GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

[VaughanJB]

GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore​

From USA news reporting, amateur reporters, and real videos shared by courageous UK natives, it's George Orwell's 1984. I would take a permanent holiday from that prison.

View attachment 469851

The very first case in this story says it all. She reposted another user’s content blaming newly arrived migrants for three murders, adding "if it's true" at the end. You'd of thought she's of had more common sense. As you may know, attacks on migrants are on the increase in the UK, with one Police Force having to deal with almost 3500 such cases. So yeah, the police have to keep an eye on it.

If only people thought a little more... Sadly, those outraged seem not to be much interested in the details, and just want to be mad about it. There's an awful lot of mob mentality, imo.

 

[rbtvgo]

I quote you,
The question remains: Can a democratic legal system still overreach in how it applies speech laws?

Yes. The legal system is manned by human beings who have their own issues. So there are going to be problems.
The perfect legal system would be one that understands all human foibles and makes allowance for all. In other words the legal system, we have is the best possible solution to all that we know and understand. Perfect? no. Viable and functional? yes. Is there ability to question.....yes.
Any laws can be abused. Overreach is common and happens all the time. All humans are subject to bias and personal beliefs that is reflected in their decisions. Never the less there are ways to challenge, protest and change any law. That process goes on everyday. There is no perfect law but some are better than others. Look at the good sometimes.

 

[Antoli]

It seems to me that creating images or language that is an invitation for violence should be illegal in the UK, America, and everywhere. Law makers can argue about expanding the law, but they will encounter fierce blow back.

Here's what a U.K. lawyer has to say about the subject in Europe and the United Kingdom.

 

[Paco Dennis]

If one is very concerned about lawyers and law makers making laws that has potential to harm others, most legislation has this tense dynamic to it. If one were to think this European Digital Agreement is just a foot in the door to harm many innocent people, then at least concede, in our present day affairs, we all are more divided on so many extremely important aspects of our lives, also. The wealthy are winning, big time.

 

[hollydolly]

Here's what a U.K. lawyer has to say about the subject in Europe and the United Kingdom.

everything he says is the truth... and he could easily go on with examples for an hour or more....

 

[Antoli]

 

[Lilac]

Here's what a U.K. lawyer has to say about the subject in Europe and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Price was very interesting to listen to. Thanks for posting that.

IMO, he explained another way that free speech is under attack ... not only how European countries are doing it to their citizens,
but how the EU are trying to implement their EU laws by forcing those laws onto other sovereign countries through treaties/contracts/etc.

How much of the public are aware of this going on by a foreign government basically making & passing laws that affect them who have no right to make or pass laws?

 

[Paco Dennis]

As far as this problem, these claims of abridgement of free speech seem ridiculous, and should be changed. These claims are superfluous.

 

[Lilac]

If one is very concerned about lawyers and law makers making laws that has potential to harm others, most legislation has this tense dynamic to it. If one were to think this European Digital Agreement is just a foot in the door to harm many innocent people, then at least concede, in our present day affairs, we all are more divided on so many extremely important aspects of our lives, also. The wealthy are winning, big time.

Please explain how the wealthy are always winning big time? I'm curious about that. You sound like my brother sometimes.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Please explain how the wealthy are always winning big time?

The wealthy face almost no constraints, their menu of choices are vastly larger. They buy legal freedom. They have a massive financial advantage in every aspect of life. The bigger you are the more you win. The others can't compete. They keep the masses polarized and distracted so the wealth keeps flowing into their possession.

 

[Antoli]

As far as this problem, these claims of abridgement of free speech seem ridiculous, and should be changed. These claims are superfluous.

 

[January]

I so love youtube videos, I can find one to support whatever point of view I want.

 

[Antoli]

I so love youtube videos, I can find one to support whatever point of view I want.

Dismissing evidence because it’s on YouTube isn’t an argument. The content of the videos matters, not the platform they’re on.
So, if you disagree with what's shown, then you're more than welcome to rebut the content itself rather than the website hosting it.

 

[January]

Nope.

Just making the point that anyone can find a YouTube video with evidence to support any point of view. The YouTube platform supports every possible argument on every possible topic.

All I want to say on the actual topic has been said long ago.

 

[VaughanJB]

This guy is a well know to have extreme views. He's not a journalist, so he's offering only an opinion, and nothing more than that. It's certainly no more valid that anyone else's. When you have videos titled "Laughing At The Lady Men" which describes trans issues to be "demented nonsense", you sort of know where you stand with him. The point being, either side of the argument can provide Youtube evidence to support their point of view, which is the point January is making.

A video being shown on Youtube isn't evidence that it's correct, or right. Tech companies have been good at holding their content at arms reach and taking little to no responsibility for users content - within certain guidelines. They basically want to make money from a product (in this case, videos) without having any responsibility for what's shown. However, they do remove the most egregious content and have whole teams dedicated to finding it.

 

[WhatInThe]

Just saw this today and apologies if already noted but the UK considering reducing the number of jury trials which could affect free speech related trials

Access Restricted

Set aside the politics for a minute does a jury trial incentivize bias or opinion? But don't judges have or are susceptible to bias as well?

 

[VaughanJB]

Just saw this today and apologies if already noted but the UK considering reducing the number of jury trials which could affect free speech related trials

Access Restricted

Set aside the politics for a minute does a jury trial incentivize bias or opinion? But don't judges have or are susceptible to bias as well?

I have two responses to that. Firstly, it is part of the job of a judge to be impartial. They take an oath, and if bias is found it can cause a mistrial. On the other hand, any instance where you have humans involved there is a possibility of some kind of bias. Sometimes a bias is based solely on a lack of knowledge.

We have a problem in the UK right now in that our court system is overwhelmed with cases. Jury trials take longer, so there is a desire to put in fixes. Same is happening at Jails. We clearly need more cells since places are overflowing, but no-one wants a prison in their neighborhood.

 

[Tish]

To be honest, that scares the hell out of me.

 

[VaughanJB]

To be honest, that scares the hell out of me.

Given that not every crime can be heard in front of a jury, and that "jury trials are typically reserved for more serious offenses heard in the Crown Court, while less serious "summary offenses" are tried by magistrates alone.. The right to a jury trial is not absolute." Then I think this could be a big problem. Perhaps it's a political move to get movement on budgets and facilities?

 

[Antoli]

This guy is a well know to have extreme views. He's not a journalist, so he's offering only an opinion, and nothing more than that. It's certainly no more valid that anyone else's. When you have videos titled "Laughing At The Lady Men" which describes trans issues to be "demented nonsense", you sort of know where you stand with him. The point being, either side of the argument can provide Youtube evidence to support their point of view, which is the point January is making.

A video being shown on Youtube isn't evidence that it's correct, or right. Tech companies have been good at holding their content at arms reach and taking little to no responsibility for users content - within certain guidelines. They basically want to make money from a product (in this case, videos) without having any responsibility for what's shown. However, they do remove the most egregious content and have whole teams dedicated to finding it.

None of that addresses a single point Pat Condell actually made. Calling him "extreme," listing unrelated video titles, and complaining about YouTube’s business model isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just an attempt to avoid the argument. You don’t have to like Condell, but if you disagree with what he said in this video, then refute the content of the video. Show which claim was factually wrong, misunderstood, or misrepresented.

If you can’t do that, then attacking the messenger is just an admission that the message stands.

And look at that, I yawn once, and you’re right back nudging me awake for another round.

 

[Antoli]

Nope.

Just making the point that anyone can find a YouTube video with evidence to support any point of view. The YouTube platform supports every possible argument on every possible topic.

All I want to say on the actual topic has been said long ago.

I see, so you're now doing your usual routine of pretending you're too wise and weary to engage, right after making a claim you can’t defend.

So, be advised that claiming that "anyone can find a YouTube video for anything" still doesn’t address the content of the video I posted.
The platform doesn’t determine whether something is true or false. The argument does. If you believe the video is wrong, then pointing out where it’s wrong is the part that matters. Saying you’re done with the discussion isn’t the same as having answered it.

 

[rbtvgo]

I see, so you're now doing your usual routine of pretending you're too wise and weary to engage, right after making a claim you can’t defend.

So, be advised that claiming that "anyone can find a YouTube video for anything" still doesn’t address the content of the video I posted.
The platform doesn’t determine whether something is true or false. The argument does. If you believe the video is wrong, then pointing out where it’s wrong is the part that matters. Saying you’re done with the discussion isn’t the same as having answered it.

I think you just want to argue. No matter what the subject, no matter what the reasoning...........................you just want to argue. right?

 

[January]

So, be advised that claiming that "anyone can find a YouTube video for anything" still doesn’t address the content of the video I posted.

Correct. I'm not addressing the topic any more, have said all I want to say on it long ago.

Am just being entertained by you flogging a dead horse now.

 

[Antoli]

I think you just want to argue. No matter what the subject, no matter what the reasoning...........................you just want to argue. right?

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.

 

[Antoli]

Am just being entertained by you flogging a dead horse now.

I do hope VaughanJB doesn’t take your metaphor personally.