Who knew in 2018 we would be lead by unelected tech giants?

"Because every free speech advocate here has unequivocally condemned people inciting violence and said it should be prosecuted"

Translation: 'We know what these people are going to say, we even accept that it's illegal, and yet we demand that private companies be forced to provide a platform so they can say it but we refuse to take any responsibility in our complicity in enabling this hate speech'.

1 Nazi sits down at a table and lays out their plans to exterminate the Jewish people. 10 people sit down and have a civil discussion with the Nazi about it. 11 Nazis are sat at that table.

1 domestic terrorist sits down at a table and lays out their plan to murder a serving soldier. 10 people sit down and have a civil discussion with the terrorist about it. 11 domestic terrorists are sat at that table.

1 hate-filled pusbag calls for the mass murder of a minority. 10 people immediately rush to the pusbag's defence claiming he has a right to a platform even though he relentlessly says the same types of things, over and over and over again, every chance he gets. Guess what that makes 11 of.

1 person starts going on about how a minority group should be mass murdered. 10 people give him a platform to do so, even knowing the content of what has been said before. And then one of the people targeted by the hate is murdered. Guess what the 11 are culpable for.

You push for the right for a person to have a platform to speak from, even when you know what it is they are going to say, you share the responsibility for what they say.

You argue as if Alex Jones has been gagged, thrown in the gulag, as if his free speech has been curtailed. He hasn't and it hasn't. He can still talk freely. It just that the platform he can now talk from is one hell of a lot smaller than it once was. Boo hoo. Search my pockets, you'll find no tears for him there.

So in a way it's a perfect illustration of why free speech matters - because you have to be able to use free speech to unpick these contradictory motives. Otherwise you end up in a situation where religion becomes untouchable (the Catholic church abuse scandal, the Rotherham sexual abuse scandal).

Exactly this.

We had actual Nazis round our way two days ago meet. The NMR (Swedish, v unpleasant.) One woman in our neighbourhood told them she didn’t want their leaflet and could they please not put it in her mailbox thank you very much.
They punched her in front of her children. The neighbours rallied round and the police were called.

So yes I’m well aware of what Nazis are, thanks. Said neighbour put a Facebook post up in our neighbourhood group which said basically ‘everyone even these awful people has a right to free speech with bounds. When they cross those bounds is where we act.’

She seems to have got the point, no? We tolerate views different than our own no matter how repellent they are because this is a free society and censoring speech is dangerous. When a line is crossed to incitement, or actual violence, we can and do expect the law to step in.

Nobody on here has said they are for incitement or violence, although of course for you to hop onto this thread and announce we are all supporting it looks great for your screenshots.

What we have concerns about is legitimate free speech being censored.

For example: a middle aged man has just been appointed head of inclusion at channel 4 news. He’s wittering on about feeling like a teenage girl going through puberty. Many posters are rightly saying that feels to them like they’re being forced to participate in someone else’s paraphilic behaviour.

They will be unable to say that in real life, because they will be censored. That’s worrying.

Alex Jones DOES NOT have the right to say anything he likes.

Liable laws prevent us from lying. Without censoring people.

Well, they are supposed to but are open to abuse. The point being that freedom of speech is not a licence to lie through your teeth either.

Oh and I see you, Meet. Your dismissal of my substantive point speaks volumes. Self serving hypocrisy.

so it's important to clarify whether the person you're talking to means actual Nazis or is simply using ridiculously over the top hyperbole to dismiss the political views of a group they don't like.

Yes.

I That is what I too would think of as a Nazi.

I presume the reason the question was asked is that we've all seen tweets saying "TERFs" are Nazis - so it's important to clarify whether the person you're talking to means actual Nazis or is simply using ridiculously over the top hyperbole to dismiss the political views of a group they don't like.

MeettheNew, do you often have arguments in rooms when you're by yourself? Because every free speech advocate here has unequivocally condemned people inciting violence and said it should be prosecuted. And yet you keep saying that those advocating for free speech are saying that we are approving of death threats when we've all said, over and over, that's illegal and should be prosecuted.

"What constitutes a Nazi to you?"

Wow. Thought that would be easy enough to understand. The people in the screenshots? Nazis. Not difficult to spot them, is it?

And two of the pictures - taken at Charlottesville this time last year. Where yet another Nazi deliberately drove a car into a crowd of people he decided he didn't like, killing one, injuring multiple other people.

That Nazi - currently awaiting trial on one count of first-degree murder, three counts of aggravated malicious wounding, three counts of malicious wounding, two counts of felonious assault and one count of hit and run, one count of a hate crime act resulting in the death of Heather Heyer, 28 counts of hate crime acts causing bodily injury and involving an attempt to kill, and one count of racially motivated violent interference resulting in the death of Heather Heyer.

If you think it's hypocritical of me to think that if that guy had been decked before he got in the car resulting in him never doing what he did then one of us has their moral compass utterly fucked, and it's not me.

And as for the rest? My answer is clear enough to understand. If you choose to ignore it, or misinterpret it, that's up to you. I'm not interested in your game of silly buggers as you try to derail the thread.

It's very simple. Nazis, and all the other like-minded nastiness out there who call for the mass harassment, mass abuse, or mass murder of any minority do not belong in a decent or civilised society. They sure as hell don't deserve a platform in that society to get their message out, whether that's in the private societies that spring up around media platforms, or in the wider public society. And that's because society has rules designed specifically to stop this kind of shit. And if people can't live by those rules then they don't get to be a part of the private societies, and they need to be quarantined from public society, because otherwise all they're doing is begging for yet another tragedy like Heather Heyer or Jo Cox.

Here's a post I have just made on the thread I linked about violence towards GC women (and yes I do choose to be a GC woman, do I deserve to be assaulted?)

Since you seem determined to dodge the issue.

It is apparent these savages are getting a lot of excitement from issuing these threats. They remind me of sick men who need to watch more and more vicious porn to reach the same levels of sexual excitement.

Absolutely agree. Hmmm, why don't I want them or other males who turn a blind eye to them in women's spaces again?

The violence described is often of a sexualised nature, like torture, even if not directly sexual like rape (which it frequently is, especially oral rape)

not overly concerned about people discussing punching Nazis because Nazis are Nazis and make the choice to be Nazis

What constitutes a Nazi to you? Don't you think that's a tad hypocritical?

I also condemn those who would take talk about the problems that communities face and twist those words into trying to claim that all the people of that community are 'rapey'.

Oh well that's convenient then! Saying the trans community has a problem with condoning rape culture is just as bad as issuing rape threats or turning a blind eye to them?

I'm sorry that some of these male people can only be happy if they can guilt or shame or bully lesbians into validating their personal genderfeelz.

I completely condemn actual threats of violence aimed towards nearly all people (not overly concerned about people discussing punching Nazis because Nazis are Nazis and make the choice to be Nazis). I also believe that media platforms have the absolute right to refuse to host people who make threats of actual violence, or engage in campaigns of harassment, stalking, intimidation, viciousness, or other acts that, on balance, are maliciously intended to cause harm.

I also completely condemn the actions of lout's who think they get to define another person's sexuality for them. They don't. To violate another autonomy's like that is abominable. I also condemn those who would take talk about the problems that communities face and twist those words into trying to claim that all the people of that community are 'rapey'. Saw that happen in the eighties and nineties, especially with gay men. But I'm not going to demand that the media platforms to ban those speakers. That decision is entirely up to the media platform, and it's not like the public was stupid enough to fall for it for long anyway. History is a wonderful teacher, and shows a clear path about what happens to people who try to demonise a minority like that. They get side-lined and people just stop listening.

I'm a little torn on the absolute right to free speech argument. I do think that some things are so repellent that they should be censored and Jones is a good example of this. Mainly because he directly endangers the lives of individuals. Of course in the UK we do have laws against incitement but in the US the are protected by the 1st.

I'm also strongly opposed to pornography, especially violent pornography, and realise that many would consider this censorship.

I also note the argument about curating content and that private companies and news organisations have the right to set editorial control. I dislike Twitter as a platform as the limited characters mean it is not really possible to develop arguments and many exchanges look to me like the hurling of playground insults. Social media also allows for some pretty targeted and offensive harassment and and I think there is rationale for limits on this behaviour.

HOWEVER, I do not believe Twitter operates on a consistent basis and I do not believe they act in good faith. Alex Jones basically had to terrify innocent people to leave their homes under tsunamis of death threats before being removed. Men continue to advocate violence against women or organise targeting of employers etc of women with whom they disagree, yet they are disproportionately keen to ban women for saying fair less inflammatory things. Women are subject to relentless and offensive hate campaigns for the most innocuous reasons - having the temerity to appear in films or have an opinion - yet feminists are seem as promoting hate speech simply by discussing biological fact.

I still welcome the removal of Jones but the fact that it did not happen sooner while Posie and Miranda had been removed for far, far less exposes the deep rooted misogyny at the heart of the organisation.

Will you unequivocally condemn homophobic sexual coercion (often accompanied by violent and sexually violent rhetoric) towards lesbian women by members of the trans community and their allies?

"Cotton Ceiling" evidence thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3294339-cotton-ceiling-evidence-thread

Will you unequivocally condemn violent including sexually violent threats towards women by TRAs?

Abuse of GC women on twitter (be warned graphic, disturbing)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3330245-Abuse-of-GC-women-on-twitter-be-warned-graphic-disturbing

MeetTheNewAccount: "And for those struggling with the concept, it's very easy to know where to draw the line:
The moment a speaker's hate speech is used to direct harm against another."

But that's not easy, is it? If someone writes: "TERFS should be raped and killed" is that directing harm, or just an opinion? It doesn't name anyone. It could be passed off as exaggerated comment to make a point. If we happened to agree that it was directing harm, should it lead to criminal prosecution, or just to the person being banned from the platform where they expressed the opinion?

The moment a speaker's hate speech is used to direct harm against another.

Do you draw it against the anti woman activists in the trans movement? Do you condemn their violent threats and incitement to violence?

No I don't.

In the sense I don't have to defend what they say.

But I will defend their right to say it.

If you defend the right to say it when you know the generalities of what they're going to say, then it's also up to you to defend what they say. It's called 'responsibility' and 'accountability', words that free speech absolutists run away from anytime the link between what's said and the inevitable tragic result and how they helped facilitate it is pointed out. To shamelessly steal and change a quote:

"If you have a Nazi at a table drawing up plans for the mass extermination of the Jewish people, and 10 people sat at the table in a civil discussion with them then you have 11 Nazis".

And for those struggling with the concept, it's very easy to know where to draw the line:

The moment a speaker's hate speech is used to direct harm against another.

What I find terrifying about this - and I know it's been pointed out elsewhere - is that a private company such as Twitter now has enormous power to decide what can be said and what can't be said. It's always been the case, of course, that newspapers, magazines and so on are highly selective about what they publish. You can't just write a foul-mouthed racist rant and expect it to be published in a mainstream newspaper, even the Telegraph.

But Twitter and Facebook have become public platforms - they're where ordinary people go to share their views. And it's entirely up to them what they allow and don't allow. So if they want to ban feminists, but allow people who threaten to rape and torture women, they can. And as far as I can see, there's sod all any of us can do about it.

cesira yes, that post is pretty much perfect.

No to actual incitement to violence, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, targetted harrassment of individuals.

But no ban on free speech talking about political generalisations, no matter how offensive we may find it. Tackle that with argument, not no-platforming.

Boris on the niqab is a perfect example. I agree with him that there is (viewed from outside) something deeply objectionable about a message which tells women to cover their faces in order to be modest or religiously observant, when men are not subject to the same message, in the context of a society which itself recognises the importance of facial expressions in reading people's intentions (British soldiers serving in Afghanistan were given specific advice to remove sunglasses before talking to people, so as to come across as easier to read). There's no getting round the fact that the niqab takes women out of the public, political sphere, and is intended to do so (and yes, I do understand that according to the internal logic of the religion it's meant to be simply a statement of one's religious committment to imitating the prophet - but as any anthropologist worth their salt will tell you, what people themselves say are the motivations for their own cultural practices, and the work those practices actually do within a society can be quite different things). But at the same time I also agree with Boris's critics who say the way he framed the message (Muslim women looking like bank robbers) was deliberately provocative and a form of "dog-whistle politics" intended to appeal to a certain racist sector of voters.

Boris was doing both things at once (and doing so quite cynically and knowingly): disguising the appeal to racists by placing it in the context of an argument which is a legitimate one; and at the same time making a legitimate argument seem racist by throwing in some dog-whistle racist phrases thus running the risk of the whole argument being written off as unacceptable.

So in a way it's a perfect illustration of why free speech matters - because you have to be able to use free speech to unpick these contradictory motives. Otherwise you end up in a situation where religion becomes untouchable (the Catholic church abuse scandal, the Rotherham sexual abuse scandal). Or you end up in a situation where the rich and powerful debase the phrase "free speech" by starting to use it as a synonym for "I can spout any offensive views I want and not be criticised for them."

Posie Parker has been targeted and mass TRA-Twttter reported for a long time. She isn't the only person.

Twitter (& other social media platofrms) have been 'weaponised' by some, with the intention of 'no debate' and silencing dissenting voices.
Woman's PLace UK recent statement:
womansplaceuk.org/social-media-attacks-on-wpuk/

There are many threads and discussions about this:

WPUK:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3312138-Womans-Place-UK-Facebook-Twitter-attack-request-to-share-statement-on-social-media

Lisa Muggeridge:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3260432-The-Shame-of-Twitter

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3256163-Anyone-else-having-trouble-with-Twitter

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3262686-BBC-Report-Twitter-bans-women-against-trans-ideology-say-feminists

Venice Allen
[[www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3259395-best-of-twitter
Miranda Yardley]]
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3258983-Miranda-Yardley-permanently-banned-from-Twitter
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3258453-Permanent-Ban-from-Twitter-for-Hate-Speech

Hope Lye
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3279656-Hope-Lye-suspended-from-Twitter

Mass Terf Blocks
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3200394-Calling-lawyers-and-data-protection-gurus

Attempted bullying of MN
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241575-Mumsnet-Grass-Account

shadowbanning is now also being used to hush women up... Rose of Dawn has recently discovered she is shadow banned.

And where exactly do you draw the line?

No. Where exactly do you draw the line? You're the one wanting to restrict certain speech. Where do you draw the line?

See, that's the problem with going with going to bat for the bad guys and hate speech. Suddenly you find yourself having to defend the indefensible.

No I don't.

In the sense I don't have to defend what they say.

But I will defend their right to say it.

I don't agree with hate speech being a crime. Hate speech, as we have discovered, is a very movable line. It might start with something I personally am comfortable with defining as hateful. But it quickly becomes an established tool to suppress anything the mob and TPTB don't want said. (Example "people can't change sex")

I am on board with the old limits on speech, so no to incitement of violence, yelling fire in a crowded theatre and targeted harassment.

If Aj said any of those thing then he should be reported to the police and prosecuted. But I am not prepared to cuddle up to the idea that Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google and their various mobs have become our new judge and jury.

I spent years watching my words so very carefully and speaking in code for fear of falling foul of Lèse-majesté. I'm not going back to that kind of state and social control of speech without a fight.

I agree that he should have been removed and prosecuted a long time ago for his crimes.
The harassment of the Sandy Hook victims parents violated a number of laws.
He should have been frog marched out of the studio years ago.

The answer to your title question is, everyone who has been paying attention.