Freedom of speech and protest

[sptrawler]

Labor extreme?

Not another Trump thread?

Australian security services have already clearly stated the largest risk of extremists are from the right, but then what would they know?

We were talking regards social media and did say all extremists should be investigated, not just right wing, but hey why not change the meaning with selective quotes. Nothing like putting things out of context, seems to be a skill set.

My original opinion regarding Labors proposal for an inquiry into right wing extremists.
Apparently Labor want an inquiry into right wing extremists, I wish they would just have an inquiry into extremists.

I wonder how the media would take it if Morrison said he wanted an investigation into left wing extremists, some on here would be falling out of their trees, like I said if an investigation is held it should cover all extremists.
Middle Australia is $hit scared to say anything these days, for fear of upsetting either group of extremists, the very thing that made Australia great is being completely destroyed.
Calling a spade a spade, standing up for their mates, saying what you feel is right.
Yep we will just be another country, driven by the vocal minority IMO.

 

[grah33]

Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 :

https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/bills/591143bi1.pdf

 

[satanoperca]

We were talking regards social media and did say all extremists should be investigated, not just right wing, but hey why not change the meaning with selective quotes. Nothing like putting things out of context, seems to be a skill set.

My original opinion regarding Labors proposal for an inquiry into right wing extremists.
Apparently Labor want an inquiry into right wing extremists, I wish they would just have an inquiry into extremists.

I wonder how the media would take it if Morrison said he wanted an investigation into left wing extremists, some on here would be falling out of their trees, like I said if an investigation is held it should cover all extremists.
Middle Australia is $hit scared to say anything these days, for fear of upsetting either group of extremists, the very thing that made Australia great is being completely destroyed.
Calling a spade a spade, standing up for their mates, saying what you feel is right.
Yep we will just be another country, driven by the vocal minority IMO.

No we don't it is only the right that are extreme, lol.

 

[Smurf1976]

Middle Australia is $hit scared to say anything these days, for fear of upsetting either group of extremists, the very thing that made Australia great is being completely destroyed.

Practical reality is that public debate, on any subject, has become something that anyone able to objectively assess all sides of an argument or who has real knowledge of specific subjects has by now concluded is a waste of time.

There's only so many times you can tell people that 3 + 2 doesn't equal 10 and be shouted down for not engaging in the groupthink which says it's all fine before you conclude that you'd be better spending your time more productively on something, anything, else.

End result is those left are the extremists lacking in real knowledge and that goes for lots of issues.

 

[dutchie]

Good to see one university hold up to its role to foster free speech.
Other universities should take note.

Cambridge University votes to safeguard free speech

Cambridge University votes to safeguard free speech

Cambridge University changes guidelines to protect free speech and allow controversial speakers.

www.bbc.com

Not too sure why the BBC would print this article.

 

[sptrawler]

Middle Australia is $hit scared to say anything these days, for fear of upsetting either group of extremists, the very thing that made Australia great is being completely destroyed.
Calling a spade a spade, standing up for their mates, saying what you feel is right.
Yep we will just be another country, driven by the vocal minority IMO.

A good article written by JK Rowling, about the difficulty these days speaking out, whether it is right or wrong you will be attacked by extremists.

'This climate of fear serves nobody well,' says J.K. Rowling

The Harry Potter author said she received "heartbreaking" letters following backlash from fans and film stars.

www.smh.com.au

 

[satanoperca]

Freedom of speech. What does it mean today?
Some time ago, it meant face to face discussion, not today.
People can hide who they are via the internet, does that mean their voice should be heard?
I personally, every time I have had a confrontation with anyone on any forums, PM with my phone number and personal details.
Why, it is easier to be a keyboard warrior, much harder to debate on the phone or catch up at the pub.

The issue is not freedom of speech, it is that the internet provides anonymity.

So should those who will not expose who they have a voice?

NO.

 

[Smurf1976]

People can hide who they are via the internet, does that mean their voice should be heard?

That has always been the case to some extent though.

Plenty of callers to talkback radio with fake personal circumstances and backgrounds.

The supposed truck driver who’s actually a paid lobbyist for a large corporation.

The retiree living in a small town who turned out to be an actual current Member of Parliament.

Someone in their mid-20’s who claimed to not know that the largest nightclub in town opened late at night when buying property directly opposite.

The woman who wrote to the paper with a name that doesn’t exist and who gave their addresss as vacant land owned by a very large factory.

Agreed with the point but fake personalities and false names were being used by those seeking to sway opinion long before the internet.

Long time ago, 1990’s, I had a list of the multiple names known to be used by certain individuals for their letters to newspapers all of which were on the same subject and expressing the same view.

Then there’s those who went to the same public forum in every town it went to, strategically placed themselves so as to have one at every table, and thus managed to produce an impression of widespread opposition to anyone who they didn’t agree with and promptly silence them. It fooled those not in the know as to what the game was. They didn’t use fake names, but certainly highly deceptive in failing to disclose that they were there to ensure that the media reported that the majority supported their view.

Agreed with the point but the problem existed well before the internet.

Then there’s “fake news” in the form of things like nice scenic photos of places that have nothing to do with a proposed development. That one was around decades ago.

 

[wayneL]

If, in the 99.9% chance of Joey becoming leader of the "free" world. I think the world is big going to become a hell of a lot less free, including in the People's Republic of Australia.

How sad that, at some point, another generation of young people will have to die in the name of liberty.

 

[dutchie]

If, in the 99.9% chance of Joey becoming leader of the "free" world. I think the world is big going to become a hell of a lot less free, including in the People's Republic of Australia.

How sad that, at some point, another generation of young people will have to die in the name of liberty.

Another nail in the coffin. Social media companies need to be trimmed (but the elite/govt. don't want to).
Free speech is like a frog in a pot of hot water.
The majority just don't know it.

 

[IFocus]

If, in the 99.9% chance of Joey becoming leader of the "free" world. I think the world is big going to become a hell of a lot less free, including in the People's Republic of Australia.

How sad that, at some point, another generation of young people will have to die in the name of liberty.

This has nothing to do with free speech, its a business decision nothing more.

Its owned by a business entity.

The serious infringement to free speech is when some one gets convicted in secret that cannot be reported, or police carry out searches of journalists work places or homes as a threat, or whistle blowers are run through the courts for telling the public how criminal our government has been etc.

All of this is happening now.

 

[wayneL]

This has nothing to do with free speech, its a business decision nothing more.

Its owned by a business entity.

The serious infringement to free speech is when some one gets convicted in secret that cannot be reported, or police carry out searches of journalists work places or homes as a threat, or whistle blowers are run through the courts for telling the public how criminal our government has been etc.

All of this is happening now.

1) I'd like to know the business case for such a decision

2) That is fair comment if these tech firms are running a publishing outfit. But when they purport to be running a platform, it is a different ball game.

3) Would your opinion be the same if it was left wing activists that were exclusively being censored?

This are points that we have gone over ad nauseam that the left next never seem to be able to address intelligently.

 

[satanoperca]

That has always been the case to some extent though.

Plenty of callers to talkback radio with fake personal circumstances and backgrounds.

The supposed truck driver who’s actually a paid lobbyist for a large corporation.

The retiree living in a small town who turned out to be an actual current Member of Parliament.

Someone in their mid-20’s who claimed to not know that the largest nightclub in town opened late at night when buying property directly opposite.

The woman who wrote to the paper with a name that doesn’t exist and who gave their addresss as vacant land owned by a very large factory.

Agreed with the point but fake personalities and false names were being used by those seeking to sway opinion long before the internet.

Long time ago, 1990’s, I had a list of the multiple names known to be used by certain individuals for their letters to newspapers all of which were on the same subject and expressing the same view.

Then there’s those who went to the same public forum in every town it went to, strategically placed themselves so as to have one at every table, and thus managed to produce an impression of widespread opposition to anyone who they didn’t agree with and promptly silence them. It fooled those not in the know as to what the game was. They didn’t use fake names, but certainly highly deceptive in failing to disclose that they were there to ensure that the media reported that the majority supported their view.

Agreed with the point but the problem existed well before the internet.

Then there’s “fake news” in the form of things like nice scenic photos of places that have nothing to do with a proposed development. That one was around decades ago.

I fully agree with your statements, 100%.

But the difference today is scale/volume, the internet lets 100,000,000 voices, anonymous voices to be counted or heard.

This is a great example and the comments as well.

Mary’s stand by public statement after removing link from social media

The owners of a hip inner-Sydney burger joint have quietly deleted a statement and social media post about poor staff attitudes, mental health and “work-life balance” after making headlines around the country.

www.news.com.au

They flip burgers, let them run their business, if the burgers are s----t, they don't have a business.

 

[Smurf1976]

1) I'd like to know the business case for such a decision

Whatever appeals to the advertisers.

Same with all media. Don't hold your breath for a certain major newspaper company to say anything bad about a well known large discount store or an even better known hardware shop. For reasons I'm not sure of they also like Sophie Monk - for whatever reason people far more famous get a lot less coverage than she does.

That said, sometimes the media is useful to confirm my investment thinking. One of the newspapers has been on about people failing to adapt to the death of inflation and so on recently. That aligns with my thinking very nicely - reason they're not adapting is because it's not dead.........

 

[wayneL]

Whatever appeals to the advertisers.

I find it rather curious that a lot of the YouTube channels that I follow, though completely demonetized still manage to have companies keen to advertise on their shows.

Same with all media. Don't hold your breath for a certain major newspaper company to say anything bad about a well known large discount store or an even better known hardware shop. For reasons I'm not sure of they also like Sophie Monk - for whatever reason people far more famous get a lot less coverage than she does.

It's still brings up the publisher v platform conundrum and tech firms have well and truly crossed over the line, and I'm buggered if I know why they haven't been reined in...

... Actually I think I do know why.

And as far as Sophie Monk goes, I share your bewilderment.

That said, sometimes the media is useful to confirm my investment thinking. One of the newspapers has been on about people failing to adapt to the death of inflation and so on recently. That aligns with my thinking very nicely - reason they're not adapting is because it's not dead.........

This actually deserves a thread of it's own. Economists argue over the *true nature of inflation just like theologians argue over the nature of the God head.

I've listened to hours upon hours on this topic from various economists and I'm still none-the-wiser.

But what is for sure is that, as you have noted, rumours of inflation's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

<ETA> this is my latest conspiracy theory: autocorrect is specifically designed to make me look semi literate.

 

[IFocus]

1) I'd like to know the business case for such a decision

2) That is fair comment if these tech firms are running a publishing outfit. But when they purport to be running a platform, it is a different ball game.

3) Would your opinion be the same if it was left wing activists that were exclusively being censored?

This are points that we have gone over ad nauseam that the left next never seem to be able to address intelligently.

I don't think its a left right thing for businesses but possible a negative thing ....possibly who knows.

Our immediate threat to freedoms is government policy particularly framed around terrorism attacks.

 

[sptrawler]

This has nothing to do with free speech, its a business decision nothing more.

Its owned by a business entity.

The serious infringement to free speech is when some one gets convicted in secret that cannot be reported, or police carry out searches of journalists work places or homes as a threat, or whistle blowers are run through the courts for telling the public how criminal our government has been etc.

All of this is happening now.

And has been for a long, long time.

 

[orr]

I don't think its a left right thing for businesses but possible a negative thing ....possibly who knows.

Our immediate threat to freedoms is government policy particularly framed around terrorism attacks.

nothing more dangerous than to embarass the powerful ... we owe a great debt to Witness K, Bernnard Collaery, Anika Smethurst, the ABC and the unmentionable Assange... and the more mentionable Snowden.

That the prattling unsubstantiable drivel that the ill-equipped, conspiratorially minded, nazi sympathizing ( where's that Blair witch Cottrel ***t these days... I'm sure the AFP have got a pretty good idea) and rest that the utter loons ply, gets short shrift and not before time, should give all us hope.

Houdini would have cancelled Conan Doyle.... and for good reason. He knew illusion when he saw it.

 

[sptrawler]

Mt Bean, chimes in on the freedom of speech debate.

Rowan Atkinson says cancel culture is a 'medieval mob looking for someone to burn'

The star of Blackadder and Mr Bean says online witch hunts are creating a simplistic, binary view of society.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:

Atkinson has now said that online witch hunts are "scary for anyone who's a victim of that mob". He said: "The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you're with us or against us. If you're against us, you deserve to be 'cancelled'."

The star added that the popularity of the largely mute Mr Bean may be down to the character being verbally unable to offend those with "greater sensitivities", and said this could explain his success in "Muslim countries" and places with "stricter creative regimes".
Despite the huge popularity of Mr Bean, Atkinson has decided not to have an online presence, saying that social media is "a sideshow in my world".
The actor has followed his former Blackadder co-star Tony Robinson, who played Baldrick, in criticising cancel culture.

Robinson told The Daily Telegraph last year that calling out and censoring unpopular opinions "is walking the path of the devil".

The actor and presenter said he was passionate about free speech, adding: "It defends our liberty, and I'm very unhappy with the idea that, just because someone is offended by what I say, I shouldn't be allowed to say it."

 

[dutchie]

Big tech. is censoring free speech. It determines what you can and can't hear/see.
Is this their role? Who voted them in to do that?
Break up Big tech. Especially Google - which is the most dangerous company in the world.