether the state should have broad discretionary power to question, investigate, or arrest citizens for their viewpoints. One is a matter of personal preference; the other is a matter of civil rights. And yes, who decides what’s acceptable speech? That’s exactly why the debate exists. Once that power is broad and vague, it becomes moveable, and history shows it does get moved. That’s why I keep asking for clarity, what limits you’re proposing, who enforces them, and how they avoid the very abuses you say are a problem.

So if you disagree with my point, address that, the actual content, rather than drifting into a general complaint about how tired everyone is. I’m talking about principles, not moods.
 
I walk into a bakery. I came in for Bread. The Bakery has none. So I leave and go someplace else. If the bakery has bread then I buy some.
I don't have to walk into a bakery, convience store, home improvement store, Drug store, grocery store and ask why do you sell these things. I go in because they do. There is no topic here. There is no discussion here.
What in the heck does all this have to do with free speech???????????????????????????????????/
I'm done. Have a nice day.
 
rbtvgo said:
I walk into a bakery. I came in for Bread. The Bakery has none. So I leave and go someplace else. If the bakery has bread then I buy some.
I don't have to walk into a bakery, convience store, home improvement store, Drug store, grocery store and ask why do you sell these things. I go in because they do. There is no topic here. There is no discussion here.
What in the heck does all this have to do with free speech???????????????????????????????????/
I'm done. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


You walked into a thread labeled "GB No Freedom of Speech Anymore" and then announced there’s "no topic" and "no discussion." That’s precisely the problem. The topic is right there in the title, you just didn’t follow it. I was talking about government limits on speech, and you shifted to whether you personally feel like talking. Those are two entirely different things.

If you don’t want to engage the content, that’s fine. But claiming the conversation "has nothing to do with free speech" when it literally is about free speech just confirms you weren’t following along in the first place. Also, leaving the bakery because you don’t see bread is one thing. Walking into a bakery, staring directly at the bread on the counter, and declaring there’s no bread, that’s another.

Anyway, if you’re done, you’re done. But at least be honest about why.
 
Paco Dennis said:
Based on reports and discussions regarding this Daily Mail article (which analyzes data from the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch), the piece can be characterized as "fear-mongering" due to its use of alarmist language, selective framing of data, and lack of context regarding the nature of the crimes involved.
Click to expand...

Calling it "fear-mongering" doesn’t actually address any of the data. The arrest numbers come directly from FOI requests to the police, not from the Daily Mail’s imagination, and the civil-liberties concerns come from Big Brother Watch, not from some tabloid rag.

So if you think the data is misrepresented, then by all means point out which figures are incorrect. Because dismissing documented arrest statistics as "fear-mongering" is just avoiding the substance.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I suggest u find another source rather than the Daily Mail. :)
Click to expand...

None of that actually refutes the data. You just spent several paragraphs critiquing the Daily Mail’s tone, but the arrest statistics don’t come from the Mail, they come from Freedom of Information requests to the police and from Big Brother Watch, which you yourself acknowledge.
So unless you’re claiming the FOI data is fabricated, your issue is with the numbers, not with the newspaper that reported them.

Talking about "alarmist language" doesn’t change the fact that UK police made thousands of arrests for speech-related offenses. And dismissing it as "offensive vs. illegal" misses the core concern. When laws criminalize speech so broadly, the line between the two becomes whatever an officer decides at the moment, which is exactly why civil-liberties groups raised the alarm in the first place.

So if you believe the arrests were primarily for death threats, grooming, or stalking, then show the breakdown. Big Brother Watch has repeatedly asked for that level of detail because the police often don’t distinguish between serious crimes and subjective "gross offense" when reporting their figures.

So here’s the simple question you’ve avoided twice now. Which FOI numbers are wrong? If none of them are wrong, then calling the reporting "fear-mongering" is just a way of avoiding the substance.
 
Antoli said:
You walked into a thread labeled "GB No Freedom of Speech Anymore" and then announced there’s "no topic" and "no discussion." That’s precisely the problem. The topic is right there in the title, you just didn’t follow it. I was talking about government limits on speech, and you shifted to whether you personally feel like talking. Those are two entirely different things.

If you don’t want to engage the content, that’s fine. But claiming the conversation "has nothing to do with free speech" when it literally is about free speech just confirms you weren’t following along in the first place. Also, leaving the bakery because you don’t see bread is one thing. Walking into a bakery, staring directly at the bread on the counter, and declaring there’s no bread, that’s another.

Anyway, if you’re done, you’re done. But at least be honest about why.
Click to expand...
you just took what I said and converted it to:
:You walked into a thread labeled "GB No Freedom of Speech Anymore" and then announced there’s "no topic" and "no discussion:

you intentionally over looked what I said.................didn't address it, and went on your own way. This isn't discussion nor dialog. This is simply you having the podium. Talk fast, point out all I missed in your words. Show me how I failed to grasp your understanding. Show me how inferior I am to, EVEN talk to you.
You're right, I guess. Don't know. Just my stupidity. Conversation is over. Have a nice day
 
rbtvgo said:
you just took what I said and converted it to:
:You walked into a thread labeled "GB No Freedom of Speech Anymore" and then announced there’s "no topic" and "no discussion:

you intentionally over looked what I said.................didn't address it, and went on your own way. This isn't discussion nor dialog. This is simply you having the podium. Talk fast, point out all I missed in your words. Show me how I failed to grasp your understanding. Show me how inferior I am to, EVEN talk to you.
You're right, I guess. Don't know. Just my stupidity. Conversation is over. Have a nice day
Click to expand...

I didn’t "convert" anything, I quoted the part of your comment that mattered to the point you were disputing. You said there was "no topic" and "no discussion" in a thread whose entire subject is spelled out in the title. That contradiction is what I addressed. If you feel talked over, that’s not because I claimed superiority, it’s because instead of dealing with the actual argument, you shifted into a performance about being mistreated. And that’s not a rebuttal, it’s an exit strategy.

Nobody called you inferior. I asked you to address the substance of the topic......government limits on speech. You chose not to. That’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t make my argument a "podium" any more than your reply makes you a victim. That having been said, if you're done, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite the interaction into something it wasn’t. All I did was stay on the topic you walked away from.
 
Irishdude said:
This seems on point. This poor bloke was arrested and harassed after posting a photo on LinkedIn of himself firing a shotgun at a range in the U.S. Charges were later dropped but not before the fellow had his phone and computer seized and his life disrupted. This sort of thing seems to be getting out of hand in the UK.

Access Restricted
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, others are reporting that the LinkedIn post wasn't the issue, but a post on another social media platform where he posted a picture of a man you owes him £30,000, along with a photo of himself with a gun. The man owing the money interpreted that as a threat, along with a separate claim of stalking. Also reported that he posted a photo of the other man's home.

The police investigated, as they should, then charged the man with a 'Public Order Offence'. The police gave a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take the matter any further -- charges were dropped.

The original complaint to the police by the man who owes the money was one of "Stalking involving serious alarm or distress" -- along with intimidation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pam
Magna-Carta said:
Meanwhile, others are reporting that the LinkedIn post wasn't the issue, but a post on another social media platform where he posted a picture of a man you owes him £30,000, along with a photo of himself with a gun. The man owing the money interpreted that as a threat, along with a separate claim of stalking. Also reported that he posted a photo of the other man's home.

The police investigated, as they should, then charged the man with a 'Public Order Offence'. The police gave a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take the matter any further -- charges were dropped.

The original complaint to the police by the man who owes the money was one of "Stalking involving serious alarm or distress" -- along with intimidation.
Click to expand...

What? People jumping to conclusions because they've been triggered by a social media post? Never!
 
VaughanJB said:
What? People jumping to conclusions because they've been triggered by a social media post? Never!
Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it?

Some YouTube channels, not familiar with the British system and without the wherewithal to do some research to find out, are saying that the British Government arrested him, and their followers were lapping it up, and adding their own 'opinions' of it all.

Oh, to be uneducated, naive, and ignorant. It must be a bizarre place to be in. But at least it's good to know where they all are, as generally they all congregate in the same places within the interweb, with like-minded people.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
Amazing, isn't it?

Some YouTube channels, not familiar with the British system, and without the where with all to do some research to find out, are saying that the British Government arrested him, and their followers were lapping it up, and adding their own 'opinions' of it all.

Oh, to be uneducated, naive, and ignorant. It must be a bizarre and isolated place to be in. But at least it's good to know where they all are, as generally they all congregate in the same places within the interweb, with like-minded people.
Click to expand...

I see it everywhere, and yes, even on this board. Not enough people care to think beyond what they read. This is what social media is all about - giving you more of what you like. NOT what you need to know. Not a balanced view. WHAT YOU LIKE. So, if you display a fascist opinion, you'll simply get more things tuned to your opinion.

We're in a bad place a society.
 
Magna-Carta said:
Amazing, isn't it?

Some YouTube channels, not familiar with the British system and without the wherewithal to do some research to find out, are saying that the British Government arrested him, and their followers were lapping it up, and adding their own 'opinions' of it all.

Oh, to be uneducated, naive, and ignorant. It must be a bizarre place to be in. But at least it's good to know where they all are, as generally they all congregate in the same places within the interweb, with like-minded people.
Click to expand...
VaughanJB said:
I see it everywhere, and yes, even on this board. Not enough people care to think beyond what they read. This is what social media is all about - giving you more of what you like. NOT what you need to know. Not a balanced view. WHAT YOU LIKE. So, if you display a fascist opinion, you'll simply get more things tuned to your opinion.

We're in a bad place a society.
Click to expand...

Funny how quickly the two of you start patting each other on the back the moment you find someone repeating your own talking points. It’s the same closed-loop you’re accusing everyone else of, just with fancier language.

After all, no one here is disputing that context matters. The issue is that you both leap from "some people online got it wrong" to sneering about how everyone else is ignorant, uneducated, or fascist. That isn’t analysis, it’s just self-congratulation. And yes, social media can amplify nonsense, but watching the two of you cheer each other on as if you’re the only enlightened minds in the room proves the exact same point.
 
Antoli said:
Funny how quickly the two of you start patting each other on the back the moment you find someone repeating your own talking points. It’s the same closed-loop you’re accusing everyone else of, just with fancier language.

After all, no one here is disputing that context matters. The issue is that you both leap from "some people online got it wrong" to sneering about how everyone else is ignorant, uneducated, or fascist. That isn’t analysis, it’s just self-congratulation. And yes, social media can amplify nonsense, but watching the two of you cheer each other on as if you’re the only enlightened minds in the room proves the exact same point.
Click to expand...
Here we go again, your posts are really starting to get repetitive and boring.
 
Last edited:
Rakaia said:
I'm curious about @Antoli and their membership history. As I mentioned earlier their posting style is reminiscent of the Thai school of belligerence.
Click to expand...

I notice many things, but don't we all -- it’s interesting how some posting styles just stand out, regardless of the topic. This forum has seen it many times before, to the point where it starts to get amazingly predictable. Unfortunately, the ones I’ve seen previously only tend to stick around for around six months or so. Just be careful we don’t both get accused of patting each other on the back -- in a reframed and twisted “my pot is better and blacker than yours” kind of way.

As for me, I might head over to the Pictures Taken With Your Phone thread for some inspiration. By having a look at some of the amazing photos there that look as though they havn't been anywhere near a phone. Gotta love that level of delightfully unexpected photographic creativity!
 
Last edited:
Rakaia said:
I'm curious about @Antoli and their membership history. As I mentioned earlier their posting style is reminiscent of the Thai school of belligerence.
Click to expand...

Accusing people of being "belligerent" because you don’t like their arguments isn’t analysis, it’s avoidance. So please stick to the topic instead of inventing theories about me or anyone else. As for Thailand, I happen to have relatives there, and everything I’ve heard from them contradicts your stereotype. They describe the Thai people as polite and respectful, and not at all "belligerent".

Now back to the topic. This is from Sky News in Australia
 
Antoli said:
Accusing people of being "belligerent" because you don’t like their arguments isn’t analysis, it’s avoidance. So please stick to the topic instead of inventing theories about me or anyone else. As for Thailand, I happen to have relatives there, and everything I’ve heard from them contradicts your stereotype. They describe the Thai people as polite and respectful, and not at all "belligerent".

Now back to the topic. This is from Sky News in Australia
Click to expand...
so is democracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top