More neo liberal free speech double standards

Post Reply New Topic

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

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

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?

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.



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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.



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.



Quite true.

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.

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

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