GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

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
 

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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top