Freedom (Subject to terms and conditions)

I don't know why I've picked up on so many things from the Guardian recently. They just make it so easy, I guess
They don't half publish some rubbish. The country would be a lot better place without the Gurdian and it's writers, in my opinion. But I don't want them to be banned. They have a right to talk clptrap and we have a right to disagree. Like I'm about to
Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever
Typical left wing double speak. Free speach means free, not regulated. Apart from the obvious liable and incitement to violence, people should be allowed to voice their own opinions, no matter who chooses to take offence
Responses to the assault on Salman Rushdie have combined personal sympathy with a general defence of free speech. Sympathy should come first. The second remains controversial. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but what of “words can never hurt you”? Witness the Iranian government’s blaming of Rushdie himself and his supporters. It is he, not Iran, that lies hurt.
The author takes the Salman Rushdies incident and uses it to defend free speach in his own limited way.  He then goes on to blame anonymous users on social media for causing harms, particulary baying mobs such as we encounter on Twitter
The correct response to the Rushdie outrage is not just to plead for freedom of speech, but to ask what it really means and how it is to be sustained – and regulated
Social media is a fickle thing. If you're the type of person who chooses to take offence easily, it may not be for you, but there's always the option of black / ban

Getting rid of online anonymity is not the answer to some people making arses of themselves and some people taking offence

Free speach is not free if it's regulated


Frank said...

Bucko said...

Anonymous said...

Bucko said...