Firm Apologises For Daily Mail Ad.
Discussion
Norfolkit said:
Derek Smith said:
Puggit said:
Still annoyed with them for bowing down to the hate group that is trying to curtail free speech.
I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
How is an unelected, unregulated, unanswerable, self appointed arbiter of what's acceptable as free speech not a threat to free speech.
Who defines free speech, them?
A bit of a fun group? Any group with a political agenda and the self appointed power to try to shut down free speech should never be that lightly dismissed.
"If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.". Pot, kettle, black, they are trying to curtail free speech so they can't really argue if they get a bit of attention along the same lines. The real answer is, stop trying to control free speech then you get the same privilege.
A free press is an absolute must in any democratic country, these people disagree, maybe they don't believe in democracy (unless it's doing exactly what they want).
Curtail freedom of the press at extreme peril, they're one of the few safeguards you've got against a government going mental.
“I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.” is as valid today as it ever was.
If you disagree with someone's point of view, shoot them down with a reasoned argument, do not ever deny them their right to say what their point of view is, argue, persuade, reason but do not deny, that way lies totalitarianism.
Some people make quotes that last generations... in this respect Thomas Jefferson was spot on.
'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'
Virgin are moaning about the Mail being anti immigration, anti LGBT rights etc yet they have no problem doing business in countries where you can be killed for being gay and where they treat immigrant labourers as slaves.
They’re quite happy to put their ‘values and beliefs’ to one side then.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
They’re quite happy to put their ‘values and beliefs’ to one side then.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
The Daily Mail was probably not what Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of a newspaper. The Mail should not be suppressed, because hate speech is a price to be paid for free speech, but it is not part of a responsible body of media that help hold government accountable. It's a propagator of ignorance and fear and a sower of division, owned and run by people with contempt for democracy. Campaigns to reduce the Mail's advertising revenue aren't attacks on free speech.
As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
Breadvan72 said:
The Daily Mail was probably not what Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of a newspaper. The Mail should not be suppressed, because hate speech is a price to be paid for free speech, but it is not part of a responsible body of media that help hold government accountable. It's a propagator of ignorance and fear and a sower of division, owned and run by people with contempt for democracy. Campaigns to reduce the Mail's advertising revenue aren't attacks on free speech.
As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
'Twas ever thus...As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
Yipper said:
Branson is your classic left-wing two-faced maniac.
Do as he says, not as he does.
Pay your taxes to fund the EU empire, while living outside the EU in a Caribbean tax haven...
Branson is not a popular man with the left at the moment.Do as he says, not as he does.
Pay your taxes to fund the EU empire, while living outside the EU in a Caribbean tax haven...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/29/ri...
otolith said:
Branson is not a popular man with the left at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/29/ri...
Indeed.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/29/ri...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/business/billionaire-...
Yipper said:
Branson is your classic left-wing two-faced maniac.
Do as he says, not as he does.
Pay your taxes to fund the EU empire, while living outside the EU in a Caribbean tax haven...
So he’s in the Caribbean. He can restrict press whose views he deplores. Nobody will not use his trains as a result.Do as he says, not as he does.
Pay your taxes to fund the EU empire, while living outside the EU in a Caribbean tax haven...
I bet he’s very concerned about the far left or the far right who are so angry
andy_s said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Daily Mail was probably not what Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of a newspaper. The Mail should not be suppressed, because hate speech is a price to be paid for free speech, but it is not part of a responsible body of media that help hold government accountable. It's a propagator of ignorance and fear and a sower of division, owned and run by people with contempt for democracy. Campaigns to reduce the Mail's advertising revenue aren't attacks on free speech.
As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
'Twas ever thus...As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
JagLover said:
andy_s said:
Breadvan72 said:
The Daily Mail was probably not what Jefferson had in mind when he spoke of a newspaper. The Mail should not be suppressed, because hate speech is a price to be paid for free speech, but it is not part of a responsible body of media that help hold government accountable. It's a propagator of ignorance and fear and a sower of division, owned and run by people with contempt for democracy. Campaigns to reduce the Mail's advertising revenue aren't attacks on free speech.
As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
'Twas ever thus...As for Branson, he will do anything for a buck.
I think there must be more vitriol and offended people in this nation today than at any other time in its history.
Ah, history, that ol' thing. We keep being told on here to 'read some'. Well, if history tells us all something important it is this: it depends entirely upon 'who' is relating that history.
Nasty rag and seems like some good free PR for Virgin as most people can't choose the train they travel on so if all they sold was the Mail and the Morning Star you're still going on the same train.
Talk of censorship seems daft, it's one company choosing not to do business with another which happens all the time.
Talk of censorship seems daft, it's one company choosing not to do business with another which happens all the time.
dandarez said:
I think there must be more vitriol and offended people in this nation today than at any other time in its history.
Without a doubt, never known anything like it.I think Twitter is the number one cause of it all,why anyone would bother with it is beyond me.
Never known so many offended people who seem to have some sort power in one place.
(Then again, its catching up here).
JagLover said:
A biased press was certainly present in the time of Jefferson, as pro Adams and pro Jefferson papers slugged it out. But he made his comment regardless and that is because media representing all viewpoints are an essential part of a properly functioning democracy.
Of course it was, but I suspect that Jefferson might have been concerned by the distorting effect on democracy of billionaire controlled mass media pumping out lies and stirring up hatreds. The Mail is a long way beyond Grub Street. Funkycoldribena said:
dandarez said:
I think there must be more vitriol and offended people in this nation today than at any other time in its history.
Without a doubt, never known anything like it.I think Twitter is the number one cause of it all,why anyone would bother with it is beyond me.
Never known so many offended people who seem to have some sort power in one place.
(Then again, its catching up here).
Has it occurred to you that the unfettered access to social media we all take for granted has resulted in an environment where we can see something we find distasteful or disagreeable, comment accordingly and then move on to something else, giving it no more thought whatsoever in the blink of an eye.
Your posts for example, never so much as enter my head until such time as my eyeballs slide glazed, across them on here. And then it is but the matter of a few finger strokes to comment and move on.
I don’t think people are anything like as offended as you think. They just say when they disagree with something.
Disastrous said:
Why do you two always think people are so offended by things they don’t like?
Has it occurred to you that the unfettered access to social media we all take for granted has resulted in an environment where we can see something we find distasteful or disagreeable, comment accordingly and then move on to something else, giving it no more thought whatsoever in the blink of an eye.
Your posts for example, never so much as enter my head until such time as my eyeballs slide glazed, across them on here. And then it is but the matter of a few finger strokes to comment and move on.
I don’t think people are anything like as offended as you think. They just say when they disagree with something.
They don't just "say", they hound and pressure.Has it occurred to you that the unfettered access to social media we all take for granted has resulted in an environment where we can see something we find distasteful or disagreeable, comment accordingly and then move on to something else, giving it no more thought whatsoever in the blink of an eye.
Your posts for example, never so much as enter my head until such time as my eyeballs slide glazed, across them on here. And then it is but the matter of a few finger strokes to comment and move on.
I don’t think people are anything like as offended as you think. They just say when they disagree with something.
Many instances of companies being pressured,peoples posts being forwarded to their employers,etc
There's a vicious nastiness by one world twitter users to make life as miserable as possible for anyone who doesn't agree with their views.
Just this thread shows that.
Funkycoldribena said:
Disastrous said:
Why do you two always think people are so offended by things they don’t like?
Has it occurred to you that the unfettered access to social media we all take for granted has resulted in an environment where we can see something we find distasteful or disagreeable, comment accordingly and then move on to something else, giving it no more thought whatsoever in the blink of an eye.
Your posts for example, never so much as enter my head until such time as my eyeballs slide glazed, across them on here. And then it is but the matter of a few finger strokes to comment and move on.
I don’t think people are anything like as offended as you think. They just say when they disagree with something.
They don't just "say", they hound and pressure.Has it occurred to you that the unfettered access to social media we all take for granted has resulted in an environment where we can see something we find distasteful or disagreeable, comment accordingly and then move on to something else, giving it no more thought whatsoever in the blink of an eye.
Your posts for example, never so much as enter my head until such time as my eyeballs slide glazed, across them on here. And then it is but the matter of a few finger strokes to comment and move on.
I don’t think people are anything like as offended as you think. They just say when they disagree with something.
Many instances of companies being pressured,peoples posts being forwarded to their employers,etc
There's a vicious nastiness by one world twitter users to make life as miserable as possible for anyone who doesn't agree with their views.
Just this thread shows that.
People have always objected to/been offended by/been targetted by the Daily Mail but now the media discourse is not in the hands of a few major print and TV groups. It's now easy to start and build a group like Stop Funding Hate and actually enact the change you wish. Bad ethics are less easily hidden these days and it's, rightfully, making companies more reactive and considerate, if only for commercial bottom-line, PR-related reasons.
Campaigning for DM advertisers to withdraw funding to the DM is not restricting free speech. The right to free speech only exists as far as the government/state is concerned. The DM is free to write and publish whatever reactionary, semi-fictional bilgewater it wants to but it should not be free from the consequences of doing so. If a consequence of that is a campaign to stop businesses funding the DM through advertising, and said businesses judge that it is in their commercial interests to do so, then that is just the combined wonders of a free press and a free market at work.
Right-wingers are usually all about 'ethical capitalism' where consumers provide their own regulatory force by refusing to do business with immoral or unethical companies, or where a company's practises are restricted by the spectre of bad publicity. That's all that's at work here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff