To think the Daily Mail should be banned for inciting general hatred?

[CheesyWotzits]

I think it should

The price of liberty is an awful lot of crap printed on bits of tree with toxic chemicals!

the animal stories are cute

I can't stand it - and I judge people harshly for reading it regularly, but TBH everything it stands against is the reason it should continue - freedom of speech and tolerance.

That doesn't make sense, but I know what I mean.

My grandma & BIL read it in a serious capacity, I do look at the mail online but primarly for fun.. Then I read some vile racist 'article' or thinly veiled homophobic slur and I cannot actually believe what I am reading and that is just the article, have you ever read the toxic rubbish in teh comments underneath?!

I think it preys on peoples ingnorance and turns it into hatred..

My dads used to buy it every day but he does not now as it has gone all silly and sensationalist.

I think it's toxic.

Yes BusterGut it is. But a world in which it could be banned would be worse than one where it exists,

It's toxic but a necessary byproduct of free speech. I'd rather live in a world with the Fail than one in which it could be banned.

I like the DM

I can't start the day unless I'm apoplectic about something - and the DM usually provides that through it's sloppy reporting!

However, behind the NY times it is now the most widely circulated media source. It is the best laid out on-line paper.

The rest are just as shite.

I like the Sunday mag. Articles in there often make me shed a tear. We surely don't have to believe all we read. ]confused]

However, behind the NY times it is now the most widely circulated media source.

God Almighty, trois, if that is true it is seriously worrying - what is the source of the information?

The NYT is objectionable in its own way but not as bad as the Hate Mail.

I agree with the democratic argument!! But I do think that it's quite frightening how many people read and believe the rubbish it spouts (and I include a very clever friend of mine).

(Search on Barry o'Leary (lawyer) re. the cat / illegal immigrant story a couple of years ago?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221353/Youve-got-cat-OK-stay-Britain-officials-tell-Bolivian-immigrant.html)

Hate stories: BBC, immigrants, teachers and state education, social workers, the public sector as a whole, public sector pensions, national health.
The funny thing is, I bet most of their readers watch the BBC, have social relationships with immigrants, use national health doctors and send their children to state school.
However, there is a bit of a hate campaign about David Cameron at the moment, which is quite exciting!

It is the worst paper out there and I agree OP.

Prime example - Remember Gary Dobson, about to be tried for the second time for allegedly murdering Stephen Lawrence? When it came out that he would be tried again the headline read Murderer and then went on to say something like sue us if you like, we'll even pay your legal fees.

I don't have any issue with that sentiment but the trouble is that on the back of that Gary Dobson's lawyers may argue, successfully, that he cannot have a fair trial due to the manner in which the case has been reported. If successful the trial could be thrown out and a potentially guilty man could walk free.

The Daily Mail and the tabloid press would blame the so-called fat cat Lawyers and the Judiciary, when in fact it's down to negligent reporting and spineless editors who see through pound signs.

I fecking hate that paper.

this old chestnut! The Mail is what it is, jsut as the Guardian is what it is. If yuo don't like it, don't read it. I do think a lot of people like to feel superior by being highly critical of the Mail. It merely represents opinions with which you do not agree. Do you really think that other papers, inc the sainted guardian , are not guilty of sensationalism and sloppy reporting?

It was, however, the DM which campaigned for the Lawrence enquiry. Odd, but true. The then editor (David English) was a friend of the Lawrence family which may not be entirely unconnected with the line they took!

Arachnophobic - my recollection is that the headline appeared when the five men accused of the murder gave evidence at the enquiry and was in the plural. And the DM said If you deny it, sue us - no reference to paying their costs - which was gutless given that as they well knew there is no legal aid for libel and no lawyer would take their case on a punt.

The DM is scaremongering. The Guardian isn't.
The DM incites prejudice. The Guardian doesn't.
The DM promotes the class society.

Arachnophobic - your post is inaccurate from beginning to end - bit rich really when it's the very thing you are accusing DM of.

pearlym - It's not the sloppy reporting, more the lies. Yes, I disagree with racist, homphobic, sexist & generally nasty ignorant opinions, does that make me superior? Well I would certainly hope so, to that anyway.

But the DM is true peace, if you read it over time, you hate everyone and feel one of the hated in return, common ground is found with other hated groups, and peace is restored once more.

Maybe I haven't got the details spot on Andrew but my point is that this reckless behaviour may cause the collapse of the forthcoming trial, not what the Lawrence family intended I am sure.

It was Paul Dacre -not david English

How Nancy?

And Nancy I am not accusing the DM of being inaccurate, they may well be murderers. But the manner in which they reported this could have awful consequences.

Am with you. They give column inches to the poisonous Liz Jones.