Free Speech ?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Extreme racist comments posted on the discussion website Reddit in the wake of the Charleston church shooting have once again raised questions about freedom of speech and the internet. How far should social networks go in censoring hate speech? Reddit is arguably the mainstream social network most devoted to freedom of speech. It has continued to uphold that idea even in the face of criticism - for instance a controversy over a user who posted extreme content including a thread devoted to pictures of underage girls. The site didn't ban the user Violentacrez, but he did lose his job after his real identity was exposed by the website Gawker.

But the site's anti-censorship stance (or rather, its mostly anti-censorship stance - and more about that later) came under fire this week after reports surfaced of posts expressing support for the man charged with murdering nine worshipers in a black church in Charleston.
The posts were made under a thread or "subreddit" called Coontown - which, as the offensive name suggests, is a corner of Reddit made up mostly of virulently racist and white supremacist posts. One commenter called the shooter "one of us". In another popular post, a moderator said "we don't advocate violence here", but went on say the life of a black person "has no more value than the life of a flea or a tick" (most of the rest of the post, which contains at least 15 racial slurs, is unpublishable on this website).
 
hate speech
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
 
Aldo McTrotsky MP said:
Mindy yer kidden naibdy son. You're not interested in this poor huns civil liberties. You are just using his plight and this thread to bang on about the OBAF laws that you and your wee playpark pals hate because you canny celebrate yer Irish heritage cos of them an that.

It's ****ing bullshit. If the guy disne want to end up in court and jail then he disne sing sectarian songs simple as that. Here's the thing about any law. If you don't break them then you won't be arrested by and large.

Kudos to you for finding a new way to talk about your favourite subject though. Use a hun, like it.

This hun disne give a **** about that hun though. I don't know any hun who cares to be honest. I'm sure there are huns out there who do. Probably the wans that like a wee sing song down the lodge of a Saturday night.
Click to expand...

I'm not Irish

These songs weren't illegal until this act and there is a campaign to have it binned

If you think this is just about wee neds and I can't convince you otherwise then think thanks for the input
 
Mind The Duck said:
I'm not Irish

These songs weren't illegal until this act and there is a campaign to have it binned

If you think this is just about wee neds and I can't convince you otherwise then think thanks for the input
Click to expand...

Singing "The Billy Boys" in Argyll St was always an arrestable offence, it still would be even if the OBAF was binned.
 
DevAdvocate said:
Extreme racist comments posted on the discussion website Reddit in the wake of the Charleston church shooting have once again raised questions about freedom of speech and the internet. How far should social networks go in censoring hate speech? Reddit is arguably the mainstream social network most devoted to freedom of speech. It has continued to uphold that idea even in the face of criticism - for instance a controversy over a user who posted extreme content including a thread devoted to pictures of underage girls. The site didn't ban the user Violentacrez, but he did lose his job after his real identity was exposed by the website Gawker.

But the site's anti-censorship stance (or rather, its mostly anti-censorship stance - and more about that later) came under fire this week after reports surfaced of posts expressing support for the man charged with murdering nine worshipers in a black church in Charleston.
The posts were made under a thread or "subreddit" called Coontown - which, as the offensive name suggests, is a corner of Reddit made up mostly of virulently racist and white supremacist posts. One commenter called the shooter "one of us". In another popular post, a moderator said "we don't advocate violence here", but went on say the life of a black person "has no more value than the life of a flea or a tick" (most of the rest of the post, which contains at least 15 racial slurs, is unpublishable on this website).
Click to expand...

Horrible
 
Archers Road said:
If if some pissed up looney bowls down the middle of the street yelling abuse and offering to take on all comers, he's going to get arrested, in any country in the world. This has **** all to do with free speech, civil liberties, or any other supposed human rights; it's just common sense. Make a monumental **** of yourself in public, expect to get your collar felt. Even in scandanavia.
Click to expand...

I agree, up to a point.

The Judge seems to be saying a jail term was in order to "send a message" that offensive songs are not to be tolerated. That is against free speech. Sure, jail the guy for being drunk and disorderly. That's fine because it's against the law. But for the judge to say the sentence was for what he was singing/saying is a farce.

Slagging off Allah and making cartoons of him it is fine apparently. That's free speech, apparently. Singing a song offensive to Catholics is not, apparently.

It's a farce.
 
Gambol said:
I agree, up to a point.

The Judge seems to be saying a jail term was in order to "send a message" that offensive songs are not to be tolerated. That is against free speech. Sure, jail the guy for being drunk and disorderly. That's fine because it's against the law. But for the judge to say the sentence was for what he was singing/saying is a farce.

Slagging off Allah and making cartoons of him it is fine apparently. That's free speech, apparently. Singing a song offensive to Catholics is not, apparently.

It's a farce.
Click to expand...

This
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back