The UK needs to implement Free speech laws like in the US
- Thread starter BusterCusto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- free speech
We should have free speech.
We shouldn't have the right to not be offended, if you don't like what someone is saying walk away, stop reading the post, unfriend them etc etc.
Only when violence, incitement to hatred, racism, xxxxphobia is being used should the right to speech be stopped.
And I mean bad stuff like 'death to XXX group' being said not as in simply saying you don't agree with the bring up children as gender neutral for example.
We shouldn't have the right to not be offended, if you don't like what someone is saying walk away, stop reading the post, unfriend them etc etc.
Only when violence, incitement to hatred, racism, xxxxphobia is being used should the right to speech be stopped.
And I mean bad stuff like 'death to XXX group' being said not as in simply saying you don't agree with the bring up children as gender neutral for example.
Surely though, that is exactly what free speech is? There is no way (and a judge agreed) that the police should have turned up at his place of work. Just to be clear I am not saying that freedom of speech should mean that anyone has to listen or that you should be free from consequences, but you shouldn't have the state turning up and harassing you and gaining a note on your record for what are, essentially, harmless tweets.
I would say that it is a fairly serious loss of liberty to be harassed by the police for it. If twitter had decided "This breaks our terms and conditions" I wouldn't have had a problem, but for the police to get involved, it is an overreach and frankly an utter waste of resources.
Freedom of speech isn't really freedom of speech if you only allow things you agree with to be said.
Soldato
Really? That's not what I remember from my youth. Racism was the norm and people were openly racist. Sexism was the norm and people were openly sexist. Homophobia was the norm... etc etc. But yeah the good old days were amazing weren't they
Funny but I have never felt that I haven't been able to say something. Not in the past and not now. As for de-platforming. Social media are private companies and they have the right to remove anyone just like OCUK can remove anyone from this forum. There have been enough people banned from here after all. There are plenty of other sites/platforms where you can say whatever you want and they can take their speech there. I would say that social media companies are now too powerful and should be regulated. They have appeared in society so quickly that our laws have failed to keep up and keep them in check. Facebook should probably be broken up and possibly other companies as well.
Do you even know what the former Humberside officer (the idiot you speak of) tweeted, that prompted the accusation of "transphobia"?
I get the sense that you haven't read the tweets and are just acting outraged. This isn't at all surprising, it's the MO for many people who seek to shut down dissenting opinion.
You talk of loss of liberty and this is exactly what this is. We're being told that ignore the physical reality that is well established, and instead accept that someone's sex depends entirely on what they decree their sex to be.
That a 50 year old father of two can decide he's going to be a woman for the rest of his life. Indeed, that he was a woman all along.
That a 16 year old girl can decide she is in fact a boy, then 8 years later decide she is a girl again, and always was. And indeed then criticise the people who "pushed" her into "transitioning" to a male.
This is about being honest. Pointing out that a mental illness is a mental illness. Not pretending that sex is in fact all in your head (gender might be, but sex isn't gender).
And what wholesome, virtuous outcomes stem from ignoring physical reality?
* Men competing against women in women's sports
* Men using protected female spaces despite strong opposition from women
* Men trying to force practitioners who only deal with female anatomy to service their (male) bodies
* Men ending up in women's prisons raping female inmates
All sorts of really beneficial outcomes for society.
Some speech may offend. Simply stating facts can be deemed offensive if the facts make for uncomfortable reading. I'm sorry, but that's too bad.
Last edited:
Really? That's not what I remember from my youth. Racism was the norm and people were openly racist. Sexism was the norm and people were openly sexist. Homophobia was the norm... etc etc. But yeah the good old days were amazing weren't they
All depends where and when you grew up doesn't it? So you were racist and sexist, that makes sense now - unless you are saying you are not normal?
I have, you know I have from the Donald thread! That's not about OcUK mods either, it was about what I was NOT allowed to say by the government - so you are lying here.
Said like the good peon you are. I don't use social media because it's cancer, I read but don't post on twitter, I don't use FB or snap* or anything else. But even I know, in this day and age, especially for the young, a social media account is mandatory, you are lying if you don't now think it's the case. So de-platforming anyone from social media is wrong, I do think it'll end up a human right - when we get there who knows. Again I think ALL social media is cancer and should be banned, it's made to be adictive and most don't even know/care.
I know, most probably have knew accounts by now - I know some who definitely have.
Not any more, we don't have free speech in the UK(or the world for that matter), it's not social media if you are not allowed to play. So you are banned from FB and twitter, how do you interact with mates that only used FB as a youngster - you are being deliberately facetious
Finally something we agree on! I don't think people should be banned, yes put restrictions, lots more if they fail to learn, on them time and time again if need be - they will learn or not. But to deny them totally when they know it's a virtual monopoly is wrong.
OMG twice in one post - agreed.
OMG again, I will write this down as a good day in history! Agreed, they are playing both sides of the fence at the moment and they, including google, have too much power. Ultimately FB and the like should be gotten rid of, they do some good but it's far outweighed by the negative.
Soldato
I was born in England in 1970 and yes all those were the norm. The majority of people in my experience were all of those things to some degree, including me as a child, because I was a child, its what my peers were and the adults in society as a whole, it was on TV and I was ignorant. Fortunately I grew up, travelled/worked all over the world for 15 years and saw that it was all ******** and society as a whole slowly started to see it was ******** as well. All of those are still alive and kicking today though.
OCUK isn't the Gov. Its a privately run website. Go run your own website, invite others to join you and say whatever you want. There is nothing to stop you doing that, it really is that simple.
Yes there are. Try looking a little harder. You'd fit right in on 4chan or 8chan or any of the other "anything goes" sites. Or again start your own.
So social media is a cancer but you want people to be able to say anything on it without being removed, especially to children.
Yes they might have new accounts but they aren't saying those things again are they, or guess what happens.........
The fact that we agree on the fact social media is too powerful and should be regulated/broken up doesn't mean much as I'm fairly sure we want the same things for different reasons.
Hey there, @Colonel_Klinck join the club.
I also grew up in a racist time, a child of '76 myself.
I also used racist language and parroted racist jokes as a child.
I, too, was privileged to have a good education and life experiences that led me to growing and putting those things behind me.
I also grew up in a racist time, a child of '76 myself.
I also used racist language and parroted racist jokes as a child.
I, too, was privileged to have a good education and life experiences that led me to growing and putting those things behind me.
Caporegime
Heresy!
Well we need to stop caring about people getting offended, then the professionally offended crowd will vanish.
See, this is where the cognitive disconnect occurs to me. You raise some very important and good points that are absolutely worthy of discussion and should be taken very seriously. But the person this thread pertains to re-tweeted the following (which is actually what got him in hot water, none of the other stuff):
None of which is insightful, additive to the wider debate or educational in any form.
The thing is, I am all for free speech and agree that just because something offends you, the right to say it shouldn't be curtailed on that basis alone. But when the argument is using 'free speech' as a maguffin to give credence to intellectually deficient rubbish that is designed to offend rather than further debate it should be called out. You can be for freedom of speech and simultaneously against people being purposefully antagonistic and defending it with 'free speech m8.' I don't think it's controversial to think that these aren't diametrically opposed positions, and it certainly isn't "acting outraged."
If he re-tweeted it, then he didn't write it. I've seen some of his own tweets and they all seemed pretty tame.
The verses that you quoted above do cross a line into what you might call provocation. I agree they are pretty aggressive in nature.
It would however appear that they were penned by a woman, not the former PC who had the complaint lodged against him. And women do indeed have good cause to be ****ed off by the implications of trans-lobbying. They will be facing the sharp end of problems like the ones I highlighted.
Even then, I believe the tweet you posted should not be illegal, any more than saying "South Africans smell."
The law doesn't exist to make sure we only say nice things about each other. The law also doesn't exist to protect your feelings (within reason).
There are indeed laws against harassment, defamation, abuse, persecution, discrimination.
Personally I'm not fond of calls for the scope of such laws to include preventing anyone from saying anything "nasty" about someone else.
The trans advocates aren't blameless either. They say plenty of offensive stuff about feminists (or women in general that don't rush to support them). And in all walks of life it's a fact that you will have the perpetually offended. We used to call them "thin skinned". These days if one of those types gets on the blower to the police you end up with a blot on your police file...
So frankly, I don't see much wrong with that (re)tweet. Yes it was an attack on a section of society. Yes it was designed to cause offense. But looking at it from the perspective of women who themselves now feel oppressed by the trans-advocates, you can understand that it did not arise in a vacuum.
These two sections of society have competing and mutually exclusive goals.
1. Trans advocates want to force women to accept men in protected female spaces
2. Feminists/women in general want to keep men out of their protected spaces
This spills over into silly (and not particularly clever) rhymes like the one above, which our former PC simply re-tweeted.
But I really don't think that should be classed as hate speech and worthy of a police visit. Nor did a judge.
Unfortunately, the judge did decide that they could keep this "incident" on his file. Which is sad.
The verses that you quoted above do cross a line into what you might call provocation. I agree they are pretty aggressive in nature.
It would however appear that they were penned by a woman, not the former PC who had the complaint lodged against him. And women do indeed have good cause to be ****ed off by the implications of trans-lobbying. They will be facing the sharp end of problems like the ones I highlighted.
Even then, I believe the tweet you posted should not be illegal, any more than saying "South Africans smell."
The law doesn't exist to make sure we only say nice things about each other. The law also doesn't exist to protect your feelings (within reason).
There are indeed laws against harassment, defamation, abuse, persecution, discrimination.
Personally I'm not fond of calls for the scope of such laws to include preventing anyone from saying anything "nasty" about someone else.
The trans advocates aren't blameless either. They say plenty of offensive stuff about feminists (or women in general that don't rush to support them). And in all walks of life it's a fact that you will have the perpetually offended. We used to call them "thin skinned". These days if one of those types gets on the blower to the police you end up with a blot on your police file...
So frankly, I don't see much wrong with that (re)tweet. Yes it was an attack on a section of society. Yes it was designed to cause offense. But looking at it from the perspective of women who themselves now feel oppressed by the trans-advocates, you can understand that it did not arise in a vacuum.
These two sections of society have competing and mutually exclusive goals.
1. Trans advocates want to force women to accept men in protected female spaces
2. Feminists/women in general want to keep men out of their protected spaces
This spills over into silly (and not particularly clever) rhymes like the one above, which our former PC simply re-tweeted.
But I really don't think that should be classed as hate speech and worthy of a police visit. Nor did a judge.
Unfortunately, the judge did decide that they could keep this "incident" on his file. Which is sad.
I was born in '73, I went to primary school in Deptford(1978/9) and was the only white kid in my class. I didn't know what racism was until much later, yes I saw alf garnet on the TV but didn't see it as racist at the time, as I didn't even know what that was, everyone in school was fine with me so I had no idea until much later. Even when I went to Sunday school, my siblings and I were the only white kids their - again it didn't bother me/us at all as I/we had no idea what racism was at the time.
My parents didn't have much time for me as a kid, sort of similar todays' parents, but it is the parents responsibility to bring up their own kids. I know primary teachers that are having to potty train 5 year old kids, change nappies - that was absolutely unheard of when I was a young. It seams more parents either don't have time or don't give a damn about their offspring, it's too easy for both women to be single(raising a child alone(not an easy task alone)), and relying on the state, and for men to be absent fathers - again, relying on the state. This is more prevalent in black families were something like 80% of fathers are absent from the house(part of the problem with london), but it's also happening to most other races, incuding whites, at an increasing rate.
I said SM is cancer because it is.It's designed to keep you engaged, and with some of the younger people it's a massive deal if someone blocks or de-friends them - all very weird.. Every time I hear my nieces or nephews moaning it's usually because of some FB drama, people get addicted to it very easily and traumatised(some kids can't handle it) when things go badly. On a more technical note, FB and google control too much of the ad market and act as a virtual duopoly.
I said the free speech issue here was nothing to do with the mods, or OcUK, at all. It's not them banning me from talking about a subject it was a gag order issued by the *** - world wide! Hence no such thing as free speech ANYWHERE. You know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter if I start a website, I would have to stick to those same rules that OcUK do else I'd get taken offline.
I don't do 4 or 8chan, too much CT stuff there for me, sounds like you know all about it.
I think people shouldn't be banned on SM, yes put restrictions on them, like not able to contact people < 18 years old as for your example - very easy to do, I should know I've been a computer programmer for over 25 years. They will be able to restrict people in almost every way imaginable, if they don't learn restrict them, just banning people does little as they will start new accounts.
Twitter actively protects the 'blue checkmarks' verified users, that normally means left or left leaning journalists, same as what has happened with the purge of right wing you-tubers, it should not be allowed to purge voices you don't like - they won't go away, yes you can't hear them now but they are still there come election time. Both Twitter and YouTube now have a left leaning bias, this has only happened over the last 3/4 years, since trump, and it'll do more election meddling than 'Russia' ever 'did'.
People on Twitter get harassed for saying true things like 'Only women can menstruate': https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...anded-transphobic-LGBT-feminist-students.html It's factual, yet the rabid blue checkmark brigade go after them viciously for saying something that's true.. These people want to live their life deluded if a big circle jerk or virtue - anyone that displays wrongthink is set upon instantly. These people are, I think, mentally ill.
The golden age of the internet is already well over, it'll just be a way buy things, pron, consume media via streaming and gaming. Everything else will be restricted until it's useless.
Soldato
Of course kids don't/didn't see it as racism. Kids don't see colour when they are young, they are great like that. They get these twisted beliefs from adults.
Till Death Us Do Part, Love thy Neighbour, Mind Your Language, Curry and Chips, Black and White Minstrels and It Ain't Half Hot Mum. I'm sure there are others I can't remember. Now there is a good argument that the writers of some of these were actually taking the **** out of white Brits and that it was satire. That went over the heads of a large proportion of the viewers though.
Parents have been terrible forever in some cases. I don't think it is any worse today than it was back then. We are probably more aware of it now because it is actually talked about. There is also the fact than in many households both parents are forced to work full time. That was not the norm when I was a kid.
Yes some girls/women have kids knowing the state will house them and feed them. It was exactly the same when I left school and I knew 3 or 4 from my year that actually did that, either on purpose or by accident and didn't want an abortion. The State should be there to help women or men if they are left to raise kids on their own. You will always have some people that abuse any system, they are a tiny percentage though.
Some kids are horrible little ***** to each other sometimes. SM is just an extension of that. They still bully each other at school like they did when I there. We are still coming to grips with SM in both society and legally.
I don't remember what you were banned for. I honestly couldn't remember who did and tbh I don't really care. The vast majority who get banned won't be banned for that though and it will be for breaking OCUK rules.
You were aware of 4chan and 8 chan yes? In the same way as I am aware of them. I don't use them because I don't hold fringe views.
Why shouldn't people who break the rules of a platform be banned? There are other platforms and if there is a market for their speech they will succeed there. Britain First was banned from FB, Twitter and YT I believe. There are other places they can take their distasteful speech. I'm guessing they have but we never hear from them now because they were never that popular in the first place, they just exploited SM to spread their speech. Is anyone really missing their message? Nope didn't think so.
I don't follow any of the people you are referring to on Twitter so never see that. I do laugh at all this though. People say offensive things to wind up others, they get offered and then the people who said the offensive thing get offended that they are offended. Honestly its pathetic.
Again I don't care about any of those stories, people love to be offended and others love to be offended by those that got offended.
That is a ridiculous statement. You have no idea where the internet will be in 20 years time. Will it be more regulated in some ways, yes it probably will and it needs to be because bad actors are using it in ways we never considered. To say its will restrict the truth or what ever you are trying to say is just CT nonsense.
Till Death Us Do Part, Love thy Neighbour, Mind Your Language, Curry and Chips, Black and White Minstrels and It Ain't Half Hot Mum. I'm sure there are others I can't remember. Now there is a good argument that the writers of some of these were actually taking the **** out of white Brits and that it was satire. That went over the heads of a large proportion of the viewers though.
Parents have been terrible forever in some cases. I don't think it is any worse today than it was back then. We are probably more aware of it now because it is actually talked about. There is also the fact than in many households both parents are forced to work full time. That was not the norm when I was a kid.
Yes some girls/women have kids knowing the state will house them and feed them. It was exactly the same when I left school and I knew 3 or 4 from my year that actually did that, either on purpose or by accident and didn't want an abortion. The State should be there to help women or men if they are left to raise kids on their own. You will always have some people that abuse any system, they are a tiny percentage though.
Some kids are horrible little ***** to each other sometimes. SM is just an extension of that. They still bully each other at school like they did when I there. We are still coming to grips with SM in both society and legally.
I don't remember what you were banned for. I honestly couldn't remember who did and tbh I don't really care. The vast majority who get banned won't be banned for that though and it will be for breaking OCUK rules.
You were aware of 4chan and 8 chan yes? In the same way as I am aware of them. I don't use them because I don't hold fringe views.
Why shouldn't people who break the rules of a platform be banned? There are other platforms and if there is a market for their speech they will succeed there. Britain First was banned from FB, Twitter and YT I believe. There are other places they can take their distasteful speech. I'm guessing they have but we never hear from them now because they were never that popular in the first place, they just exploited SM to spread their speech. Is anyone really missing their message? Nope didn't think so.
I don't follow any of the people you are referring to on Twitter so never see that. I do laugh at all this though. People say offensive things to wind up others, they get offered and then the people who said the offensive thing get offended that they are offended. Honestly its pathetic.
Again I don't care about any of those stories, people love to be offended and others love to be offended by those that got offended.
That is a ridiculous statement. You have no idea where the internet will be in 20 years time. Will it be more regulated in some ways, yes it probably will and it needs to be because bad actors are using it in ways we never considered. To say its will restrict the truth or what ever you are trying to say is just CT nonsense.
I'll be honest and please don't take this personally, but this is a lot of words to say that he retweeted something pretty unsavoury without any substance to defend him. Which frankly doesn't substantiate any of your posts in this thread that pertain to the original topic, which is, to be clear, that the guy tweeting made terrible choices.
Call me paranoid but the reason free speech died in the UK was the unchallanged totalarian left and migrants. If you want to have a higher more productive society you need lots of people beyond what the birthrate of your own population can provide.
You import them, You see the backlash and you come to the conclusion that unless you ban free speech someone will eventually talk so much about it and convince the rest of the population you might and probably would end up in a situation where lots of anti migrant rallys were held in the UK with a lot of the grooming stuff being shown off and promoted. This would create real trouble so in order to have a cushy multicultural society you need to gag certain people.
Thats what happened and why, Otherwise give us free speech and the ability to talk about Islam without Pastor MC Connell scenarios. Let me talk in public about my fear and opinions even if they insult others. Because that is what free speech is. Indeed when retards say hate speech is not freespeech they demonstrate that i am actually correct in what i presume to of happened.
You import them, You see the backlash and you come to the conclusion that unless you ban free speech someone will eventually talk so much about it and convince the rest of the population you might and probably would end up in a situation where lots of anti migrant rallys were held in the UK with a lot of the grooming stuff being shown off and promoted. This would create real trouble so in order to have a cushy multicultural society you need to gag certain people.
Thats what happened and why, Otherwise give us free speech and the ability to talk about Islam without Pastor MC Connell scenarios. Let me talk in public about my fear and opinions even if they insult others. Because that is what free speech is. Indeed when retards say hate speech is not freespeech they demonstrate that i am actually correct in what i presume to of happened.
Soldato
What a load of tosh. We have never had "free speech" in the UK. Just an understanding that you can say most things. We don't have a 1st amendment like the US but even that has limits on speech and expression.
We have slowly been having our rights eroded here since the 80s. To try and say its all gone **** up since just the last 10 years and blame it on the left and migrants isn't paranoid its farcical. What can't you say today that you could say 20 years ago? Legally I mean. Not what someone says you can't say because they are offended, I mean that the Gov will arrest you for and take away your property or liberty. Don't say Yaxley-Lennon because reporting restrictions are there for very good reasons to protect the justice system and something we except is required in certain cases. Just the same as we don't publish the names of minors in court cases, there is a very good reason for it and if you did you'd be arrested.
The grooming gangs whether they are white, brown, black are all scum bags who need to be caught and put away for a very long time. The fact the police failed to act is criminal in itself. Mistakes were clearly made and should never be made again. Mistakes were clearly made for years in dozens if not hundreds of sexual assault/rape cases, given the stories that have come to light in recent years, stories that people were aware of but turned a blind eye to. Men get away with rape everyday. 1.7% of rape cases reported result in a court cases, thats a court case not a conviction. Do you believe that 98.3% of rapes reported are false? Where is all the outrage at that?
