Freedom of speech and protest

[rederob]

Let's suppose speaker A and speaker B are at speakers corner in Hyde Park

Speaker B is moved on, or even detained because the opinions expressed are *deemed* offensive ( but not illegal).

Speaker B may still be able to express his opinion in a pub, but not at speakers corner as is his purported right.

Is it your view that speaker B has freedom of speech?

What was unlawful?

 

[wayneL]

What was unlawful?

Nothing.

And that is the point.

 

[wayneL]

In this instance, free speech was preserved after intervention, but such is not always the case.

Google restored TalkRadio's YouTube channel when UK intervened

Google terminated TalkRadio's YouTube account amid claims the News UK-owned broadcaster 'violated' the website's 'community guidelines' by airing criticism of lockdowns.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Snip: Google restores TalkRadio's YouTube channel in dramatic U-turn when UK ministers intervened - less than 24 hours after it sparked freedom of speech row by axing station's account 'for airing anti-lockdown views'

 

[rederob]

Nothing.

And that is the point.

If the person being moved on had a right to say what they did, then the action of moving-on the speaker was unlawful.
Your Google example related to the actions of carriage services to act as they saw fit and is not a matter of "free speech."

 

[wayneL]

If the person being moved on had a right to say what they did, then the action of moving-on the speaker was unlawful.
Your Google example related to the actions of carriage services to act as they saw fit and is not a matter of "free speech."

Carriage service...
Smoke signals?
Morse?
Telegraph?
Telephone?
Forums?
IRC?
Facebook?
Twitter?

Publisher Vs platform?

I won't belabour the point any further, but you may be able to join the dots; if you want to.

 

[SirRumpole]

If the person being moved on had a right to say what they did, then the action of moving-on the speaker was unlawful.
Your Google example related to the actions of carriage services to act as they saw fit and is not a matter of "free speech."

Denial of free speech doesn't have to be blatant.

The ABC did it pretty well during the SSM debate when it had ONE interview with Lyle Shelton on the anti side and hundreds of others bashing the pro side.

That was pretty blatant come to think of it.

 

[rederob]

Denial of free speech doesn't have to be blatant.

The ABC did it pretty well during the SSM debate when it had ONE interview with Lyle Shelton on the anti side and hundreds of others bashing the pro side.

That was pretty blatant come to think of it.

You and @wayneL are confusing the role of carriage services with the notion of "free speech."
What were the legal prohibitions to the debate or speakers?

 

[SirRumpole]

You and @wayneL are confusing the role of carriage services with the notion of "free speech."
What were the legal prohibitions to the debate or speakers?

Legalities are one thing. No one broke any laws. It's a matter of our national broadcaster being unbiased and not taking a position on a certain issue.

Freedom of speech depends on how big your megaphone is.

 

[rederob]

Legalities are one thing. No one broke any laws. It's a matter of our national broadcaster being unbiased and not taking a position on a certain issue.

Freedom of speech depends on how big your megaphone is.

Again, you are not talking about freedom of speech but, instead, about the role the media plays.

 

[SirRumpole]

Again, you are not talking about freedom of speech but, instead, about the role the media plays.

Yes, because they are related. If the media reports only one side they are in effect denying freedom of speech to the other side.

 

[rederob]

Yes, because they are related. If the media reports only one side they are in effect denying freedom of speech to the other side.

Not so as that falls under media bias, which is a different concept.
Unless you are preventing a person from actually making a statement then their freedoms are preserved.

 

[wayneL]

You and @wayneL are confusing the role of carriage services with the notion of "free speech."
What were the legal prohibitions to the debate or speakers?

That's why I describe it as a grey area.

"Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.”

Censorship is rife all across the west and social media is instrumental (Vis a vis the "platform" argument) in that.

Apart from that:

In the UK there are rather large squads of police trawling social media looking for posts which may offend the prevailing ideology. These are investigated, recorded as "non crime hate speech" and goes on a person's record.... which may disqualify them from employment in certain fields. No crime committed, yet because some snowflake complained, or some indoctrinated rozzer didn't like it, the end up with a blot on their record.

Scotland is passing some pretty Draconian legislation.

Mark Meecham was arrested and charged for a joke on YouTube. Then there was the egregious use of incitement laws down in Ballarat to terrorise and arrest a pregnant woman.

Then there is Bill c16 in Canada.

It's a slippery slope unless some protections are in place such as the US' 1st amendment, Rob. Free speech has disappeared in the near past in the west, and it can happen again unless we are proactive.

 

[sptrawler]

Legalities are one thing. No one broke any laws. It's a matter of our national broadcaster being unbiased and not taking a position on a certain issue.

Freedom of speech depends on how big your megaphone is.

Or in the case of the ABC, who is paying for it, the media has every right to be biased as it obviously is, in the case of Fairfax Vs Murdoch, however the ABC doesn't fall in the same category.
As it is funded by all taxpayers, it has an obligation to equally represent all sides of the debate, in a balanced and unbiased way.
Where the ABC falls short on several occasions, is where they don't allow speakers the opportunity to access the platform, to voice an opposing opinion e.g stacked audiences and panels.

 

[rederob]

That's why I describe it as a grey area.

"Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.”

Censorship is rife all across the west and social media is instrumental (Vis a vis the "platform" argument) in that.

Apart from that:

In the UK there are rather large squads of police trawling social media looking for posts which may offend the prevailing ideology. These are investigated, recorded as "non crime hate speech" and goes on a person's record.... which may disqualify them from employment in certain fields. No crime committed, yet because some snowflake complained, or some indoctrinated rozzer didn't like it, the end up with a blot on their record.

Scotland is passing some pretty Draconian legislation.

Mark Meecham was arrested and charged for a joke on YouTube. Then there was the egregious use of incitement laws down in Ballarat to terrorise and arrest a pregnant woman.

Then there is Bill c16 in Canada.

It's a slippery slope unless some protections are in place such as the US' 1st amendment, Rob. Free speech has disappeared in the near past in the west, and it can happen again unless we are proactive.

All you are doing is describing the actions of carriage services and the media generally.
Nothing requires that they "carry" or amplify or otherwise present a message. Those "rights" do not exist.
Despite me asking many times you cannot show that a speaker cannot make a statement within the constraints of law.

 

[sptrawler]

That's why I describe it as a grey area.

"Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.”

Censorship is rife all across the west and social media is instrumental (Vis a vis the "platform" argument) in that.

Apart from that:

In the UK there are rather large squads of police trawling social media looking for posts which may offend the prevailing ideology. These are investigated, recorded as "non crime hate speech" and goes on a person's record.... which may disqualify them from employment in certain fields. No crime committed, yet because some snowflake complained, or some indoctrinated rozzer didn't like it, the end up with a blot on their record.

Scotland is passing some pretty Draconian legislation.

Mark Meecham was arrested and charged for a joke on YouTube. Then there was the egregious use of incitement laws down in Ballarat to terrorise and arrest a pregnant woman.

Then there is Bill c16 in Canada.

It's a slippery slope unless some protections are in place such as the US' 1st amendment, Rob. Free speech has disappeared in the near past in the west, and it can happen again unless we are proactive.

I guess 'twitter' locking out Trump from accessing their platform, isn't about free speech, it is about censorship which really is about stopping people from being allowed to voice their opinion.

Twitter says Trump’s account is locked, and he’s facing a ban

It says the risk of harm is greater than the news value.

www.theverge.com

From the article:
Twitter is locking President Donald Trump’s account for 12 hours after removing three tweets that contained “repeated and severe violations” of its civic integrity policy. It says the account will be permanently suspended if violations continue, and it will not be unlocked unless Trump entirely deletes the three offending tweets.

Apparently the offending tweets were:

The change of policy came after a series of tweets in which Mr Trump appeared to endorse the rioters who stormed the Capitol Building in support of the president.
In the posts, Mr Trump asked those involved to go home but called them “very special” and said “we love you”. He also repeated his false claim that he won the election.
Now the company says that the president’s account will be locked and it could be suspended entirely if he continues to break the rules.

Twitter and Facebook lock Donald Trump’s account

President repeated false claims of election victory and told rioters he loved them

www.independent.co.uk

 

[wayneL]

All you are doing is describing the actions of carriage services and the media generally.
Nothing requires that they "carry" or amplify or otherwise present a message. Those "rights" do not exist.
Despite me asking many times you cannot show that a speaker cannot make a statement within the constraints of law.

The law is the problem mate, both implicitly and increasingly explicitly.

 

[dutchie]

Twitter is denying The President of the USA his freedom of speech.

 

[SirRumpole]

Twitter is denying The President of the USA his freedom of speech.

Yeah they shouldn't do that.

It just turns him into a martyr.

Let him say what he wants, then show that it's bullshite.

 

[dutchie]

Yeah they shouldn't do that.

It just turns him into a martyr.

Let him say what he wants, then show that it's bullshite.

No you don't have to show it. Just say it.

 

[SirRumpole]

No you don't have to show it. Just say it.

The Supreme Court has shown it.