To think that many of the people shouting about Gary Lineker's "freedom of speech" are happy to shut women down?

[Qbish]

It's marvelous, isn't it, "freedom of speech". It's marvelous when it's something nice and progressive that you agree with.

But if it's something you deem to be unacceptable... then shut it down! Cancel her! No platform her! Burn her books! Get her sacked! Picket anywhere she's booked to speak! Many of the same types who support Gary wouldn't hesitate to tell a woman to keep quiet, sit down, shut up. And they can't even see that.

Many people conflate freedom of speech with the freedom to agree with their opinions.

If Lineker had said the opposite most of these free speech " campaigners" would have been calling for his head.

If you imagine a Venn diagram with the number of TRA and MRA types who want women to shut up, and map them against Lineker's most vocal supporters, you'll get a substantial overlap.

Gary Lineker is not a hero. He's not even a wise or intelligent policial commentator. The Government's migration bill has nothing in common with persecution of Jewish people in the 1930s. Lineker's just showing how ignorant he is of history.

Also, using the Holocaust as a rhetorical tool to own your enemies is pathetic.

When Lineker has paid the £4.9m he owes HMRC, then I might just take him seriously.

it's a big 'might' tho.

I hoped it would go without saying, but I obviously don't agree with the comment she made. It was just my understanding that she had to make it for legal reasons, and now she has a shitstorm in social media, after years and years of work FOR the women suffering DV.
You would think they'd go after the perpetrator with the same intensity?

This example aside, my opinion stands, the OP is not BU.

So very true.
You're only free to speak if I like what you're saying.

However I had a breakthrough moment at the weekend with DD, who is now I think moving towards being GC. Firstly she's a professional scientist, so that helps. But the free speech double standards argument did see a light flicker ever brighter.

By "breakthrough" do you mean she now agrees with your opinion instead of having a different one?

Well said

Because she said "it was a one-off". If she'd stopped right before then, there'd be no issue.

She is an intelligent articulate woman and a notable journalist exactly the kind of person I would expect to have the backbone to refuse to say that statement verbatim.
She had exactly the same choice as Gary Lineker.
He chose to stand by his principles and risk losing his job.
Fiona had the perfect reason to make a stand, she was an Ambassador, but she didn’t.
She should have refused to say it was a one off.
And do I think they go after the perpetrator with the same intensity?
Absolutely.

I personally think, given her role as ambassador for Refuge, she should’ve added that any act of DV cannot be condoned.

I disagree that the FB thing is the same as the GL thing. FB was broadcasting a live show for the BBC. GL was tweeting on his own page in his own time.

I think people are being unfair to Bruce.

Agree with majority, yanbu

The Tory types have their agenda, no surprise there. It's the lovely, open-minded progressives that can't see, or accept, their hypocrisy that boils my piss.

Free speech for us, not them.

YANBU

Are you new to the planet? That's true of all sides, you only have to look at any political thread to see posters indulge in whataboutery if the highest order and imo tory supporters are the pinnical of that just now.

Why is FB being hounded for something she was legally obliged to say?

really? REALLY? we asked the perpetrator's friends who all said it was a one off. That is ok? What about "we checked with the victim and her friends who said far from being a one off it was a pattern of behaviour"

And this from Fiona Bruce. Who she? Ambassador, no less, for Refuge.

So yes. I will call her out and dig on her for her nonsense all day and all night.
Balance? my arse. It wasn't even the kind of balance the BBC pull off when they put a renowned climate scientist on TV and then "for balance" have Domenic Lawson.

And the fact that they had talked to Johnson's friends in advance (and again: why not his victim's friends, for balance?) means they knew that the subject would come up. It's not exactly a secret, is it?

Right now an excellent example is Shumirun Nessa on tiktok - she (and many others) called out a predatory man who was openly grooming children on SM, she has had to take down videos and tearfully apologise because the fascist gender c*ultists have found where she lives and damaged her car, and have made threats to her children.

The same people calling for consequences on SM are the same people supporting GL and free speech (obviously it’s not just them, but there is a crossover).

So what we can learn is, if you’re a man and you speak out, you’re fine. If you’re a woman and you don’t follow the accepted dogmatic script you’re fucked.

I am not a fan of his, but if he does in fact owe HRMC that money it is the fault of the BBC. Its because they have disputed that he falls outside of IR35 and think he should actually be considered as an employee for tax purposes. The responsibility of confirming this is with the contracting authority (bbc in this case) and leaves them liable for a nice fine.

It is the moral purity of the progressives who will defend Gary Lineker's free speech today, but will excoriate a woman if she dares to express an opinion that is wrongthink tomorrow, that infuriates me.

See the passing bandwagon? Jump on it. Condemn all who do not join you in your righteous purity on your virtue signaling parade.

Tiresome is indeed the word.

I support freedom of speech for everyone but if the BBC imposes impartiality restrictions on its presenters, then the presenters should be abiding by these, as 'impartiality' is an important part of its taxpayer-funded (via licence fee) Charter.

But he didn't do any of that, did he. He reiterated what the holocaust survivor had said to Braverman, which was about the language used against those considered lesser beings. That's all, highlighting language and giving support for a survivor. What a fiend he is.

But that happens both ways. Are you not equally as infuriated with conservatives who will defend Dan Wotton's or Darren Grimes' free speech today while attacking Greta Thunberg or Ash Sarkar for expressing what they consider "wrong think" tomorrow?

OP I think you are correct.

As for the BBC, my view is that all non-news/current affairs presenters should be able to express personal opinions, provided they are labelled as such and are not about BBC internal matters.

No, because the conservatives are clear in what their values are. They are not trying to stop Greta or Ash being able to speak and express their views, they are simply disagreeing with them. Whereas when, tomorrow, a woman dares to express a view that the Gary Lineker-supporting, free speech espousing progressives disagree with - they will say that she should not be allowed to say it. And that is the difference.