More neo liberal free speech double standards

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

Previous topic | Next topic

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 12:20 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

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

You have any evidence?

You don't have to be a crash scene expert, even a policeman with basic train can tell if a vehicle has collided with another, and ran it down.

The reality is the car when into the side of the tunnel. That is the nature of the crash.

I have been driven by driver with security training, which is what royalty, and politicians are used to. There is no way they would allow a scooter to dominate to extent that hey loose control of the vehicle.

You are saying that the photographers side-swiped or executed a PIT manoeuvre, however these would leave evidence behind. You would be able to do this on a scooter.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 12:42 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

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

If you ever drove with someone riding your bumper you'd understand. Still should have just ignored them.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 1:33 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

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

Isn't this board in the US?

"Race" is a protected class. In the US, you cannot refuse service to someone on account of their race -- if you do, you are going to lose in court unless you can convince the court that race had nothing to do with it. There is no reason why this wouldn't also apply to forums like this.

You also cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. Make this site exclusively for men and it is very likely that government would come after it.

There are quite a few protected classes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Discrimination based on disability is outlawed by the Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

There are other protected classes in addition to those examples mentioned above.

Some states may have protected classes in addition to those established by the federal government. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law, but I think that it is a protected class under the law of some states.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 3:09 pm

I'm not an expert on US law, but I suspect that the scope you can use that law in this case, is fairly strict and limited. Also the burden of proof would be high.

There is no exchange, WP doesn't guarantee a service. It provides a privilege.

If a site like stomfront, want get rid of members who don't support the white nationalist movement because of their race, would they be prevented from doing so?

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 3:12 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

If you ever drove with someone riding your bumper you'd understand. Still should have just ignored them.

So they didn't run them over...

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 6:30 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

You might be surprised at the extent to which discrimination laws are enforced in the US.

For example, in Colorado where sexual preference is a protected class, two gay men went to a cake shop to buy a wedding cake for their wedding reception. The owner of the store declined to sell them a cake for a gay wedding ceremony because of his religious beliefs. The two gay men complained to the state and in a hearing, the state of Colorado determined that the owner of the store was breaking the law.

I understand that there have been a number of such cases and that the judges have overwhelmingly ruled against those who objected on religious grounds.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 6:58 pm

eric76 wrote:

Wasn't there a guy that was refused an anti-gay wedding cake? He attempted to take legal action.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

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

30 Jan 2015, 8:41 pm

eric76 wrote:

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.

More to the point, the BBC is a brand that every British television owner is legally obliged to pay for whether they want to or not.

As such, their paying customers include those that don't regard Boyle as a 'bozo'.

_________________
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

31 Jan 2015, 3:35 am

thomas81 wrote:

As such, their paying customers include those that don't regard Boyle as a 'bozo'.

Why should Boyle get special treatment?

Channel 4 gets public grants, and they have him willingly.

In fact as I said, there is no evidence the Boyle is 'sacked' from the BBC. He was never employed by them in the first place, he spent years. His show didn't get made, like countless others. That is part of TV.

Also it is laughable if you think there are no comedians that make fun of the Queen on the BBC.

Go to the US, the advertiser have massive sway on the networks. There is no way that Bolye show would ever get made let alone aired, except on subscription like HBO. Network shows are much tamer, than some of the stuff aimed on the BBC.

It is interesting that we have channels funded by advertising, but don't have the same sensitivity.

But back to the original question. Is it to do wit freedom of speech? Nope.

Sigbold
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,933
Location: Netherlands

31 Jan 2015, 5:10 am

ruveyn wrote:

Short of the above you are free to say or right anything that you wish.

Strange, I do remember reading that the US also has laws against slander.

The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

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

31 Jan 2015, 5:10 pm

thomas81 wrote:

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.

Neoliberals in the UK (and indeed abroad, as seen in this thread) are generally opposed to the existence of the BBC. A publicly-owned service is not neoliberal.

Boyle spent years mocking the Queen on MTW, and that show still targets prominent royals, as far as I know. HIGNFY certainly does. Stewart Lee, QI, Live At The Apollo - all the shows sometimes contain republican comedy.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

31 Jan 2015, 6:16 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

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

This is true. I was banned from WP for most of today. I would be harrumphing if I hadn't previously seen people complaining about some sort of auto-ban bug in the new software. Now I'm back after my 6 hour hiatus so I guess the software decided to unban me.

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

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

31 Jan 2015, 6:40 pm

Janissy wrote:

Sometimes you can share an exit node (IP Address) of a proxy like Tor, that was already banned. Don't take it personally.

This happens with dynamic IP. You can usually get static IP from your ISP. This would avoid this problem, but if you do get banned for real that IP will often be blocked.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

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

31 Jan 2015, 6:44 pm

0_equals_true wrote:

Janissy wrote:

I have a block of 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 IP addresses to use. Obviously, that is an IPv6 block which, I don't think, WP is set up to handle.

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

Jump to:

More neo liberal free speech double standards Post Reply New Topic

More neo liberal free speech double standards