• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More attacks on Free Speech in the UK

mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
icehorse said:
And who will be the judge of prejudiced / extremist content? Will I no longer be able to criticize religion or the woke or oligarchs?

...
Click to expand...

Okay, here is an example of part of a law:
"Straffelovens §266 b (racismeparagraffen)
personer trues, forhånes eller nedværdiges på grund af race, hudfarve, national eller etnisk oprindelse, tro eller seksuelle orientering, straffes med bøde, hæfte eller fængsel indtil 2 år."
"§266 b of the Criminal Code (racism section)
persons are threatened, mocked or degraded because of race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation, are punished with a fine, fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years."
Who decides that? Judges, just as in any other case as in regards to the law.
 
amorphous_constellation

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
You had to wait weeks for your magazine, pour through library catalogs looking for leads to order that tape amd search newspaper and magazine classifieds to find groups you had to drive through.
It wasn't instant, it wasn't widespread, it wasn't easy to find and it was significantly harder to organize large movements and events.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear though Shadow Wolf, what responsibilities do you believe the individual has in perceiving media, and what can they learn? Can these questions be answered with some degree of precision?
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
amorphous_constellation said:
Just to be clear though Shadow Wolf, what responsibilities do you believe the individual has in perceiving media, and what can they learn? Can these questions be answered with some degree of precision?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by perceiving media? Simply taking it in, I assume?
There is a responsibility to evaluate information, become literate about media, amd learn how to understand it's context and understand that fake is fake and real is real.
But there are also responsibilities shared by those who distribute media, such as not allowing for misinformation that leads to people getting hurt and killed.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Veteran Member
icehorse said:
But censorship is not the solution.
Click to expand...
I don't think you want to accept what socials can cause.

The book clearly establishes words published on socials can directly cause actions. Words promote actions; crazy huh?

Words on sm: "ABC has happened. This is because of DEF." (a lie). "Therefore GHI should specifically happen." Thousands read this.
Next day in the real world: GHI happens.

...but you think saying GHI on a widely viewed public forum should be allowed. Let's hope your house isn't burned down and family killed because GHI happens. Maybe you'd still think GHI is ok to be published on such public communication outlets.
 
Last edited:
amorphous_constellation

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
What do you mean by perceiving media? Simply taking it in, I assume?
There is a responsibility to evaluate information, become literate about media, amd learn how to understand it's context and understand that fake is fake and real is real.
But there are also responsibilities shared by those who distribute media, such as not allowing for misinformation that leads to people getting hurt and killed.
Click to expand...
For example, if i met any random person on earth, I couldn't possibly guess what their particular religious belief was. Why? Because humans vary wildly on that - they perceive the basic input of reality, that we all share in being in contact with, in unpredicable ways. This is because belief conclusions differ so much, so then must not they be aligned with differing perceptual conclusions? So it's not a simple thing

But to go back to your previous post, I'm sure there were rather rapid / or perhaps spontaneous attacks by groups from village to village in prehistory, or well before the internet. It's not required for those things to happen. But maybe the problem incubates quicker with modern tech, sure. All modern tech seems to accelerate human activity, but most potential human activity it was already there in the human nature. The same sort of chicken came before the modern egg, from an older egg. It hatched into a nasty t-rex before, and it can now, only quicker

But I still believe in the potential of willpower and discipline in the individual, so that they can internally combat whatever false messages they hear, be they poorly constructed or well. I think the digital world is only going to get noisier, probably. Unless government really locks it down somewhere down the line
 
Last edited:
amorphous_constellation

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Secret Chief said:
I don't think you want to accept what socials can cause.

The book clearly establishes words published on socials can directly cause actions. Words promote actions; crazy huh?

Words on sm: "ABC has happened. This is because of DEF." (a lie). "Therefore GHI should specifically happen." Thousands read this.
Next day in the real world: GHI happens.

...but you think saying GHI on a widely viewed public forum should be allowed. Let's hope your house isn't burned down and family killed because GHI happens. Maybe you'd still think GHI is ok to be published on such public communication outlets.
Click to expand...
Books are media, but not everyone interprets the bible for example, in an anti-social way.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
icehorse said:
The long standing test is whether speech is likely to cause IMMINENT violence. Seems like a good test.

If some speech is not that, then no matter how horrific, I think the best policy is to allow the speech and simultaneously condemn it. It is important for people understand where the bad guys stand.
Click to expand...

No, that is in the USA. And that it seems, is subjective. And that you think the best, is also subjective. And that it is important is also subjective. And there are bad guys is also subjective.
Now you have an opinion and I have a different one. And since the USA is not the objective standard for morality, it can be done differently elsewhere in the world.
 
Last edited:
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Okay, here is an example of part of a law:
"Straffelovens §266 b (racismeparagraffen)
personer trues, forhånes eller nedværdiges på grund af race, hudfarve, national eller etnisk oprindelse, tro eller seksuelle orientering, straffes med bøde, hæfte eller fængsel indtil 2 år."
"§266 b of the Criminal Code (racism section)
persons are threatened, mocked or degraded because of race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation, are punished with a fine, fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years."
Who decides that? Judges, just as in any other case as in regards to the law.
Click to expand...
Well that's truly terrifying :(
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
blü 2 said:
You're cool with hate speech then? You think it benefits society?

I fear our respective views are separated by a wide gulf.

And the mob and hate speech have a long history of acting in unison in the US, right through to the sacking of the Capitol.
Click to expand...
The problem with criminalizing "hate speech"
is that government will mis-use this expanded
control over us.
Trump, who could still be re-elected, wants to
make it illegal to criticize his judges. Would
you trust Trump with the power to define &
prosecute hate speech?
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Secret Chief said:
I don't think you want to accept what socials can cause.

The book clearly establishes words published on socials can directly cause actions. Words promote actions; crazy huh?

Words on sm: "ABC has happened. This is because of DEF." (a lie). "Therefore GHI should specifically happen." Thousands read this.
Next day in the real world: GHI happens.

...but you think saying GHI on a widely viewed public forum should be allowed. Let's hope your house isn't burned down and family killed because GHI happens. Maybe you'd still think GHI is ok to be published on such public communication outlets.
Click to expand...
Your example is right on the edge of the "imminent violence" test, which is already illegal.

About 17 years ago, my wife received a series of online death threats. Misogynistic trolls were extremely jealous of her success. Police were called in, the threats were deemed worth paying attention to. We moved 1500 miles away. I'm aware.

But YOU don't seem to want to accept the ENORMOUS dangers of censorship. Look over the last hundred years of the worst societies that erupted and you'll see censorship was always an essential building block for their rise.

Can speech be harmful? You bet! But censorship is worse.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, yes. The USA is the world and what goes on in the USA is the whole world.
Click to expand...
My post the other poster is indeed US specific.
But the issues here should be considered elsewhere.
Do you trust your own government, & all of its
various administrations over the coming years
with such power?
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, you are the authority on that and we are not alowed to think for ourselves. Get it. ;)
Click to expand...
Let me clarify:

The topic is free speech and what should be allowed and what should not. So the details matter, correct?

In that context threatening someone is quite different than insulting them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top