The West has lost its freedom of speech

qldfrog · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
These sort of things are usually called scams, and although I agree with taking advantage of stupidity I think you have to give people some value for money.

But yes, the tech bubble was a result of speculation based by not a lot and it made people money so why not jump in on the trends ?

As pointed in my point fist detect early trend and jump in with the Gremlins..trend following..just separate from the talk and know how to get out as for scam being taking advantage of people, a carbon tax levied on only specific countries, how do you name that..and this is just an example
Or locking an country economy for less death than drownings? I believe Australia still allows cars driving in 2020...we need to be able to take a step back, let's start this new thread
Basically disjointed facts vs media popular belief and how to profit from it be it existing trends or coming up one:it will be controversial i am aware

Joe Blow · 3 July 2020

qldfrog said:
Fully understand but defacto it means we have lost freedom of speech, this is the sorry fact.and i i agr with you Joe that you have to abide to google might.no choice sadly.
I hope it will let people reflect before criticism of the Putin and Xi of this world.are we really better...

Nobody really has freedom of speech on someone else's property. Take YouTube for example. That's Google's property. They own and control the platform so they control what is acceptable and what isn't. There are a lot of complaints about the way Google manages that property but it is theirs nonetheless.

I don't have freedom of speech in anyone else's home. People can kick me out if I say something they find offensive. But in your own home you have freedom of speech.

In public settings it's a little more problematic and I think that is where people are losing ground in the battle for free speech. Unlike YouTube and other privately owned online platforms, public spaces should be freer in countries like Australia but things are changing. If the battle for free speech is to be fought, that is the battleground. It has always been accepted that the only free speech the public has on private property is that which is afforded to them by the owner of that property.

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

Joe Blow said:
It has always been accepted that the only free speech the public has on private property is that which is afforded to them by the owner of that property.

Yes. How would we view universities ? Public or private ?

The ABC is publicly owned so "theoretically" there should be free speech there, but it's muzzled by the "you can't say that" mob.

Anyway, I don't want to draw this out too much, there are obviously lots of twists and turns to this topic and if this thread is going anyway it may be wasted time.

wayneL · 3 July 2020

The private property thing is absolutely fair enough especially if your space is considered a publisher which seems to be the case on ASF? Please correct me if I'm wrong... and I now more fully understand your position on this and it's commercial necessity

However those other spaces are regarded ,for the moment at least, as platforms, and may even be regarded utilities in the same way that the telecoms are.

It would be less of a bitter pill to swallow if the censorship was equal on both sides. Joe, I think you have been absolutely even handed on ASF, but as far as silicon valley platforms are concerned it is not even at all.

Organisations such as 4nt1f4 are given an almost completely free-range to say and organised whatever they like, even to the point of inciting violence. Such freedoms are not granted to anyone even remotely on the other side.

Stock standard conservatives and even classical liberals are routinely censored and/or deplatformed, never mind the extremists; this is where many of us can get very cranky.

Anyhooz, such is how it is and it will be interesting how much the non silicon valley platforms such as Parler will be able the challenge the hegemony of Google and Twitter et al.

basilio · 3 July 2020

Joe Blow said:
Nobody really has freedom of speech on someone else's property. Take YouTube for example. That's Google's property. They own and control the platform so they control what is acceptable and what isn't. There are a lot of complaints about the way Google manages that property but it is theirs nonetheless.

I don't have freedom of speech in anyone else's home. People can kick me out if I say something they find offensive. But in your own home you have freedom of speech.

In public settings it's a little more problematic and I think that is where people are losing ground in the battle for free speech. Unlike YouTube and other privately owned online platforms, public spaces should be freer in countries like Australia but things are changing. If the battle for free speech is to be fought, that is the battleground. It has always been accepted that the only free speech the public has on private property is that which is afforded to them by the owner of that property.

I certainly see Joes point on the seemingly inevitable slide into very strong/extreme views being promoted across ASF and the web in general. Inevitably this damages t the forum and puts people off.

The conversation has been had a number of times. Going totally "vanilla" so to speak is an option. It is exceptionally good to share quality technical/practical ideas with thoughtful people. Whirpool is an excellent example of that but I believe they are very strong on keeping everyone nice and I also understand they have zero tolerance for allowing divisive topics to get away.

I remember posting some references to other forums that make it clear they won't tolerate nastiness.

Going back to the theme of this thread - "The West has lost its Freedom of Speech ".. Hmmn The premise of the title wasn't that promising for a nuanced and balanced conversation was it ?

And in reality of course there is no absolute Freedom of Speech. I might have tried to point that out at some stage.

It should be bleedingly obvious . Libel, slander, scams, hate calls, casual or deliberate nastiness, holocaust denial, racist tropes all come to mind as examples where one persons "Freedom to Speak" violates another persons "Freedom from assault, abuse or injury."

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

basilio said:
Going back to the theme of this thread - "The West has lost its Freedom of Speech ".. Hmmn The premise of the title wasn't that promising for a nuanced and balanced conversation was it ?

Come on Bas, the question could have been set in a Humanities exam.

"The West has lost it's freedom of speech - Discuss" .

No one has to agree with the premise of the thread.

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

basilio said:
I remember posting some references to other forums that make it clear they won't tolerate nastiness.

Depends on how "nastiness" is defined.

Some people object to the statement "all lives matter". Do you object to that statement ?

(I can hear Joe saying "here we go again", so treat this post as rhetorical if you like).

wayneL · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
Depends on how "nastiness" is defined.

Some people object to the statement "all lives matter". Do you object to that statement ?

(I can hear Joe saying "here we go again", so treat this post as rhetorical if you like).

BOOM!

... and I ain't sayin' nuttin' more than that.

basilio · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
Come on Bas, the question could have been set in a Humanities exam.

"The West has lost it's freedom of speech - Discuss" .

No one has to agree with the premise of the thread.

Good point... when it is presented as a question on a Humanities exam. But in that context it still could be presented in a more neutral tone ie Has the West lost its Freedom of Speech ?

Unfortunately it is still an exceptionally broad statement which opens up a million cans of worms even if presented as an exam question. I'd even wonder what sort of course or exam would present such a topic ?
A Philosophy course ? A Legal studies ? A Course in Western Cultural Traditions ?

On this thread there isn't much subtlety. The title was a Call to Arms.

rederob · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
"The West has lost its freedom of speech - Discuss".

As Joe has several times inferred, you can't lose what you do not already have.
And if you or anyone thinks that your home is a sanctuary then I suggest you read the many laws on national security.
Even within this ASF site posters who indulge in libel can be brought to account.

Posting on non-shares topics would be far more useful if they followed the ASF practice relating to the stock market where posters included tables, charts, links or other references to make their case. Our unfounded opinions or beliefs are best kept to ourselves.

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

rederob said:
Even within this ASF site posters who indulge in libel can be brought to account.

Good.

Libel is making false allegation against someone, but given that this is an anonymous forum it might be hard to prove that actual damage has been done.

I can't see any reasonable person thinking we should be able to do that, and any moderator would be justified in removing posts that did.

rederob · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
Good.
Libel is making false allegation against someone, but given that this is an anonymous forum it might be hard to prove that actual damage has been done.

I am sure Joe would be required to provide source details if push came to shove, so your anonymity is illusory unless you have forever used a VPN.
And never underestimate the power of people with deep pockets!

basilio · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
Good.

Libel is making false allegation against someone, but given that this is an anonymous forum it might be hard to prove that actual damage has been done.

I don't believe that is the case Rumpy.

One of the excellent points of this forum has been the challenge and exposure of some very shonky financial scams. I believe some of the people who were accused of malpractice have been giving Joe a kicking for allowing the comments to be made. So that's to do with posters making (supported) allegations of public figures which could affect their reputations.

But it is also interesting to consider how a court might view a slanderous attack on a seemingly anonymous poster. If, for arguments sake, a series of comments were made about poster X saying they were clearly a pedophile/a thief/ drug taker/ a scam artist/ a whatever-you-want.. and these comments destroyed the persons reputation amongst other people on the forum would that constitute an actionable behaviour ?

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

basilio said:
I don't believe that is the case Rumpy.

One of the excellent points of this forum has been the challenge and exposure of some very shonky financial scams. I believe some of the people who were accused of malpractice have been giving Joe a kicking for allowing the comments to be made. So that's to do with posters making (supported) allegations of public figures which could affect their reputations.

But it is also interesting to consider how a court might view a slanderous attack on a seemingly anonymous poster. If, for arguments sake, a series of comments were made about poster X saying they were clearly a pedophile/a thief/ drug taker/ a scam artist/ a whatever-you-want.. and these comments destroyed the persons reputation amongst other people on the forum would that constitute an actionable behaviour ?

I'm pretty sure that if such things were said then Joe would delete those posts and probably throw the accuser off the site.

I think people here are reasonable enough to be able to filter out opinions from fact so the credibility damage may not be great.

I think it's pretty risky for an anonymous poster to go public and reveal him/herself in a court if they sue for defamation. The court may take the view that the plaintiff has caused damage to themselves by going public whereas they could have retained their anonymity and just left the site or sought some action from the Moderator first.

basilio · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
I'm pretty sure that if such things were said then Joe would delete those posts and probably throw the accuser off the site.

I think people here are reasonable enough to be able to filter out opinions from fact so the credibility damage may not be great.

I think it's pretty risky for an anonymous poster to go public and reveal him/herself in a court if they sue for defamation. The court may take the view that the plaintiff has caused damage to themselves by going public whereas they could have retained their anonymity and just left the site or sought some action from the Moderator first.

Take it away from this site Rumpy. How about situations for example where survivors of school shootings and other mass murders in the US are accused of being fakes, scammers and deep state actors? Could/should they take action for repeated outrageous slanders ? Or is that just a necessary price of free expression ?

You suggest people are reasonable enough to filter opinions from facts ?

Seriously? I don't want to dwell on ASF posters here but any dive into the conspiracy theorists, denialists and general hubris of our societies would challenge that view.

Just one example of where we are now in terms of rational thinking.

We don't live in a communist country!': battle over masks rages in Texas
Texas

Coronavirus cases are rising, but despite the exhortations of health experts, many Texans just don’t want to wear a mask
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/02/texas-masks-coronavirus-covid-battle

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

basilio said:
Take it away from this site Rumpy. How about situations for example where survivors of school shootings and other mass murders in the US are accused of being fakes, scammers and deep state actors? Could/should they take action for repeated outrageous slanders ? Or is that just a necessary price of free expression ?

You suggest people are reasonable enough to filter opinions from facts ?

Well bas, you started off with a referral to this forum, so that's where I stayed, but if you want to move the goalposts to another country then I certainly do believe that the people you mentioned should be able to take defamation action against those peddling false accusations.

I think successful prosecution would be a big deterrent to the making of false claims, but the US is not big on defamation suits and tends to favour the defendants. The Elon Musk case is one example of this.

The verdict in such a case may well be different in Australia.

Joe Blow · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
Yes. How would we view universities ? Public or private ?

The ABC is publicly owned so "theoretically" there should be free speech there, but it's muzzled by the "you can't say that" mob.

These are a little more complicated. I was thinking of the streets and public spaces such as parks. The ABC and universities are different beasts entirely and I don't have an easy answer to that one.

wayneL said:
The private property thing is absolutely fair enough especially if your space is considered a publisher which seems to be the case on ASF? Please correct me if I'm wrong... and I now more fully understand your position on this and it's commercial necessity

However those other spaces are regarded ,for the moment at least, as platforms, and may even be regarded utilities in the same way that the telecoms are.

The problem with YouTube is that nothing even comes close to its scale or reach in terms of online broadcasting. In a sense it is an incredible achievement. I remember about 12 or 15 years ago Google was losing money hand over fist with YouTube as they were burning bandwidth like crazy and couldn't monetise it. But now they have transformed it into a media powerhouse that is unmatched online.

I'm not saying they aren't biased and I'm definitely not saying they don't have political agendas. But they are a media company and do have the right to control what is considered acceptable content because they ultimately answer to advertisers. I think that sometimes people forget who wields the power. YouTube is only the giant media monolith that it is because advertisers are handing over money to advertise on the platform. Google answers to them for commercial reasons. No advertisers, no YouTube.

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

Joe Blow said:
I'm not saying they aren't biased and I'm definitely not saying they don't have political agendas.

Youtube is great for instructional stuff like mechanics, science, aviation and a lot of suchlike topics.

I wasn't aware it was also into the social stuff and wouldn't watch it anyway.

rederob · 3 July 2020

SirRumpole said:
Youtube is great for instructional stuff like mechanics, science, aviation and a lot of suchlike topics.

I wasn't aware it was also into the social stuff and wouldn't watch it anyway.

There are music videos on Youtube with multiBILLION view counts:
Chances are most Westerners haven't heard of some!

SirRumpole · 3 July 2020

rederob said:
There are music videos on Youtube with multiBILLION view counts:

Chances are most Westerners haven't heard of some!

Something for every taste !

Good one here, but I think we should stop after this.

The West has lost its freedom of speech

qldfrog

Joe Blow

Administrator

SirRumpole

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

basilio

SirRumpole

SirRumpole

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

basilio

rederob

SirRumpole

rederob

basilio

SirRumpole

basilio

SirRumpole

Joe Blow

Administrator

SirRumpole

rederob

SirRumpole

Similar threads

The West has lost its freedom of speech

Administrator

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Administrator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency