FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Online safety bill
Online safety bill
Jump to: Newest in thread
Well it looks like the online safety bill is gonna try use its force against Joey Barton. We were warned.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/joey-barton-facing-government-and-legal-action-over-dangerous-social-media-posts/ar-AA1mH6MG?ocid=socialshare |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well it looks like the online safety bill is gonna try use its force against Joey Barton. We were warned.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/joey-barton-facing-government-and-legal-action-over-dangerous-social-media-posts/ar-AA1mH6MG?ocid=socialshare"
I'm confused. Isn't it the left that does cancel culture.
I have littl time for JB. I'm sure he opinies on referees despite never having refereed at a playing level. And his initial dig was actually missrepresenting what the commentator said irrc, so this whole campaign isn't even built on sand.
His latest tweet was just windmilling and actually removed autonomy from his fellow professional footballers. He also showed no knowledge of what was happening in the women's game when his great grandfather was fighting. There's a reasonable chance his ancestor would have watched a women's game with 50,000 others rather than trying to win a dick waving competition on twitter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well it looks like the online safety bill is gonna try use its force against Joey Barton. We were warned.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/joey-barton-facing-government-and-legal-action-over-dangerous-social-media-posts/ar-AA1mH6MG?ocid=socialshareI'm confused. Isn't it the left that does cancel culture.
I have littl time for JB. I'm sure he opinies on referees despite never having refereed at a playing level. And his initial dig was actually missrepresenting what the commentator said irrc, so this whole campaign isn't even built on sand.
His latest tweet was just windmilling and actually removed autonomy from his fellow professional footballers. He also showed no knowledge of what was happening in the women's game when his great grandfather was fighting. There's a reasonable chance his ancestor would have watched a women's game with 50,000 others rather than trying to win a dick waving competition on twitter. "
Regardless of opinion on JB surely we don't want government running to social media and attempting to have people censored for comments that they describe as 'dangerous'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well it looks like the online safety bill is gonna try use its force against Joey Barton. We were warned.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/joey-barton-facing-government-and-legal-action-over-dangerous-social-media-posts/ar-AA1mH6MG?ocid=socialshareI'm confused. Isn't it the left that does cancel culture.
I have littl time for JB. I'm sure he opinies on referees despite never having refereed at a playing level. And his initial dig was actually missrepresenting what the commentator said irrc, so this whole campaign isn't even built on sand.
His latest tweet was just windmilling and actually removed autonomy from his fellow professional footballers. He also showed no knowledge of what was happening in the women's game when his great grandfather was fighting. There's a reasonable chance his ancestor would have watched a women's game with 50,000 others rather than trying to win a dick waving competition on twitter.
Regardless of opinion on JB surely we don't want government running to social media and attempting to have people censored for comments that they describe as 'dangerous'."
totally agree.
Also MPs should be focussed on big issues. Not individuals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both."
100 % spot on mate .
For anyone who thinks this online safety bill is anything but an attempt to control what people can say , remember, today they might come for Joey Barton ,Tommy Robinson or Alex Jones , but tomorrow they will come for you and me.
Don't fall for the libe ots all about protecting children online ,that's bullshit .It's about all of us . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Regardless of opinion on JB surely we don't want government running to social media and attempting to have people censored for comments that they describe as 'dangerous'."
This is exactly the issue . This already happens, especially with Twitter posts or re-tweets . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both."
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?"
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
"
What about the freedom of non-bigots to answer back?
Or
People calling for violence etc?
Should these be allowed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A man stands on a busy high street. He shouts out to the passing crowd "Toddlers are evil, punch the first child you see!" Everyone walks past ignoring him, except one person who looks at the man, looks at a child and punches the kid. Is it the man who's shouting's fault?
Inciting to violence lays the blame on the person saying something and assuming that the person who ACTED on the words has no ability to control their own actions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?"
People get offended for so many reasons. Religious people get offended if you say gay marriages should be allowed in Church. How far do you want to go with arresting people for things which others find offensive? Or do you want this to only apply for the group of people you like/hate? The first amendment has clear exceptions for direct calls for violence and libel/slander, which is as far as it should get when it comes to governments interfering with our freedom of speech.
Anything more is authoritarian and liberals should be fighting against it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
What about the freedom of non-bigots to answer back?
Or
People calling for violence etc?
Should these be allowed?"
There are clear examples in first amendment for calls for violence.
As for answering back, go ahead. You have the right to do so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
"
It was a fundamental tenet of Western liberalism. And now it's the people who call themselves liberals who mostly want to curtail freedom of speech because it's "offensive". The conservatives are obviously pulled in to this under the "protecting the safety and security of people" excuse.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""you are free to say what you like, so long as I am free to punch you in the face for saying it"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. "
No one is calling for freedom from consequences. People are calling for Government to not get involved in private affairs. Twitter is a privately owned company so using the story I've used in the OP, if they wish to ban JB, fine, but it's not for Government to call on them to ban him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A man stands on a busy high street. He shouts out to the passing crowd "Toddlers are evil, punch the first child you see!" Everyone walks past ignoring him, except one person who looks at the man, looks at a child and punches the kid. Is it the man who's shouting's fault?
Inciting to violence lays the blame on the person saying something and assuming that the person who ACTED on the words has no ability to control their own actions. "
I don't think anyone is saying that it abdicates blame from the person who acted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""you are free to say what you like, so long as I am free to punch you in the face for saying it"
"
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"
"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. "
I don't know who started saying this lame quote. Freedom in political terms means freedom from consequence, especially any kind of government driven consequence. One can even say we have freedom to murder with a caveat that "freedom to murder doesn't mean freedom from consequence".
Freedom of speech means I should be able to speak anything I want without the government taking any action on me. If someone punches me for saying something he doesn't like, it's the violent act that's the crime, not my speech. Government should arrest the person who committed violence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""you are free to say what you like, so long as I am free to punch you in the face for saying it"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. "
Comparing noises you make with your mouth to physical assault isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""you are free to say what you like, so long as I am free to punch you in the face for saying it"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Comparing noises you make with your mouth to physical assault isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is "
That "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" statement is one of the lamest things I have read on the internet. It's insane that numerous people on the internet use that line without even knowing what it means. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
What about the freedom of non-bigots to answer back?
Or
People calling for violence etc?
Should these be allowed?
There are clear examples in first amendment for calls for violence.
As for answering back, go ahead. You have the right to do so."
I'm not familiar with the first amendment, does it protect the right for people to encourage violence through speech?
People do answer back bigots. Seems like bigots want to offend minorities, but then get ultra offended when they get called out on it.
Personally I'm in favour of free speech, but that has to include the freedom for normal people to answer back racists/bigots etc.
The only part I'm uncomfortable with, is calls for violence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""you are free to say what you like, so long as I am free to punch you in the face for saying it"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Comparing noises you make with your mouth to physical assault isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is
That "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" statement is one of the lamest things I have read on the internet. It's insane that numerous people on the internet use that line without even knowing what it means."
It’s a good line when it means “people aren’t gonna like you for saying shitty things and freedom of speech won’t change that”
As an excuse to commit violence? Get lost |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
What about the freedom of non-bigots to answer back?
Or
People calling for violence etc?
Should these be allowed?
There are clear examples in first amendment for calls for violence.
As for answering back, go ahead. You have the right to do so.
I'm not familiar with the first amendment, does it protect the right for people to encourage violence through speech?
People do answer back bigots. Seems like bigots want to offend minorities, but then get ultra offended when they get called out on it.
Personally I'm in favour of free speech, but that has to include the freedom for normal people to answer back racists/bigots etc.
The only part I'm uncomfortable with, is calls for violence. "
The word bigot being thrown around is an odd one, most of the people using the word, would probably fall under the definition of bigot themselves.
:a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
What about the freedom of non-bigots to answer back?
Or
People calling for violence etc?
Should these be allowed?
There are clear examples in first amendment for calls for violence.
As for answering back, go ahead. You have the right to do so.
I'm not familiar with the first amendment, does it protect the right for people to encourage violence through speech?
People do answer back bigots. Seems like bigots want to offend minorities, but then get ultra offended when they get called out on it.
Personally I'm in favour of free speech, but that has to include the freedom for normal people to answer back racists/bigots etc.
The only part I'm uncomfortable with, is calls for violence. "
Direct calls for violence is still illegal. So is libel/slander. But it allows you to criticise, mock any religion and burn any books.
People have the right to get offended. At the same time people have the right to say anything even if it offends other people. You obviously have the right to reply back and argue. I don't think any democratic country stops you from answering back to racists/bigots. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
It's part of the digital world, government and authorities control online, banking and industry.
Especially with currencies going digital, wasn't to long ago we had the farage and NATWEST fuck up.
If the state can do these type of things to multi millionaires with influence... what can they do to you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"UK seriously needs something like the first amendment. We need to get rid of the 2003 communications act, online safety bill and the 2006 racial/religious hatred act.
Politicians love taking away people's freedom of speech. Labour and Conservatives aren't any different in this regard. They just uses different excuses to do so. For labour or any left wing parties, it's to protect minorities from getting offended. For Tories or any right wing party, it's for the safety and security of people. Fuck them both.
Do you think it’s a human right to be able to offend someone?
I believe free speech is a basic human right ,which should NEVER be threatened. Once taken away , the government have got you exactly where they want you.
Where would it stop .?
Say something that offends the government and you get arrested ?
Say something that offends any religion and you get arrested ?
Do you want comedians arrested for offending someone ?
Free speech is the one thing that cannot ,and should not ever be allowed to be silenced .
What about the freedom of non-bigots to answer back?
Or
People calling for violence etc?
Should these be allowed?"
Please share your views, as you have the right to free speech.
I may not agree with your views, but I will fight for your right to air them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's part of the digital world, government and authorities control online, banking and industry.
Especially with currencies going digital, wasn't to long ago we had the farage and NATWEST fuck up.
If the state can do these type of things to multi millionaires with influence... what can they do to you? "
Exactly. It's frightening that some people seem happy to have what they can and can't say controlled by the government, just because it stops others offending someone else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's part of the digital world, government and authorities control online, banking and industry.
Especially with currencies going digital, wasn't to long ago we had the farage and NATWEST fuck up.
If the state can do these type of things to multi millionaires with influence... what can they do to you? "
is NatWest the state ?
Also the independent report said they saw it as lawful. Trouble is farage wasnt a multi millionaire. At least not with them !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73Man
over a year ago
in the sticks |
"It's part of the digital world, government and authorities control online, banking and industry.
Especially with currencies going digital, wasn't to long ago we had the farage and NATWEST fuck up.
If the state can do these type of things to multi millionaires with influence... what can they do to you? is NatWest the state ?
Also the independent report said they saw it as lawful. Trouble is farage wasnt a multi millionaire. At least not with them !
"
Well state owned to a degree 40 percent, and if I recall correctly there was a resignation and compensation. Plus an outcry leading to several others having the same treatment
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's part of the digital world, government and authorities control online, banking and industry.
Especially with currencies going digital, wasn't to long ago we had the farage and NATWEST fuck up.
If the state can do these type of things to multi millionaires with influence... what can they do to you? is NatWest the state ?
Also the independent report said they saw it as lawful. Trouble is farage wasnt a multi millionaire. At least not with them !
Well state owned to a degree 40 percent, and if I recall correctly there was a resignation and compensation. Plus an outcry leading to several others having the same treatment
"
We all know the real reason Nigel Farage was debanked. They are the same as all big businesses, they don't like having customers who have a different view than the mainstream. They would rather be seen as politically correct . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
