Censorship and Social Media

[Wisbech Eagle]

You are the one who owe's apologies, and many of them to the people on here you troll daily. And to this nation for your part in destroying our culture.

I gave an example of exactly what you said, you didn't like it. Get stuffed.

Whatever you think of my contributions here is irrelevant. You are fully entitled to those opinions but you are not entitled to claim I said things which I have not. That’s lying and it’s libellous.

Your “example” had no connection of any kind to the subject under discussion at the time. Hardly exactly! None at all. Repeating a lie doesn’t turn it into a truth. Even in the Trump age.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Perceived by who?
One woman’s right to stand silently outweighed by someone’s right to terminate an unborn child.
Standing silently deemed as intimidating…just think about that.
Perhaps the government should ban ‘a minute’s silence’ next time an atrocity occurs or when we commemorate the war dead in November, as someone might find it intimidating.

You don’t have to agree with any law but, like all of us, you and any lady wishing to “silently pray” must abide by it.

The government have decided that in 150 metre areas around abortion clinics the rights of those using the clinics are superior to those wishing to protest about their existence.

Whether you, or anyone else, think that praying silently, or anything else isn’t intimidating is completely irrelevant. It’s not your opinion that is being considered. It’s the right of those using a legally available service to do so without the risk of them being intimidated by someone doing something, together with the accompanying video teams and media crews, that their actions could attract.

Taking this out of context and attempting to compare it with other events when silence is demanded is to misunderstand what is actually being done.

There are no restrictions on anyone’s legal right to protest or campaign about abortion, in any peaceful way. There’s just another right, possessed by other people, which demands those protests not happen in a tiny number of spaces.

 

[Common Sense Club]

You don’t have to agree with any law but, like all of us, you and any lady wishing to “silently pray” must abide by it.

The government have decided that in 150 metre areas around abortion clinics the rights of those using the clinics are superior to those wishing to protest about their existence.

Whether you, or anyone else, think that praying silently, or anything else isn’t intimidating is completely irrelevant. It’s not your opinion that is being considered. It’s the right of those using a legally available service to do so without the risk of them being intimidated by someone doing something, together with the accompanying video teams and media crews, that their actions could attract.

Taking this out of context and attempting to compare it with other events when silence is demanded is to misunderstand what is actually being done.

There are no restrictions on anyone’s legal right to protest or campaign about abortion, in any peaceful way. There’s just another right, possessed by other people, which demands those protests not happen in a tiny number of spaces.

So, the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches if the Jewish community found them intimidating...if the government wanted to, or course.

 

[Spindle]

Whatever you think of my contributions here is irrelevant. You are fully entitled to those opinions but you are not entitled to claim I said things which I have not. That’s lying and it’s libellous.

Your “example” had no connection of any kind to the subject under discussion at the time. Hardly exactly! None at all. Repeating a lie doesn’t turn it into a truth. Even in the Trump age.

Let's actually see this libel claim then. If so you are up s*** creek with the mass of deliberate misinterpretation of things said that you do.

My example was a precise analogy of applying your logic of integration to somebody in the UK who you know damn well isn't integrated. All you do is deceive when you've been rhetorically punched in the face. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Let's actually see this libel claim then. If so you are up s*** creek with the mass of deliberate misinterpretation of things said that you do.

My example was a precise analogy of applying your logic of integration to somebody in the UK who you know damn well isn't integrated. All you do is deceive when you've been rhetorically punched in the face. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

What has the example of people not being integrated, which isn’t disputed, got to do with government officials being targeted by the Trump administration for working on the legislation requiring social media platforms to control content that could harm children?

Chalk has more in common than cheese than that.

Identifying libel and being bothered enough about to take action are completely different issues. Believe me, I am not bothered! I do though expect decent people to admit their mistakes and apologise, rather than double down on them.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

So, the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches if the Jewish community found them intimidating...if the government wanted to, or course.

oh, well that will really solve the problem. Marches were not a problem at Bondi Beach or the Manchester synagogue.

Censorship. Its always the little people getting censored. Politicians and tv companies seem to be able to say whatever they want.


If you were in say, a restaurant, and a fight started at the table beside you.....you could get into serious trouble if you lent a spoon to a lad. Especially if he did some damage with it. Whereas politicians can also give weapons to whoever they want.

Starmer to give missiles to Ukraine paid for with £70m interest on Russian assets

The 350 air defence missiles mark the first time the UK has used Russia-linked funds to buy weapons for Kyiv

www.theguardian.com

 

[the silurian]

If it was in a buffer zone around an abortion clinic they would be asked to move outside the zone. If they refused they would be arrested and either warned as first time offenders or charged if repeat offenders.

Of course they would!!!!

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Social-media self-governance opens up a can of worms. Look at how other platforms are moderated , using misinformation, lies and censorship. Where opinions contrary to the accepted norm, get abuse and vilified.
Look at the way scientists who voiced concerns over Government Covid policy were ostracised and marginalised. The Covid Inquiry has suggested many of these concerns were justified.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So, the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches if the Jewish community found them intimidating...if the government wanted to, or course.

They could restrict action considered to be potentially intimidating in areas of 150 metres around religious buildings. Whether they would do it solely for synagogues is open to question as other religions might demand similar protections.

However there would be difficulties with enforcement as there are a huge number of religious buildings. I don’t think the police would welcome it, although if it was just a general restriction enabling them to ban mass protests they might. Something they probably already have. Stopping individuals from making personal protests that way seems impractical and unnecessary as I doubt too many are actually bothered about them.

Banning marches isn’t connected.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Social-media self-governance opens up a can of worms. Look at how other platforms are moderated , using misinformation, lies and censorship. Where opinions contrary to the accepted norm, get abuse and vilified.

It doesn’t. Any expansion would be subjected to extensive scrutiny and debate.

Ensuring that the laws that apply to other forms of communication also apply to social media is long overdue. Things move so fast now that our regulatory regimes get overwhelmed well before we react.

Nobody seeks to restrict the free flow of ideas. The only things that need restricting are those which are Intended to cause harm.

Social media is currently like the Wild West without Sheriffs with the law being only the will of the guy with the biggest gun. Do you want to be ruled by Elon Musk? It must be brought under our control.

 

[Common Sense Club]

They could restrict action considered to be potentially intimidating in areas of 150 metres around religious buildings. Whether they would do it solely for synagogues is open to question as other religions might demand similar protections.

However there would be difficulties with enforcement as there are a huge number of religious buildings. I don’t think the police would welcome it, although if it was just a general restriction enabling them to ban mass protests they might. Something they probably already have. Stopping individuals from making personal protests that way seems impractical and unnecessary as I doubt too many are actually bothered about them.

Banning marches isn’t connected.

The Jewish community considers itself to be constantly intimidated and under threat, not just here but as per recent events, in Australia too. Nobody has been listening to their fears and look what happens; atrocities and ‘lessons will be learned’ (again).
Yet didn’t the government announce money being available to protect mosques (?).
As I have said previously, some religious beliefs are held in higher regard than others.