Anon. members - Forums open to court action??

[justasking111]

Was quite shocked to see this. Will this be a test case? Mumsnet is such a tame well run site compared to the comments I see in the online press. Is the writing on the wall for free (cough) speech or is it a culling of trolling. Personally I think that something needs to be done, some folk have no filter or are just plain nasty.

news.yahoo.com/transgender-activist-wins-court-ruling-forcing-parenting-website-reveal-identity-alleged-online-abuser-121317596.html

Regulations proposed by the UK government to limit the spread of 'harmful' content could lead to the lawful speech of millions being censored, civil rights groups warn.

The chiefs of five prominent organisations have spoken out about their issues with the Online Harms White Paper, issued on Monday, in an open letter to the Guardian.

Experts say that the report, which proposes taking sites offline to UK citizens if they fall foul of new regulators, would be 'disastrous if it proceeds in its current form.'

The white paper also suggests levying massive fines on companies like Facebook and Google and their employees if they fail to meet up to regulatory requirements.

It's part of an effort to crack down on the spread of child abuse images, terrorism, revenge pornography and hate crime online.

But they have sparked fears that they could backfire and turn Britain into the first Western nation to adopt the kind of censorship usually associated with totalitarian regimes.

Signatories of the letter include Antonia Byatt, director of the English PEN, the worldwide writers’ association; Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch; Thomas Hughes, executive director of free speech group Article 19; Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group and Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship.

In it, they said: 'The lawful speech of millions of people would be monitored, regulated and censored.

'The result is an approach that would make China’s state censors proud. It would be very likely to face legal challenge.

'It would give the UK the widest and most prolific internet censorship in an apparently functional democracy.'

Here is a link to the white paper summary. The actual paper is 102 pages long.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper-executive-summary--2

And what about those tweeting threats and gloating that they are in Iceland (when probably sitting on their mums basement in Luton?).

Earlier this week there was a not especially unusual rash of whole-thread deletions for transphobic content in FWR.

Funnily enough those threads were posted by the person who took out the Court Order requesting the user details from MN and that person has been permanently banned from MN so by your deduction Crimp the person shouting loudly than MN is transphobic is um transphobic.

What is the definition of transphobia?

Here is the paper. I just read the foreward which summarises it pretty well. Basically companies will have to reign in immoderate comments. Have a look at the foreward.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/793360/Online_Harms_White_Paper.pdf

I'd be concerned about those with large incomes using this to silence criticism of them, as it is cheaper than a libel action. There is not a concept of using law to bully people into silence, sadly.

I'm also concerned about vague law- a law should be precise.

Sorry, OP, for straying off the point you are making.

I am conflicted, I understand the need for some censorship, the need to draw a line somewhere regarding content BUT I have a problem with draconian, totalitarian-type line drawing. Who decides where the line is drawn and what influences are being brought to bear on that?

I have always held to the belief that you need to hear all sides of a debate, need to explore all sides of an argument or ideology as knowledge is paramount. Not listening to what is being said is dangerous and leads to bad decisions which can, as has been proven time and time again in history, be catastrophic.

ForalltheSaints I'd be concerned about those with large incomes using this to silence criticism of them, as it is cheaper than a libel action. There is not a concept of using law to bully people into silence, sadly.

Folk with large incomes can always find a way to use the law to their advantage whatever it is.

oh, here we go again..blanket accusations of "transphobia" to silence anyone with the ability to think critically.

"I didn't know it was transphobic to state facts!"

It can be if those facts are used to support what is actually an ideological position.

It is a fact that a male and female cannot procreate but if you use that to prove that same-sex marriages are not real marriages then you are advocating an ideological position that procreation is important in the concept of marriage. Which is an ideological stance.

As for transphobia, it is rife here. It manifests subtly though. rather than in the form of vile insults. It is more in the prejudicial assumptions that are made about trans people (eg so-and-so is only trans because they realised that they like wearing these form of clothes and prefered that colour, and hence decided that they must be the opposite of what the classical definitions would have them as).

Also the brush-tarring. Where transgenderism is made synonymous with the actions or opinions of the extremer transpeople.

April and Jap. please refrain from off topic comments. Thanking you in advance.

It is a fact that a male and female cannot procreate

Say what? I mean I know in your topsy turvy world of 'everything is transphobic' but da fuk you on about now?

haven't seen any transphobia on MN. Could someone point out a specific example and link to it please? I will help you report it and get it deleted.

Anyone who sees it, will hopefully have already reported it and it will have been deleted. I've done this in the past and I'll do it again if I see it. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist at all. There's a few really nasty posters amongst many other posters who put their points across well. It would be better if the sensible posters pulled these others up on their 'men in a frock bullshit.'

Anyone who sees it, will hopefully have already reported it and it will have been deleted. I've done this in the past and I'll do it again if I see it. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist at all.

What was it tho? Calling someone a slur? Or saying that women are an actual entity in themselves and do, as it happens, currently have rights?

What was it tho?

I'm not likely to write it here, I have no wish to be deleted. It wasn't anything like you can't change sex etc or anything else factual. It was deliberate nasty comments and mumsnet deleted them.

I was deleted for giving a professional explanation for something - from a professional point of view (not exactly inflammatory but unpalatable for some). It’s a fact not liked by those who are lobbying and pedalling psychobabble and fairy tales.

I pointed out to the moderator who emailed me that what I said was textbook terminology and content, but I suppose these days they are trigger happy.

And it wasn’t in reference to a particular person either.

sigh............

Now can we stick to the topic...

It’s interesting.

In the past couple of weeks Twitter has permanently suspended 2 high profile feminist accounts. One for saying “Men are more violent than women” and one for saying that a tweet which repeated TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN over and over sounded like a cult.

Both were permanently suspended. They have both been reinstated on appeal and Twitter have said they were mistaken.

A high profile trans activist said that “TERFs should die in a grease fire” had their account locked for a few hours.

In terms of FOS, it seems very one way on SM platforms.

Is it defamation to draw attention to someone’s record of criminal activity if these crimes were committed when they had a different name ?

Pretty sure it’s not but it would be nice to have the legal angle on this. Heaven forbid I defame someone accidentally.

I guess not. Can all you folk who want to discuss transphobia, please bugger off over to the feminism boards.

People have no value for truth anymore. “Mumsnet is full of transphobia.”
“This thread is full of transphobia.”
“Hunan brings can change their sex.”
It’s just saying stuff. Isn’t awfully disorientating to live in a world without facts? How is that fun?

If platforms are expected to police their content, who decides what content is acceptable?

The trans issue is a perfect case study. Some think it's kind to say transwomen are women, some that it's kind to maintain they aren't. Kind to different people - but who decides which takes precedence and which should be policed off the platform?

If Indeyref, Brexit, Trans issues & Trump have taught us anything, it's that there are people of differing views that believe they are totally and utterly right. So, who decides? Or is it that platform owners take a stand based on their own beliefs and therefore polarisation is entrenched? This is something that can't be legislated for, surely. And shouldn't be.

I know deliberate trolling to derail a thread when I see it. You are outing yourselves with every pseudo clever post. I would suggest MUMSNET goes through these posts at some stage to weed out the offenders. To the others who have attempted to stick to the topic I thank you.

The irony is if they had half a brain they would see that this white paper is to the benefit of minorities/hate crimes. But alas not.

OP

• you posted about a very high profile current case -that is intricately bound up in the whole TRA/women’s rights conversation -and people are responding. Why are you trying to police exactly how people want to discuss a topic?