EU prepared to cut off free speech...

[ZedLeg]

mybrainhurts said:

There was a proposal to make any criticism of the EU a criminal offence in the EU a year or two ago.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't. Iirc that story was another fabrication based on one case of an economist being fired for writing a book bashing EU economic policy.

[mybrainhurts]

ZedLeg said:

mybrainhurts said:

There was a proposal to make any criticism of the EU a criminal offence in the EU a year or two ago.

I'm pretty sure there wasn't. Iirc that story was another fabrication based on one case of an economist being fired for writing a book bashing EU economic policy.

Yes, you mean this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/...

After which, some EU loons called for an EU law to cover.

[TTwiggy]

mybrainhurts said:

There was a proposal to make any criticism of the EU a criminal offence in the EU a year or two ago.

The only story that vaguely seems to be connected to this is 16 years old. So I'm guessing there'll be plenty of examples of people falling foul of this law for you to link to. It's been 16 years after all, surely someone must have been taken to court by now.

[SystemParanoia]

TTwiggy said:

mybrainhurts said:

There was a proposal to make any criticism of the EU a criminal offence in the EU a year or two ago.

The only story that vaguely seems to be connected to this is 16 years old. So I'm guessing there'll be plenty of examples of people falling foul of this law for you to link to. It's been 16 years after all, surely someone must have been taken to court by now.

It was struck from the record

Down the memory hole

[skyrover]

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.

I suppose that depends on who decides what is extremist.

Look at the Swedish example of vilifying and branding anyone as racist/extremist if they question the current attitude towards immigration.

[scherzkeks]

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.

They calling for similar things in the States as well. Free speech must be curtailed to protect us from "Nazis." We must ban anything and anyone presenting a contrary viewpoint, and never provide concrete evidence as to why they are "wrong" or "dangerous." The simple repetition of approved narratives and words is enough.

This will go down as one of the greatest propaganda efforts in history.

[John145]

skyrover 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.

I suppose that depends on who decides what is extremist.

Look at the Swedish example of vilifying and branding anyone as racist/extremist if they question the current attitude towards immigration.

It wasn't long ago Blair's government would have anyone complaining about immigration branded a racist.

Thankfully, Political Correctness wasn't legally binding.

[superlightr]

scherzkeks said:

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.

They calling for similar things in the States as well. Free speech must be curtailed to protect us from "Nazis." We must ban anything and anyone presenting a contrary viewpoint, and never provide concrete evidence as to why they are "wrong" or "dangerous." The simple repetition of approved narratives and words is enough.

This will go down as one of the greatest propaganda efforts in history.

I think man made climate change and the taxing thereof will. I recall there being a motion to set the climate theory as 'settled' and thus blocking discussion or dissenting voices on that as well.

Always a scary prospect when one side of an argument wants to legally stop further discussion or views they don't like or agree with.

[otolith]

Atomic12C said:

Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.

Whatever else they are, the people supporting this are not liberal. Nor even politically astute. Attempting to no-platform democratically elected speakers in a democratic chamber because you don't like the views they have been elected to represent is (a) a horribly dangerous precedent (b) an affront to democracy and (c) only likely to encourage their supporters to seek alternative expressions of their views.

[otolith]

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.

Belief in the freedom of expression does not extend to a belief that one has a right to say anything one wishes on someone else's privately owned web forum.

[ZedLeg]

otolith said:

Atomic12C said:

Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.

Whatever else they are, the people supporting this are not liberal. Nor even politically astute. Attempting to no-platform democratically elected speakers in a democratic chamber because you don't like the views they have been elected to represent is (a) a horribly dangerous precedent (b) an affront to democracy and (c) only likely to encourage their supporters to seek alternative expressions of their views.

They haven't said they'll do that. They've only said they won't broadcast it, there's nothing about them actually stopping them talking. Unless I've missed something?

[otolith]

ZedLeg said:

otolith said:

Atomic12C said:

Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.

Whatever else they are, the people supporting this are not liberal. Nor even politically astute. Attempting to no-platform democratically elected speakers in a democratic chamber because you don't like the views they have been elected to represent is (a) a horribly dangerous precedent (b) an affront to democracy and (c) only likely to encourage their supporters to seek alternative expressions of their views.

They haven't said they'll do that. They've only said they won't broadcast it, there's nothing about them actually stopping them talking. Unless I've missed something?

Restricting the broadcast is more than problematic enough. The electorate is entitled to see the candidate they elected expressing the position they voted for. They need not only to be represented but to see that they are represented.

[Mrr T]

otolith said:

Atomic12C said:

Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.

Whatever else they are, the people supporting this are not liberal. Nor even politically astute. Attempting to no-platform democratically elected speakers in a democratic chamber because you don't like the views they have been elected to represent is (a) a horribly dangerous precedent (b) an affront to democracy and (c) only likely to encourage their supporters to seek alternative expressions of their views.

Before you start frothing. At the moment the rule is only being discussed it’s not even been passed.

What do you think would happen if a UK MP said the same type of thing in the HOC. I would take a bet the speaker would suspend the session and if the MP did not stop have them forcibly removed from the chamber. The speaker has the right to do all these things.

[SKP555]

Who are they trying to protect? From what?

[wc98]

ZedLeg said:

hyphen said:

ZedLeg said:

...
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.

Its not 'people' as in the general public is it? its elected MEP's. They already have a code of conduct set out, and penalty procedures in place. Farage's viral speeches on Youtube have been seen by millions across the EU, and this is what they seem to be addressing.

This is outrageous stuff, glad we are out soon.

the article said:

But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.

"There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate," said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backed the new rule.

"What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: 'Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It's broad, it's live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let's use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'

So they've updated the rules to reflect how they think their system is being used/abused.

I don't think Farage actually turns up for work enough for it to affect him.

better to let them speak and be judged on what they say by the people best placed to do that, the public. a recent example would be claims made by paul nuttall or people representing him contributing to his non election in stoke.

[otolith]

Mrr T said:

otolith said:

Atomic12C said:

Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.

Whatever else they are, the people supporting this are not liberal. Nor even politically astute. Attempting to no-platform democratically elected speakers in a democratic chamber because you don't like the views they have been elected to represent is (a) a horribly dangerous precedent (b) an affront to democracy and (c) only likely to encourage their supporters to seek alternative expressions of their views.

Before you start frothing. At the moment the rule is only being discussed it’s not even been passed.

What do you think would happen if a UK MP said the same type of thing in the HOC. I would take a bet the speaker would suspend the session and if the MP did not stop have them forcibly removed from the chamber. The speaker has the right to do all these things.

Why are you holding up the HoC as an alternative model of perfection?

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

Before you start frothing. At the moment the rule is only being discussed it’s not even been passed.

Sure it's perfectly OK for euber-muppets to entertain the possibility

Voters are rejecting failed left-liberalism and these clowns bury their heads in discussions around censorship.

They'd do better to contemplate the failure and rejection of their bankrupt ideology.

[SKP555]

turbobloke said:

Sure it's perfectly OK for euber-muppets to entertain the possibility

Voters are rejecting failed left-liberalism and these clowns bury their heads in discussions around censorship.

They'd do better to contemplate the failure and rejection of their bankrupt ideology.

I think they have contemplated it. And decided that the problem is discussing it.

[markcoznottz]

otolith said:

Atomic12C said:

Big concerns over a move planned by the EU to cut off free speech from non-liberal-left view points.

Whatever else they are, the people supporting this are not liberal. Nor even politically astute. Attempting to no-platform democratically elected speakers in a democratic chamber because you don't like the views they have been elected to represent is (a) a horribly dangerous precedent (b) an affront to democracy and (c) only likely to encourage their supporters to seek alternative expressions of their views.

Which is exactly what's happened.....cue lots of open mouths from the PPE crowd....

[turbobloke]

SKP555 said:

turbobloke said:

Sure it's perfectly OK for euber-muppets to entertain the possibility

Voters are rejecting failed left-liberalism and these clowns bury their heads in discussions around censorship.

They'd do better to contemplate the failure and rejection of their bankrupt ideology.

I think they have contemplated it. And decided that the problem is discussing it.

I think I SWYM.

The EU has already made its fascist principles clear when pursuing and nailing an ex-eurocrat under the monstrous principle of seditious libel.

This disallows critical comments that indicate the many failings of the EU and the more these comments are truthful the worse the crime of seditious libel gets. More truth = more crime.

This is a matter of record not contemplation or discussion.

Isn't the EU just a wonderful thing to behold