- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,439
What was unlawful?
What was unlawful?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?
If the person being moved on had a right to say what they did, then the action of moving-on the speaker was unlawful.Nothing.
And that is the point.
Carriage service...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."
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."
You and @wayneL are confusing the role of carriage services with the notion 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.
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?
Again, you are not talking about freedom of speech but, instead, about the role the media plays.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.
Not so as that falls under media bias, which is a different concept.Yes, because they are related. If the media reports only one side they are in effect denying freedom of speech to the other side.
That's why I describe it as a grey area.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?
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.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.
All you are doing is describing the actions of carriage services and the media generally.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.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.
The law is the problem mate, both implicitly and increasingly explicitly.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.
Twitter is denying The President of the USA his freedom of speech.
No you don't have to show it. Just say it.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?