More neo liberal free speech double standards

Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Jan 2015, 12:12 pm

Its fine to mock mohammed but not the british royal family.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc- ... r_facebook

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

29 Jan 2015, 12:23 pm

:lol:

How is this:

1) Anything to do with neo-liberals?
2) Anything to do with free speech?

Tony Blair hasn't suggested Boyle be shot, has he?

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Jan 2015, 12:32 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

:lol:

How is this:

1) Anything to do with neo-liberals?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

tldr; version neo liberalism is the purveying set of ideas that set the narrative for almost all western governments bar none hence the crocodile tears and procession of western leaders marching through the streets of Paris led by a gleeful Netanyahu in the wake of Charlie Hedbo.

The_Walrus wrote:

2) Anything to do with free speech?

Tony Blair hasn't suggested Boyle be shot, has he?

How is it not to do with free speech? Boyle has made some jestful remarks and someone decided he needs shut down.

Whether or not someone believes he should be killed is a moot point, the point is someone in the western media circle that champion free speech have decided that under certain narratives people deserve to be protected from some views. So why are devout muslims less deserving of the same protection?

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

29 Jan 2015, 6:32 pm

As I stared here and here

this argument is invalid.

It is based on common misconception of what freedom of speech actually is.

The Beeb is not required to provide a voice for Boyle, and a proxy is not a right.

I also don't get what it has to do with neo-liberalism. Wouldn't Netanyahu be a neo-con?

Most government are centrist and populist.

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

29 Jan 2015, 7:59 pm

Freedom of speech means that nobody can stop you expressing your views. It does not mean that others are obliged to provide you with a platform or even to listen to what you say.

There are contradictions inherent in any more-or-less representative government operating a media outlet, especially an entertainment outlet. The solution is not to abandon all standards, nor to favor one view at the expense of others, but to discontinue the government's subsidy and control of the outlet.

_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2015, 8:14 pm

luan78zao wrote:

Speech that foments an insurrection, a riot or a panic or a lynch mob is not legally protected.

Short of the above you are free to say or right anything that you wish. We have no laws in the US (I am glad to say) the forbids writing or speech that demeans or insults or humiliates people. People's feelings are not protected by law.

ruveyn

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

30 Jan 2015, 7:44 am

luan78zao wrote:

There are contradictions inherent in any more-or-less representative government operating a media outlet, especially an entertainment outlet. The solution is not to abandon all standards, nor to favor one view at the expense of others, but to discontinue the government's subsidy and control of the outlet.

The government doesn't not run the BBC, the BBC is not allowed to represent the government. The government and opposition are regularly questioned by the BBC.

The BBC operates under Royal Charter like the Bank of England, or most Universities.

The goverment cannot get rid of the licence fee without an act of Parliement.

Channel 4 is a broadcaster that is subidised by grants, and also get revenue through advertisng. Channel 4 doen't have to provide a full mix of programs like the BBC does, but it is expected to make some documentaries and edicational programs.

BBC Worldwide a company pays for a quarter of the BBCs budget.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

30 Jan 2015, 8:02 am

thomas81 wrote:

How is it not to do with free speech? Boyle has made some jestful remarks and someone decided he needs shut down.

The BBC is a brand. They don't need some bozo tarnishing that brand with their comments.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

30 Jan 2015, 10:15 am

eric76 wrote:

The BBC is a brand. They don't need some bozo tarnishing that brand with their comments.

The question was whether is a freedom of speech issue. The reason for the Beeb's decisions isn't really important for that question, this is simply a question of “is the Beeb's decision somehow violating Bolyle's freedom of speech?”.

Categorically it isn't, not under any legal jurisdiction. It is that simple.

In the same vain, if someone was banned on WP, their freedom of speech is not violated, because WP isn't legally required to publish their material, or have them as a member, and the are still free to say what they want, or self publish

There are many sites that don't allow public content, but as soon as there is one that is, people tend to forget very quickly that they have permission, not a right to post there. It is surprisingly common that people get mixed up on "freedom of speech", thinking it is about requiring someone else to carry their views.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

30 Jan 2015, 10:40 am

Ever since Princess Diana was run over by the paparazzi there's been a profound distaste for tabloidisms in the British mainstream.

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

30 Jan 2015, 12:00 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

These statements contradict each other. Any institution which operates under governmental charter, license, or other permission is subject to governmental control, even if indirectly – since the charter, license, or permission may at any time be withdrawn or revoked.

Here in the US any TV or radio station which airs material deemed "offensive" may be fined by the FCC, and the threat of losing their license is always present. We're still feeling the backlash from Janet Jackson's barely discernible boob.

By the way, when I lived in Asia I often listened to the BBC World Service on shortwave, and if that wasn't expressing the Official British View on issues, it was damn close to it.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

30 Jan 2015, 12:01 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Ever since Princess Diana was run over by the paparazzi there's been a profound distaste for tabloidisms in the British mainstream.

Princess Diana was not run over paparazzi. The driver was well over the limit. They may have ben persued by paparazzi on scooters. But there is not evidece of a colussion witha scooter, and a scooter can't really "run over" a merc.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

30 Jan 2015, 12:03 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

eric76 wrote:

The BBC is a brand. They don't need some bozo tarnishing that brand with their comments.

Quite true. I was merely pointing out that the BBC had good reason for their actions and that it didn't involve trampling on his rights.

Quote:

In the same vain, if someone was banned on WP, their freedom of speech is not violated, because WP isn't legally required to publish their material, or have them as a member, and the are still free to say what they want, or self publish

If they were banned from WP simply because they were a member of a protected class, I think that such a ban might be found to be illegal.

Quote:

There are many sites that don't allow public content, but as soon as there is one that is, people tend to forget very quickly that they have permission, not a right to post there. It is surprisingly common that people get mixed up on "freedom of speech", thinking it is about requiring someone else to carry their views.

Quite true.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

30 Jan 2015, 12:06 pm

The reality of this "incident" is Frankie made a pilot.

You can't "axe" a pilot. The whole point of a pilot is to see if you want to make it or not. The Beeb said no. Simple as that.

The BBC has said nothing about Frankie working for the Beeb.

David Mitchell was to star in it, and he appears on the Beeb all the time.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

30 Jan 2015, 12:08 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Ever since Princess Diana was run over by the paparazzi there's been a profound distaste for tabloidisms in the British mainstream.

Those photographers ran them down but they should have just pretended they weren't there.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

30 Jan 2015, 12:11 pm

eric76 wrote:

If they were banned from WP simply because they were a member of a protected class, I think that such a ban might be found to be illegal.

What do you mean "protected class", and under what law?

Anybody can be banned from WP, at any time and for any reason, or no reason. There is no legal status and membership is a privilege of the terms

Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

More neo liberal free speech double standards Post Reply New Topic

More neo liberal free speech double standards