the trial of free speech, without media/public access

[Herman 9,780]

It's still there Purple. I'm trying to bump it up page 1 but to no avail.😀

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Do you mean news stories or people posting their opinions on the news of the day? The reality is that there is more freedom of speech for more people, both as an absoute number and as a percentage, than at any time in the history of the world.  And if people find they cannot get their views across via the established media and social sites all they have to do is set up their own website and say absolutely anything they like.

I am a complete techno-idiot but even I managed to set up a website about ten years ago (as it happens to explain Cullumgate) and it cost me something like five dollars a month to keep it going. I actually haven't looked at for some years but it is out there for anyone anywhere in the world with access to a computer to read.

I don't do the social media but many of the complaints I have seen recently (such zapping pro-Trump stuff) miss the point, by treating these sites as some kind of public service to which everyone is entitled. They are not that. They are businesses that have a perfect right to run themselves as they see fit, and if people find that unsatisfactory then they have the solution of creating their own outlet.

Except they don't have the solutions you suggest because host server providers are also pulling websites and even domain registration sites are under pressure to remove websites so that they are completely removed from the internet. Whoever controls the domain servers controls the internet. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

15 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Do you mean news stories or people posting their opinions on the news of the day? The reality is that there is more freedom of speech for more people, both as an absoute number and as a percentage, than at any time in the history of the world.  And if people find they cannot get their views across via the established media and social sites all they have to do is set up their own website and say absolutely anything they like.

I am a complete techno-idiot but even I managed to set up a website about ten years ago (as it happens to explain Cullumgate) and it cost me something like five dollars a month to keep it going. I actually haven't looked at for some years but it is out there for anyone anywhere in the world with access to a computer to read.

I don't do the social media but many of the complaints I have seen recently (such zapping pro-Trump stuff) miss the point, by treating these sites as some kind of public service to which everyone is entitled. They are not that. They are businesses that have a perfect right to run themselves as they see fit, and if people find that unsatisfactory then they have the solution of creating their own outlet.

Exactly. It is a glorious paradox that many of those who would gladly say that a baker should not bake a cake for a gay wedding if it contravenes their beliefs are whinging nonsensically about a private company exercising what can be done on their platform.

The question is, do you want private bodies or government exercising censorship?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Censoreship of journalists who report war crimes and or show us what the real discourse between states look like, should never happen. Unless you want voters as a side to your main dish of top down indoctrination, currently under emergency rules that allow the police to break into your home on the back of a curtain twitcher's phone call.

I know it is a soon Independent Scotland currently run by a cabal, but as yet its still a disunited Kingdom. Do not enjoy this video, if you can't stand screaming children, watching whilst having their mum arrested, do not watch it.

https://twitter.com/CountDankulaTV/status/1347246304401960961

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

13 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly. It is a glorious paradox that many of those who would gladly say that a baker should not bake a cake for a gay wedding if it contravenes their beliefs are whinging nonsensically about a private company exercising what can be done on their platform.

The question is, do you want private bodies or government exercising censorship?

You call them social media 'platforms' but their behaviour suggests that by choosing what can and cannot appear they are acting as publishers. The distinction is not an academic one. 

If they are publishers then they are responsible for the content being published and are therefore liable for anything defamatory that appears. 

Social media owners want their cake and eat it. They should be made to choose what they are: platform means no censoring or editing of content. Publisher means responsible for content but can edit. 

Of course, since BigTech has backed Biden, this will not happen. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

24 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You call them social media 'platforms' but their behaviour suggests that by choosing what can and cannot appear they are acting as publishers. The distinction is not an academic one. 

If they are publishers then they are responsible for the content being published and are therefore liable for anything defamatory that appears. 

Social media owners want their cake and eat it. They should be made to choose what they are: platform means no censoring or editing of content. Publisher means responsible for content but can edit. 

Of course, since BigTech has backed Biden, this will not happen. 

Which is not relevant as the whole crux is about acting in accordance with personal beliefs. I think it's silly that people use "God" as a means to deny service, but if that's their wish, I warmly recommend using the free market to get another supplier.

Same goes to those who have issues with Twitter, FB, etc. If you really don't like it, get off it and found your own.

Edited January 11, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[PurpleCanary 5,563]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Which is not relevant as the whole crux is about acting in accordance with personal beliefs. I think it's silly that people use "God" as a means to deny service, but if that's their wish, I warmly recommend using the free market to get another supplier.

Same goes to those who have issues with Twitter, FB, etc. If you really don't like it, get off it and found your own.

Absolutely. There is a confusion here with some of those claiming this is all an attack on free speech. Probably not surprising since Trump supporters in general and those who specifically have been trying to stage a coup d'etat don't appear to be the brightest.

There is a right in a democracy to free speech and people can (and often seem to) say absolutely anything they want. There may be legal consequences in some cases, with laws to do with defamation, or racial hatred, or copyright, but one assumes people understand that risk and are willing to suffer those consequences.

What there is not is a right to have that right to free speech enabled for you. There is no requirement for the government to facilitate free speech for people. That – horror of horrors – would be socialised social media, and we know what Trumpistas think of socialised anything (while not seeing the contradiction in loving their massive socialised military).

And not only is there no requirement for private companies to facilitate that right for all; there is no requirement for such companies even to exist to facilitate it for anyone. And as you say if some Trumpistas find themselves banned they can always form their own company with their own money or touch up any one of several right-wing billionaires in the US - the likes of the Kochs or the Mercers, the latter having bankrolled Breitbart News into existence.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

7 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Which is not relevant as the whole crux is about acting in accordance with personal beliefs. I think it's silly that people use "God" as a means to deny service, but if that's their wish, I warmly recommend using the free market to get another supplier.

Same goes to those who have issues with Twitter, FB, etc. If you really don't like it, get off it and found your own.

The issue isn't that users don't like Twitter and want to get off it. The contrary is true, they want to remain on Twitter because of the enormous audience reach. The issue is that social media want to have the protection of being described as a 'platform' which means they can't be sued for content as they say content is out of their control, and yet at the same time they are picking and choosing what content is allowed and what isn't allowed, which means the social media companies are acting as publishers. If you think it is about the personal beliefs of the social media companies then they are not acting as mere platforms.

So in this regard social media companies must be held accountable for their content. If Breibart broadcasts libellous material they can be sued. If Youtube broadcasts libellous material then they should be liable in exactly the same way as Breibart can be.

[PurpleCanary 5,563]

14 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The issue is that social media want to have the protection of being described as a 'platform' which means they can't be sued for content as they say content is out of their control, and yet at the same time they are picking and choosing what content is allowed and what isn't allowed, which means the social media companies are acting as publishers. If you think it is about the personal beliefs of the social media companies then they are not acting as mere platforms.

So in this regard social media companies must be held accountable for their content. If Breibart broadcasts libellous material they can be sued. If Youtube broadcasts libellous material then they should be liable in exactly the same way as Breibart can be.

Yes.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I am also torn on what is and isn't good or even necessary for the public domain.

This is the only social media I use. And even now I have gone past what I wanted from it and that is, as an ex pat, to discuss NCFC.

So I can see the benefits of the world knowing what my neighbour did on his holiday to the nuclear codes of the US. But I can also see the misfortune that could occur.

Who judges what is fit and isn't for consumption?

Of course Governments believe they are the guardians but Government policy changes as do those upholding it.

Whatever, I am sure we would all love to know more than we know now.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

The issue isn't that users don't like Twitter and want to get off it. The contrary is true, they want to remain on Twitter because of the enormous audience reach. The issue is that social media want to have the protection of being described as a 'platform' which means they can't be sued for content as they say content is out of their control, and yet at the same time they are picking and choosing what content is allowed and what isn't allowed, which means the social media companies are acting as publishers. If you think it is about the personal beliefs of the social media companies then they are not acting as mere platforms.

So in this regard social media companies must be held accountable for their content. If Breibart broadcasts libellous material they can be sued. If Youtube broadcasts libellous material then they should be liable in exactly the same way as Breibart can be.

Same applies, if they think Twitter is treating them badly due to the beliefs of the owners, then go and found their own. This is precisely how a free market works. As @PurpleCanary said, the likes of Breitbart also have big backers pushing them, and certainly the right-wing media in the UK all have big money behind them.

All social media platforms set general conditions for use, so adhere to them.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Free speech has been replaced with feeding the public excerts of press releases and or celebrity memos from agents. Investigative journalism is almost dead, my reason to post the articles of investigative journalism by Craig Murray, he sat in court for 21 days and penned down most that was said in shorthand..

He was very careful not to name any of the alleged victims in the Salmon trial, still the courts are accusing him of 'jigsaw identification' and want to prosecute him for alleged contempt of court.  A jury of majority women found him not guilty and these alleged victims have perjured themselves. But rather than opening proceedings into those who genuinely want to pervert the courts of justice, they are going for the journalist who reported on the trial for contempt of court.

Another journalist Mark Hirst, who also was writing about this case, had visits from the police, had all his computers and laptops removed , and now after he has 'no case to answer', having his case dismissed, not that we hear much about it in our MSM,, he is still waiting to get his 'tools' back so he can carry on writing.

Hopefully Craigs case will also be dismissed as the focus shifts to Nicola Sturgeon who's presentation to the Scottish Parliamentary  inquiry into this case, diametrically opposed the presentation of her husband Mr. Murrell, one can but hope.

IMHO it is vital that we look after truth speakers such as Julian and Craig, increasingly journalists are jailed around the world as right wing politics are spreading fast. We have to have some lights that shine into the deep state darkness, as it stands we are marching lock step into a 1984 situation, some say we are already there.

 

This is the day when Vanessa Baraitser showed her greatest contempt for Assange. She has played with his emotions and twisted them to her bosses liking. Pardon if I have already posted this.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/both-tortuous-and-torturous/

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 12/01/2021 at 10:07, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

Free speech has been replaced with feeding the public excerts of press releases and or celebrity memos from agents. Investigative journalism is almost dead, my reason to post the articles of investigative journalism by Craig Murray, he sat in court for 21 days and penned down most that was said in shorthand..

He was very careful not to name any of the alleged victims in the Salmon trial, still the courts are accusing him of 'jigsaw identification' and want to prosecute him for alleged contempt of court.  A jury of majority women found him not guilty and these alleged victims have perjured themselves. But rather than opening proceedings into those who genuinely want to pervert the courts of justice, they are going for the journalist who reported on the trial for contempt of court.

Another journalist Mark Hirst, who also was writing about this case, had visits from the police, had all his computers and laptops removed , and now after he has 'no case to answer', having his case dismissed, not that we hear much about it in our MSM,, he is still waiting to get his 'tools' back so he can carry on writing.

Hopefully Craigs case will also be dismissed as the focus shifts to Nicola Sturgeon who's presentation to the Scottish Parliamentary  inquiry into this case, diametrically opposed the presentation of her husband Mr. Murrell, one can but hope.

IMHO it is vital that we look after truth speakers such as Julian and Craig, increasingly journalists are jailed around the world as right wing politics are spreading fast. We have to have some lights that shine into the deep state darkness, as it stands we are marching lock step into a 1984 situation, some say we are already there.

 

This is the day when Vanessa Baraitser showed her greatest contempt for Assange. She has played with his emotions and twisted them to her bosses liking. Pardon if I have already posted this.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/both-tortuous-and-torturous/

Agree with you that it is appalling how the state handles cases like these. We are obviously both Libertarians who see the need to check the authoritarian nature of the state. I would ask you to reconsider whether this is happening because of the march of right-wing politics across the world. For example, Sturgeon and her Scottish enclave are not of the right and they are both driving this witch-hunt of Salmond. And in the case of Assange let's see if the US under Biden drops request for extradition. I'm aware that Biden is very much a Centrist, but there is a strong left-leaning element in his support that needs attention and it would be at small cost to drop charges. But I don't think the left in the US will be demanding his release as Assange's big problem is that he doesn't have much value to either side any more. What you are saying about 1984 is both very disturbing and very true.