EU prepared to cut off free speech...
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/26/censors...
Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.
This move by the EU comes under the usual disguise of "combating hate speech", but it is essentially a move to cut off any voice that opposes the liberal-left viewpoint and their movement that could damage the progress of the EU and its agenda.
There are currently laws to tackle 'hate speech' and allowing hate speech to happen allows the process of tackling it to be much more effective.
But this move by the EU however is nothing more than removing free speech in order to stem any talk that counters their 'brainwashing'.
There is currently uproar by the left in how Trump has suppressed leftist press conference attacks by banning the likes of the BBC etc.
I don't see the outrage yet from the left agenda media regarding this very similar stem on free speech being conducted by the EU.
The guardian for example doesn't seem to have anything on this news.
Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.
This move by the EU comes under the usual disguise of "combating hate speech", but it is essentially a move to cut off any voice that opposes the liberal-left viewpoint and their movement that could damage the progress of the EU and its agenda.
There are currently laws to tackle 'hate speech' and allowing hate speech to happen allows the process of tackling it to be much more effective.
But this move by the EU however is nothing more than removing free speech in order to stem any talk that counters their 'brainwashing'.
There is currently uproar by the left in how Trump has suppressed leftist press conference attacks by banning the likes of the BBC etc.
I don't see the outrage yet from the left agenda media regarding this very similar stem on free speech being conducted by the EU.
The guardian for example doesn't seem to have anything on this news.
Atomic12C said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/26/censors...
Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.
This move by the EU comes under the usual disguise of "combating hate speech", but it is essentially a move to cut off any voice that opposes the liberal-left viewpoint and their movement that could damage the progress of the EU and its agenda.
There are currently laws to tackle 'hate speech' and allowing hate speech to happen allows the process of tackling it to be much more effective.
But this move by the EU however is nothing more than removing free speech in order to stem any talk that counters their 'brainwashing'.
There is currently uproar by the left in how Trump has suppressed leftist press conference attacks by banning the likes of the BBC etc.
I don't see the outrage yet from the left agenda media regarding this very similar stem on free speech being conducted by the EU.
The guardian for example doesn't seem to have anything on this news.
That's outrageous. We should have a vote to leave.Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.
This move by the EU comes under the usual disguise of "combating hate speech", but it is essentially a move to cut off any voice that opposes the liberal-left viewpoint and their movement that could damage the progress of the EU and its agenda.
There are currently laws to tackle 'hate speech' and allowing hate speech to happen allows the process of tackling it to be much more effective.
But this move by the EU however is nothing more than removing free speech in order to stem any talk that counters their 'brainwashing'.
There is currently uproar by the left in how Trump has suppressed leftist press conference attacks by banning the likes of the BBC etc.
I don't see the outrage yet from the left agenda media regarding this very similar stem on free speech being conducted by the EU.
The guardian for example doesn't seem to have anything on this news.
You could work for the Daily Mail with clickbait headlines like that
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
ZedLeg said:
You could work for the Daily Mail with clickbait headlines like that
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
However....It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
Telegraph said:
Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).
The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.
So:The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.
a) The plan was kept secret, suggesting they knew it would be controversial.
b) Who defines 'defamatory' and 'xenophobic'? While racist language should quite rightly be banned, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'defamatory' could well mean defamatory to the EU and 'xenophobic' could be conflated with 'nationalist', so removing the platform for anyone who doesn't espouse an EU-friendly collectivist stance.
All seems a bit 1984 to me. It's precisely this kind of thing that makes me more and more keen for the UK to get out.
ZedLeg said:
You could work for the Daily Mail with clickbait headlines like that
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
The Trump situation is about bloody time. The press has got away for years by posting up absolute bullst stories hiding behind "sources". The free press is anything but free or without agenda, I find it brilliant that Trump can just tell the press to do one as he can reach his audience without them.It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
PH XKR said:
The Trump situation is about bloody time. The press has got away for years by posting up absolute bullst stories hiding behind "sources". The free press is anything but free or without agenda, I find it brilliant that Trump can just tell the press to do one as he can reach his audience without them.
Trump wants the opposite of a free press, he wants tame journalists who'll just report whatever he says as if it's fact. Do you know what they call that? I'll give you a clue, it starts with a P.Mark Benson said:
ZedLeg said:
You could work for the Daily Mail with clickbait headlines like that
It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
However....It's not true though is it? They're changing the rules to stop people using the livestream as a soapbox for extremist views. It may be abused but it's not even happened yet.
Slightly different from a sitting president banning a large proportion of the press from talking to him because they won't roll over for him.
Telegraph said:
Rule 165 of the parliament's rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast "in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member." The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).
The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.
So:The new rule, which was not made public by the assemble until it was reported by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be "deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings," meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.
a) The plan was kept secret, suggesting they knew it would be controversial.
b) Who defines 'defamatory' and 'xenophobic'? While racist language should quite rightly be banned, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'defamatory' could well mean defamatory to the EU and 'xenophobic' could be conflated with 'nationalist', so removing the platform for anyone who doesn't espouse an EU-friendly collectivist stance.
All seems a bit 1984 to me. It's precisely this kind of thing that makes me more and more keen for the UK to get out.
Why do people how claim to support free speech use PH?
The terms and conditions of this site don't allow hate speech.
"to disseminate any material which is or may infringe the rights (including intellectual property rights) of any third party or be unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy, which may cause annoyance or inconvenience or may restrict or inhibit the use of the Website by any person or which constitutes or encourages conduct that may be considered a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability in any country in the world;"
The terms and conditions of this site don't allow hate speech.
"to disseminate any material which is or may infringe the rights (including intellectual property rights) of any third party or be unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy, which may cause annoyance or inconvenience or may restrict or inhibit the use of the Website by any person or which constitutes or encourages conduct that may be considered a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability in any country in the world;"
Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 28th February 11:38
PH XKR said:
The Trump situation is about bloody time. The press has got away for years by posting up absolute bullst stories hiding behind "sources". The free press is anything but free or without agenda, I find it brilliant that Trump can just tell the press to do one as he can reach his audience without them.
Yes, those lefties quoting 'sources'.He certainly can reach his audience. Judging by your post he knows his audience well.
jjlynn27 said:
PH XKR said:
The Trump situation is about bloody time. The press has got away for years by posting up absolute bullst stories hiding behind "sources". The free press is anything but free or without agenda, I find it brilliant that Trump can just tell the press to do one as he can reach his audience without them.
Yes, those lefties quoting 'sources'.He certainly can reach his audience. Judging by your post he knows his audience well.
PH XKR said:
The Trump situation is about bloody time. The press has got away for years by posting up absolute bullst stories hiding behind "sources". The free press is anything but free or without agenda, I find it brilliant that Trump can just tell the press to do one as he can reach his audience without them.
I think banning certain news outlets from your briefings because of "fake news" (which most anonymously-sourced articles in reputable outlets most definitely are not), and then allowing openly one-eyed organisations like Fox and Breitbart to cover them, is just utterly stupid.I am what you'd term a conservative, and was prepared to give Trump the benefit of the doubt at the start, but everything - pretty much everything - he has done since inauguration has convinced me the man is just a fool who has somehow found himself in the White House.
Fittster said:
Why do people how claim to support free speech use PH?
The terms and conditions of this site don't allow hate speech.
"to disseminate any material which is or may infringe the rights (including intellectual property rights) of any third party or be unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy, which may cause annoyance or inconvenience or may restrict or inhibit the use of the Website by any person or which constitutes or encourages conduct that may be considered a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability in any country in the world;"
Blasphemy not allowed?! Why should Pistonheads be at all concerned it PHers believe the bible's a fairy story? Banning blasphemy effectively stamps out any discussion about the merits of religion and is, as you say, the opposite of free speechThe terms and conditions of this site don't allow hate speech.
"to disseminate any material which is or may infringe the rights (including intellectual property rights) of any third party or be unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, indecent, offensive, pornographic, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory, menacing, scandalous, inflammatory, blasphemous, in breach of confidence, in breach of privacy, which may cause annoyance or inconvenience or may restrict or inhibit the use of the Website by any person or which constitutes or encourages conduct that may be considered a criminal offence or give rise to civil liability in any country in the world;"
Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 28th February 11:38
amancalledrob said:
Blasphemy not allowed?! Why should Pistonheads be at all concerned it PHers believe the bible's a fairy story? Banning blasphemy effectively stamps out any discussion about the merits of religion and is, as you say, the opposite of free speech
Those "rules" are just junk anyway, if you enforced them rigidly then you couldn't essentially post anything.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff