Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#1
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
Too little too late, Pandora's box opened ages ago and social media is out of control with far right para military groups changing their names by the day to compensate for being banned. It goes without saying that Jihadists are masters at that game too.
I remember chatting with our former Tory MP on this subject in town more than 5 years andhe was actively campaigning for more editorial control.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
Well done to Sky News for confronting some of these people but the Daily Mail does seem to rabble rouse the hard of thinking.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-confronts-trolls-who-targeted-tory-brexit-rebel-anna-soubry-11177060Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,397
#4
Amnesty International seem to have covered most of the bases IF one is going to restrain 'free speech':-
[U]Specifics[/U]
Any restriction should be as specific as possible. It would be wrong to ban an entire website because of a problem with one page.
[U]National security and public order[/U]
These terms must be precisely defined in law to prevent them being used as excuses for excessive restrictions.
[U]Morals[/U]
This is a very subjective area, but any restrictions must not be based on a single tradition or religion and must not discriminate against anyone living in a particular country.
[U]Rights and reputations of others[/U]
Public officials should tolerate more criticism than private individuals. So defamation laws that stop legitimate criticism of a government or public official, violate the right to free speech.
[U]Blasphemy[/U]
Protecting abstract concepts, religious beliefs or other beliefs or the sensibilities of people that believe them is not grounds for restricting freedom of speech.
[U]Media and journalists[/U]
Journalists and bloggers face particular risks because of the work they do. Countries therefore have a responsibility to protect their right to freedom of speech. Restrictions on Newspapers, TV stations, etc can affect everyone’s right to freedom of expression.
[U]Whistleblowers[/U]
Government should never bring criminal proceedings against anyone who reveals information about human rights abuses.
"The world is still a weird place, despite my efforts to make clear and perfect sense of it".
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,095
#5
Social media outlets have their own rules governing what can and cannot be written or shown but, generally speaking, they'll follow the money and only change the rules only should a public outcry threaten their profits. I wouldn't rely on capitalists to deal with the far right (after all, they handed the German Chancellorship to Hitler).
Let them jabber on, I say. They would, in any case, turn any attempt to restrict their output to their advantage by claiming, e.g., that they are the 'true' democrats gagged by the forces of multiculturalism and 'political correctness'. The best defence is active critical thinking. (Sure, that won't work against prejudice, which is blind to rational discourse: the worst danger is intellectual laziness.) But if that fails, then it'll be '¡No pasarán!' and Cable Street all over again.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus