Britain first & free speech?

[SpringHen]

Britain first & its leaders banned from facebook

I think there should be a stike system and zero tolerance for certain posts but think facebook should put in the work and deal with it on an individual basis.

Where does this policy of banning a whole group and its leaders leave other controversal groups like TERFs.

I dont in any way condone Britain First but I dont condone the extreme far left either and if FB continues down this road, social media risks becoming a far left echo chamber with noone to counter challenge.

Thoughts?

BF broke Facebook guidelines Repeatedly. They were given a final written warning. Broke guilines again. Got banned.

Should trolls be banned from MN? Or is censoring of any kind on MN an attack on free speech?

Look at the bigger picture : this is the incitement of violent terrorism. Over a quarter of extremists going through the Government's deradicalisation programme are far right. Most of believed to have been radicalised online. The murderer of Jo Cox and the Finsbury Park terror attackers were linked to BF.
Four far right terror attacks have been foiled in the last year, including a plot to kill a Labour MP and a police officer. 28, yes 28 far right supporters have been arrested or convicted for terrorism or similarly violent crimes over the last year.
And it's online hate that's driving this.

Tommy Robinson, the chap who's been inviting people to Speaker's corner, has threatened that" militias will be set up to clean up this Islamic problem".

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/facebook-britain-first-pages-delete-jayda-fransen-paul-golding-jailed-race-hate-a8255521.html

There is no legally enshrined right to free speech in the UK... but legislation does exist to prosecute Hate Speech against six protected characteristics (disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation & transgender identity). There's a link to CPS document here www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crime.

No one suggested that Britain First didn't deserve to be banned from FB or anywhere else dancingledge. After the London terror attacks, Manchester bombing, mosque attack, Jo Cox and so on, I think everyone gets that people can be radicalised online and that some people will be pushed to take things further. Incitement to violent terrorism as you say should be obvious. Are you putting that in the same bracket as trolls on MN?
My concern about free speech comes from the document that nosetothesun has posted. The guidelines on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic prosecution come very close to making stating biological fact and misgendering hate crimes. If we don't believe that, then we can read Posie Parker's account of her interrogation by the police and a hate crimes officer, which they called a test case. She says "i was accused of being transphobic for referring to Janet Mock, an American trans activist who claims prostitution is rite of passage for “trans girls” in their teens, as Mr Mock." I am not happy with that and see it as an infringement of free speech.
I believe that no one has the right not to be offended in a democracy and we should be careful about shutting down a debate with the 'hate speech' tag.

They were repeatedly warned by facebook, they continue to break the rules, facebook booted them off the site.
The leaders of the group are currently in prison.
I'd ban the 2 million people who had 'liked' Britain First from facebook too.

I'd ban the 2 million people who had 'liked' Britain First from facebook too.

Do you think that will stop people agreeing with them?

Blasphemy is effectively becoming illegal because if someone takes offence and perceives someone else’s words or actions to come from a place of hatred there could be legal trouble, surely? What do you think a hate crime is and how do you think it is defined?

Blasphemy must NEVER become a crime. A hate crime can only be committed against a real person or group of people. Inciting hatred against an individual Muslim or Muslims is a hate crime. Offending someone by making disparaging remarks about their god is NOT.

It’s a key difference. Offending people by insulting something they like is NOT a hate crime. Because anyone can be offended by anything, and we MUST be able to criticise religion (or we are totally fucked.)

Basically, a real person has to be at the centre of it. Inciting hatred against Sarah because she’s Jewish, or Amal because she’s Muslim, denying them a job, or sacking them for observing a religion rite or because they are Jewish or Muslim all impact a real person. Criticising say orthodox Judaism’s record on sexism or Islam’s combination of politics and religion is NOT hurting a real person. It’s a VITAL part of a secular and free society.

We cannot let blasphemy become a crime by default of offence. That’s a really slippery slope.

I've come off Facebook, it's depressing from the left and the right. Not keen on either of them, to be honest.

I'd ban the 2 million people who had 'liked' Britain First from facebook too.

No. Because then you’re censoring people’s opinions and that’s totalitarianism. You can think whatever you want - it’s your actions that are judged by law.
If any of those two million people reposted with ‘yeah too right let’s kill all non whites’ then that is hateful and incitement and needs to be dealt with by the law.

I hate what Britain first stand for. They’re repellent. At the same time allowing people to express opinions (not threats) is a cornerstone of a free society.

it's depressing from the left and the right. Not keen on either of them, to be honest.

I agree. Whatever happened to the centrist-with-a-mild-lean political stances? The extreme left are just as bad as the extreme right. I feel like no one speaks for me these days and I consider my political leanings centrist with a slight lean to the left. Absolutely nothing controversial so why are all the main parties anathema to me just now? It’s crazy. I don’t know who to vote for for the first time ever :(?

Talk of banning 2 million people from all social media platform is in itself extreme! I hope it's exaggeration for effect.

Social media is the new version of talking in the marketplace or the pub. It would be disproportionate to gag every mean minded person who mouths off.

(And please would politicians stop giving the insult throwers of the internet the buzz of a mention! Ignore. Why even read this crap let alone give it publicity? Maybe they have ulterior motive of imposing their censorship.)

@kochabrising “basically, a real person has to be at the centre of it” - The victim does not have to make a complaint or even believe that they are the victim of a crime, under hate crime law anyone can choose to take offense on another’s behalf and it will be treated the same way. In the case of Lauren Southern’s Allah is all of us leaflet the police ordered her to stop because someone found the leaflet offensive. If the police stop expression for no other reason than someone finds it offensive then I guess people gain the right not to be offended and lose the right to risk causing offense, that makes free speech dead. This has already happened, we therefore need to remove certain laws and re-legalise freedom of speech.

“We cannot let blasphemy become a crime by default of offence. That’s a really slippery slope” I believe we are already there be default.

I googled the Lauren Southern leaflet, It is childish, irresponsible and offensive to religious folk, but I have this nagging feeling that, had it been produced and broadcast by lefties it would be a different story.

I don't agree with her or the other banned couple's views (why would anyone want to interview that EDL twat?) but if you start banning people for their political opinions then who's to say you won't be next?

Childish sums it up.

@quickerthanavicar “I'd ban the 2 million people who had 'liked' Britain First from facebook too.” - ban them for their thoughts eh? Anyway 2 million people don’t really like Britain First. Britain First send out posts of poppy’s and British flags on rememberance day and people get them in their feeds and click like without understanding the group behind them; it’s like a hook to try and draw people in. If Britain First stood for election they’d lose their deposits.

I would agree that the perception of offence should not be a crime.

I would like the law to be clearer as well - as someone points out above we don’t actually have a codified right to free speech and I believe we should. I also believe that should retain the existing laws on hate speech and that the law should restrict to incitement/hatred and allow offence. Offending someone is not a crime - it cannot be because it’s so subjective.

I’m not sure if the issue is with the law or if it’s with the climate of not wanting to cause offence and police being too keen to stamp down on offence (see recent thread on posieparkers interview under caution) while ignoring actual violent hate crimes (Telford grooming to me is effectively a hate crime against women as a class.)

These are vital discussions and I’m not seeing them in the mainstream press. That’s a big issue for me. This stuff needs to be talked about -!itsvfundamental to who we are as a society.

Just a question - what laws would you remove?

There ARE extremists here on MN in my opinion and they don't recognise it in themselves.

This is my takeaway thought from this which is disturbing.
I'm switching off my internet for the rest of the day! So that's a positive.

To the more balanced people on here - thank you.

I've just started watching this which was uploaded a few days ago. Apparently you can hear protesters outside throughout banging on the windows and suchlike.

I find it quite sinister the way academia seems to be going in many countries.

OvaHere
I watched the whole video, it is pretty disturbing. What they're debating is perfectly reasonable and it worries me how the young people banging outside can be radicalised by ideology.

There's an American professor who started a movement called the heterodox academy - it is an umbrella org for professors and graduates to rally and support each other whenever there is a threat like the one in the video, or an attempt to shut someone down.
So the reaction to this totalitarianism has to be at grass roots level.

There's a funny (?) video of Justin Trudeau interrupting a woman who was asking a question about the future of mankind - he said 'actually can you say peoplekind instead?'...

I'm half way through watching terf it's a really good speaking event and yes very disturbing how desperate people are to shut it down.

Everyone should watch this.

I think we need to be sure that where someone is accused of incitment of violence that actual physical violence has or is about to happen as a direct result.

This probably IS the case

However we are going down a road where someone can say that they FEEL scared because you THINK that. And despite no actual physical harm pending you are guilty .

People dont want to have uncomfortable conversations or hear things that feel uncomfortable to them. This is happening on a micro scale too, where friends block and ghost each other rather than have a row & air their grievances & sort it out and move on..

This probably IS the case with Britain First..

Really interesting article about the difficulty of balancing free speech on social media.

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/19/reddit-and-the-struggle-to-detoxify-the-internet

Thanks for the link Ova - listened to all the Peterson lecture you linked to earlier too. I am convinced compelled speech will be the reality in this country too shortly. I'll be damned if I say anything just to say it when I don't think it.

So today a twitter and YouTube 'personality' "Count Dunkula" has been convicted for posting a 'grossly offensive' video. I'm on the fence with this one. It IS offensive. However, I note that David Baddiel has 'defended his right to be offensive'.

uk.news.yahoo.com/youtube-comedian-count-dankula-guilty-hate-speech-nazi-dog-video-145920581.html

Who decides what "hate speech" is? In principle I am for it. I am all for 'social justice'.

In reality though, it ends up being anything that snowflake liberals don't like to hear.

They aren't SJWs they are "my opinion matters more than yours" warriors.