Free Speech .

[Stuart Galbraith]

Isnt there an amendment to give someone the right to eat ass? Or is that just in Washington and California?

[rmgill]

https://www.thedrive.com/news/27887/florida-man-arrested-after-refusing-to-remove-obscene-sticker-from-chevrolet-pickup-truck

 

Florida man is at it again. A 23-year-old Floridian arrested for displaying a vulgar sticker on his Chevrolet pickup is fighting back, according to the Lake City Reporter, declaring that the arrest violates his First Amendment rights.

 

A sheriff I know here in Georgia described having had one of his deputies issue a citation to a citizen for having offensive political statements in his rear window. The Deputy was called onto the carpet to answer to the Sheriff for why he thought he had the legal authority to police such things given his oath and the 1st amendment.

[Ssnake]

Maybe Florida man simply finds donkey ham tasty. For all I know it could be.

 

Besides, basically anyone eating ham or bacon demonstrably likes to chew glutaeus maximus.

[Mr King]

For a while it was popular with the shitbags around here to install video monitors in the back of their car headrests, then drive around in traffic playing porn on said monitors.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

https://www.thedrive.com/news/27887/florida-man-arrested-after-refusing-to-remove-obscene-sticker-from-chevrolet-pickup-truck

 

Florida man is at it again. A 23-year-old Floridian arrested for displaying a vulgar sticker on his Chevrolet pickup is fighting back, according to the Lake City Reporter, declaring that the arrest violates his First Amendment rights.

 

A sheriff I know here in Georgia described having had one of his deputies issue a citation to a citizen for having offensive political statements in his rear window. The Deputy was called onto the carpet to answer to the Sheriff for why he thought he had the legal authority to police such things given his oath and the 1st amendment.

 

 

Im sure ive mentioned before, we had a guy in Wiltshire who was hauled over by a PC for displaying an England flag on the parcel shelf of his car as being potentially racist. Which I absolutely do not defend, except ive read that probational PC's are given points for hauling in as many drivers and members of the public as they can on absurd points of law, the logic being it shows they are keen and hence possible material to take on full time. That was the case in the late 1970's, possibly its still ongoing.

 

No, there is no excuse for it. I demand the right of an England supporter to display his flag, just as the right of any wholesome individual to erm, eat ass, and proclaim to to whomever they wish. Probably not animal rights groups though...

[Stuart Galbraith]

For a while it was popular with the shitbags around here to install video monitors in the back of their car headrests, then drive around in traffic playing porn on said monitors.

 

Imagine the insurance claim if you had an accident. 'He stopped abruptly at a junction and I didnt notice in time because I was watching 'Debbie Does Dalla's'.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tommy-robinson-sued-by-syrian-schoolboy-he-accused-of-assault/ar-AABojEg?OCID=ansmsnnews11

The Syrian schoolboy who was filmed being attacked in a playground in Huddersfield is suing the far-right campaigner Tommy Robinson for accusing him of assaulting white schoolgirls.

Jamal Hijazi, 16, has filed papers to the high court seeking libel action against the founder of the English Defence League after he was alleged to have “peddled false and defamatory lies” about the schoolboy.

Footage of the refugee student being pushed to the ground and having water poured on his face was watched millions of times and attracted widespread condemnation, including from Theresa May, in December.

 

In May this year a 16-year-old boy, who cannot be identified, was given a caution for racially aggravated assault on Jamal.

The anti-Islam activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, reposted a screenshot of a message on his Facebook page from a mother claiming her daughter had been bullied. However, the mother later posted on Robinson’s page denying that Jamal had attacked her daughter.

In a series of posts Robinson accused Jamal of “not being that innocent” and claimed that he had “hit a girl with a hockey stick” and that “lots of Muslim gangs are beating up white English kids” in Britain. Robinson’s Facebook page had more than 1 million followers and the posts on the Huddersfield incident were viewed up to 900,000 times each.

Robinson said: “He violently attacked young English girls in his school. Why is this kid being portrayed as the ultimate victim in the entire country?”

 

Facebook deleted several of Robinson’s videos for violating community standards after Jamal’s family announced their intention to sue in November.

Robinson was subsequently banned from Facebook and Instagram for repeatedly breaking policies on hate speech. Facebook said he had broken rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics, rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups, and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others.

Members of the public have donated £10,300 to help fund the most recent legal action against Robinson.

Jamal said that following Robinson’s posts, he and his family had faced increasing threats and had been forced to move out of Huddersfield.

 

He added: “He has broken the law and I hope they [the courts] agree with us. When he put those posts up he was giving people the wrong idea about me and I was really worried because people were thinking: ‘Jamal is not a good person.’

“After he posted the video we were very scared and we got lots of threats from people because of what he said about me hitting those girls. I had never even spoken to these girls but people in the area started threatening us.”

Tasnime Akunjee, a solicitor who represents Jamal and his family, said: “We are lodging Jamal’s claim for damages as against Yaxley-Lennon with the court today. The claim flows from defamatory comments made by Yaxley-Lennon about Jamal in the latter part of 2018.”

[rmgill]

False accusations, libel suit and results in facebook bans. Ok fair enough.

Are we going to see the same thing with everyone or just certain folks?

Is the BBC going to be banned from Facebook?

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1083724/bbc-settles-libel-suit-wronged-politician

Edited May 15, 2019 by rmgill

[rmgill]

[Stuart Galbraith]

False accusations, libel suit and results in facebook bans. Ok fair enough.

 

Are we going to see the same thing with everyone or just certain folks?

 

Is the BBC going to be banned from Facebook?

 

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1083724/bbc-settles-libel-suit-wronged-politician

 

Just making a point Ryan. Free speech is to be exercised with responsibility. He repeated false accusations, and is getting sued for it. This used to be what happened to high street publishers. Today, anyone with a youtube channel or offering an opinion online IS a publisher.

 

We are still talking as if free speech was just standing on a soapbox in the park to a few random strangers. The world has changed. Personally I would have no objection to Robinson saying whatever he likes in those circumstances, or in a pub. Or in fact, even in the midst of a crowd of fellow travellers.

 

When you start broadcasting it to millions of people, the perspective changes. You are less a private individual offering comments than a media concern. If newspapers have been hauled into courts over libel, then what makes private individuals doing the same thing over the internet any different?

Edited May 16, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Worth watching this. Kasparov is mainly talking about artificial intelligence. However, as he points out, it has a utility in bots or spamming.And he draws the link between the exploitation of bots, and the abuse of free speech, particularly online, as a tool for the Kremlin. Mainly from about 35 minutes on.

 

 

Freedom is fragile. Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

[rmgill]

Just making a point Ryan. Free speech is to be exercised with responsibility. He repeated false accusations, and is getting sued for it.

Yes. BUT...

 

This used to be what happened to high street publishers. Today, anyone with a youtube channel or offering an opinion online IS a publisher.

USED TO. Not now.

 

Group A, commits libel and is banned for life from the public commons online. Group B commits libel and......is given more money to speak in the public commons.

 

See the problem yet?

 

 

We are still talking as if free speech was just standing on a soapbox in the park to a few random strangers. The world has changed. Personally I would have no objection to Robinson saying whatever he likes in those circumstances, or in a pub. Or in fact, even in the midst of a crowd of fellow travellers.

Yes, the world has changed. 1 person can now have the same power as the BBC. Which STILL isn't held to the same standard as that one person is.

 

 

When you start broadcasting it to millions of people, the perspective changes. You are less a private individual offering comments than a media concern. If newspapers have been hauled into courts over libel, then what makes private individuals doing the same thing over the internet any different?

Follow the bouncing ball to the disparate treatment after libel is accused. Even after the BBC accepted responsibility...do they lose any of that platform they misused? No.

[Chris Werb]

 

This.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Just making a point Ryan. Free speech is to be exercised with responsibility. He repeated false accusations, and is getting sued for it.

Yes. BUT...

 

This used to be what happened to high street publishers. Today, anyone with a youtube channel or offering an opinion online IS a publisher.

USED TO. Not now.

 

Group A, commits libel and is banned for life from the public commons online. Group B commits libel and......is given more money to speak in the public commons.

 

See the problem yet?

 

 

We are still talking as if free speech was just standing on a soapbox in the park to a few random strangers. The world has changed. Personally I would have no objection to Robinson saying whatever he likes in those circumstances, or in a pub. Or in fact, even in the midst of a crowd of fellow travellers.

Yes, the world has changed. 1 person can now have the same power as the BBC. Which STILL isn't held to the same standard as that one person is.

 

 

When you start broadcasting it to millions of people, the perspective changes. You are less a private individual offering comments than a media concern. If newspapers have been hauled into courts over libel, then what makes private individuals doing the same thing over the internet any different?

Follow the bouncing ball to the disparate treatment after libel is accused. Even after the BBC accepted responsibility...do they lose any of that platform they misused? No.

 

 

No actually. People can still own blogs if they get thrown off Youtube and Facebook. There is twitter, there are online newspapers, and if all else fails, there are online forums like tanknet. I submit, if you alienate all these corporations, you probably are going out of your way to put yourself into a void. Is there any evidence that Tommy Robinson being banned from facebook is going to harm is profile or stop his message being heard? Hardly. Its just a corporation, a corporation itself with deep problems, not wanting to be associated with his message. And frankly a man who says the people of Grenfell tower got what they deserved, I can hardly blame them.

 

Where is this mass online censorship you describe? It doesn't exist. If it was, Russian wouldnt be running riot putting multiple variants up of what happened in Salisbury.

 

Im sorry Ryan, that is absolutely not true. The BBC IS held to standards. You really need to read up on section 5 of the OFCOM broadcasting code.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy

 

NO online broadcaster is held to that same standard. That is the issue.

[JWB]

Have you seen his rap sheet?

https://www.the-round.co.uk/charges-on-tommy-robinson-rap-sheet/

[TTK Ciar]

There are some algorithms out there which are getting fairly good for automatic composition.

 

I was fiddling with the parameters of a GPT-2 instance using the small data model available from the project's github repo, and it came up with this amusing gem:

 

http://ciar.org/h/samples.04.top_k=30.temperature=0_85.saint_louis_fire.out.txt

 

Supposedly they're refraining from publishing their larger data model because it results in "frighteningly" realistic prose. I've got compiling my own large data model on my to-do list.

 

https://github.com/openai/gpt-2

 

If AI can churn out propaganda on demand which is at all compelling, it's going to make our current problems look like a picnic.

Edited May 16, 2019 by TTK Ciar

[rmgill]

No actually. People can still own blogs if they get thrown off Youtube and Facebook.

Social media is becoming KEY for information conveyance. So too for political movement. Being thrown off social media is like being excluded from the mining town's company store where every store in the village is owned by the mine.

 

There is twitter,

Which is worse if not just as bad0.

 

 

I submit, if you alienate all these corporations, you probably are going out of your way to put yourself into a void.

So you're fine with corporate monopolies? Strange thing for a Labor voter to say.

 

 

Is there any evidence that Tommy Robinson being banned from facebook is going to harm is profile or stop his message being heard?

You've never answered my key question Stuart. One party is treated differently than the other. There's a rash of this across the spectrum.

 

The whole key point of the internet is the one to many capabilities. By allowing corporate messaging to dominate and corporations to cooperate in what messages get out, you're going down a very dark path.

 

Where is this mass online censorship you describe? It doesn't exist. If it was, Russian wouldnt be running riot putting multiple variants up of what happened in Salisbury.

 

So, if RT was able to get a bunch of tech companies to silence folks talking against what RT was saying about Salisbury, you'd be ok with that?

Imagine if RT was based out of Silicon Valley and their management went to the same parties as the management of Facebook, Apple and Google?

 

Im sorry Ryan, that is absolutely not true. The BBC IS held to standards.

Stuart, I demonstrated just what, 2 weeks ago, that the media in the UK was reporting an outright fabrication on Sargon/Carl. You even posted the accusations. Where does that fit into the enforcement of Section 5?

 

Some standards, just not the SAME standards.

 

You need to look at what Tim Pool has spent time reporting on.

 

Independent journalist reports on the news, de monetized on youtube.

Main stream news network reports on the same story, they stay up and the videos are monetized.

 

NO online broadcaster is held to that same standard. That is the issue.

[Jeff]

Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

 

How does that work?

[JasonJ]

 

Many are now using freedom of speech itself as a tool to attack freedom, a fact we seem to be completely blinkering ourselves against.

 

How does that work?

Happens all the time in Taiwan and Okinawa islands.

 

Pro-CCP make up lies about the current local system, spread pro-CCP messages via trolls, repeat the lies to achieve artificially creating new truths out of lies and make the lies so complex that it becomes too time consuming for regular countering and make the lies that trigger kneejerk reactions by seeming like common sense, get pro-CCP candidate dogs to make a platform and run for election, get them elected, they back their preferred CCP-backed media, local area as a whole slants pro-CCP, and then as a result, repeat the CCP counter arguments to things like Tianamein Square being CIA job, Uyghurs are actually happy with Xinjiang development, Tibetans never want to protest, that western democracy is all fake show which is why CCP way of rule is the better, etc etc.The end result is a culture and system that embraced basic features of freedom of speech is replaced by pro-CCP rhetoric and censorship.

 

It isn't difficult. What was that phrase again? "Vote your way into communism, shoot your way out".

[rmgill]

So in the war of dueling propaganda arms, it's just based on what state can restrict the wrong think the best?

 

 

It isn't difficult. What was that phrase again? "Vote your way into communism, shoot your way out".

Except in this case, the anti-communists are the ones being silenced while Labor (full of avowed communists) is looking to be the next party holding the reigns.

Edited May 17, 2019 by rmgill

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

It isn't difficult. What was that phrase again? "Vote your way into communism, shoot your way out".

Except in this case, the anti-communists are the ones being silenced while Labor (full of avowed communists) is looking to be the next party holding the reigns.

And this vigor of shield and hammer for tptal freedom of speech against tbe UK right now, where was it in the period of 1990s up until now regarding China? How can such a vigor justify itself when living off of 500 billion USD worth of China made goods?

 

Criticize the UK, that is fine, and it keeps us sharp, but don't lose focus of the situation in entirety. Russians stay quiet and just watch y'all rip at each other's throat.

Edited May 17, 2019 by JasonJ

[rmgill]

And this vigor of shield and hammer for tptal freedom of speech against tbe UK right now,

Its not just in the UK. It's across the west. See Canada re C16, see the US ala the CDA, McCain-Feingold and other laws passed and killed by courts. See the response in New Zealand. That freedom of speech is what keeps the west ahead of the less free nations technologically and militarily. Part of the freedom of speech benefits is that government can be warned against unpopular things that result in mass unrest (Like Tienamin) or going down bad paths that result in very bad wars that can spell the doom for your nation (like WWII). Such also helps avoid other problems that are of smaller size but still of rather large import.

Edited May 17, 2019 by rmgill

[JasonJ]

 

And this vigor of shield and hammer for tptal freedom of speech against tbe UK right now,

Its not just in the UK. It's across the west. See Canada re C16, see the US ala the CDA, McCain-Feingold and other laws passed and killed by courts. See the response in New Zealand. That freedom of speech is what keeps the west ahead of the less free nations technologically and militarily. Part of the freedom of speech benefits is that government can be warned against unpopular things that result in mass unrest (Like Tienamin) or going down bad paths that result in very bad wars that can spell the doom for your nation (like WWII). Such also helps avoid other problems that are of smaller size but still of rather large import.

I'm not argueing agaisnt freedom of speech itself, and I don't want to criticize you too much since only a few people here have the vigor like you have to go at length about it so I don't mean to knock on that. But I really do think balance is important once in awhile. Well I think you do sometimes but sometimes it seems like some points aren't really that critical. Often taking an aggressive tone doesn't always help. I'm not sure if the often aggressive tone is point of emulating Trump's style or not. For the US domestic scene, the aggressive sytle came as a response to the political correctness and general lack of trust in any politician. That point has been observed and desbribed at length by some Japanese right wingers. So I think at least the Japanese right know how to approach it on the international scene with POTUS and thus by large have avoided having pro-US sentiment be damaged like in other countries, particularly other western countries. Canada, New Zealand, Germany, the UK are international and have little bearing on the US domestic scene. So to some degree, a live and let live approach might help avoid just neediless pissing people in other countries off.

[rmgill]

I'm not argueing agaisnt freedom of speech itself, and I don't want to criticize you too much since only a few people here have the vigor like you have to go at length about it so I don't mean to knock on that. But I really do think balance is important once in awhile.

The best way to form that balance is opposing views.

 

 

Well I think you do sometimes but sometimes it seems like some points aren't really that critical. Often taking an aggressive tone doesn't always help. I'm not sure if the often aggressive tone is point of emulating Trump's style or not.

Some of that comes from factual statements where tone doesn't convey at all online. Some is also probably a touch of de-indivduation.

 

 

For the US domestic scene, the aggressive sytle came as a response to the political correctness and general lack of trust in any politician.

In the US, I've rather lost patience for folks who push a narrative that the press is be-knighted and the first amendment is threatened while seemingly building up a mount of arguments that make the press the ONLY party that can speak or express it's collectivized corporate views.

 

That point has been observed and desbribed at length by some Japanese right wingers. So I think at least the Japanese right know how to approach it on the international scene with POTUS and thus by large have avoided having pro-US sentiment be damaged like in other countries, particularly other western countries. Canada, New Zealand, Germany, the UK are international and have little bearing on the US domestic scene. So to some degree, a live and let live approach might help avoid just neediless pissing people in other countries off.

Except it's not a live and let live result. It's a they get to silence you and you get to accept that fact. The reason it probably seems most vociferous with folks like myself in the Anglosphere is that we have, as part of our conceptual fabric of how government is supposed to work and the related rights of men, a very strong view that there are clear limits and rights. That line of philosophy is older than this nation and derives specifically from England and the Glorious Revolution.

[Nobu]

So in the war of dueling propaganda arms, it's just based on what state can restrict the wrong think the best?

 

Imagine the consequences of a highly placed member of a cult/pseudoreligion like NXIVM getting elected to the head of such a state. "Wrong think" to be restricted in that instance would become anything that threatens that particular group's bottom line.