Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Kevin Myers claims he was ‘punished like a rapist paedophile or terrorist’ for column

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    So, who decides what the concept of free speech allows you to say or what is not acceptable?
    There are laws in this jurisdiction which make it illegal to incite hatred. If Myers broke the law, he should be prosecuted for so doing. If, on the other hand, he merely expressed views which most people found distasteful but not illegal, then he is still legally entitled to express those views. Anyone who disagrees is also entitled to express their disagreement or disgust or whatever. That is my idea of free speech.
    Personally, I would disagree with most of Myers opinions, but I still want to hear them. There seems to be an attitude now that anyone who has unpopular opinions should be silenced. It's better to have these things out in the open.

    Nobody is stopping him expressing any views. His ex employer is just no longer paying him to express them in their paper, which they are entitled to do. He can express his views all he likes on his blog/YouTube channel/ newsletter or on a street corner with a megaphone if he wants. At the end of the day, the people that own/operate the newspaper decide what views they put out.


  • Options
    #33
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    If he was silenced, then we wouldn't have this thread.


  • Options
    #34
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭dresden8


    He liked to promote the use of the word bastard.

    He was the ultimate "bastard".

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.


  • Options
    #35
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    He totally was punished like a rapist, paedophile or terrorist. That's why he's in jail now.

    His freedom of speech was very much violated. That's why his opinions were published in a globally read publication, and why he's now at public events reflecting on the consequences of that.

    This treatment of Myers, which IS like the treatment of a rapist, paedophile or terrorist, vindicates his decade or so of being paid to opine weekly about how de librels these days are thin skinned little snowflakes who over react to things and lack perspective.


  • Options
    #36
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Paola Enough Horse wrote: »
    ....de librels these days are thin skinned little snowflakes who over react to things and lack perspective.

    Ah in fairness, that's true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,377 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Ah in fairness, that's true.

    Expert rebuttal.


  • Options
    #38
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    So, who decides what the concept of free speech allows you to say or what is not acceptable?
    There are laws in this jurisdiction which make it illegal to incite hatred. If Myers broke the law, he should be prosecuted for so doing. If, on the other hand, he merely expressed views which most people found distasteful but not illegal, then he is still legally entitled to express those views. Anyone who disagrees is also entitled to express their disagreement or disgust or whatever. That is my idea of free speech.
    Personally, I would disagree with most of Myers opinions, but I still want to hear them. There seems to be an attitude now that anyone who has unpopular opinions should be silenced. It's better to have these things out in the open.

    You're right, he broke now law. And consequently, as far as I can tell, he's not being prosecuted or charged with anything, is he?

    If the paper he was writing for decides they no longer want to give him a platform and pay him, surely that's entirely within their legal rights, too?


  • Options
    #39
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Shenshen wrote: »
    You're right, he broke now law. And consequently, as far as I can tell, he's not being prosecuted or charged with anything, is he?

    If the paper he was writing for decides they no longer want to give him a platform and pay him, surely that's entirely within their legal rights, too?

    I absolutely agree that if the paper doesn't want him writing for them any longer, they can make that choice. That's also part of free speech. I just think it's important that all opinions are heard, whether they are popular or not.
    Don't forget that it is not too long ago that anyone who publicly supported gay rights would be ostracised from the mainstream media.


  • Options
    #40
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Shenshen wrote: »

    If the paper he was writing for decides they no longer want to give him a platform and pay him, surely that's entirely within their legal rights, too?

    But was this decided solely by the managerial staff at the paper or was it because of external pressure?

    I find it amusing how people choose to ignore the processes that came into play that weekend and simply view it as a paper no longer requiring the services of an established writer.


  • Options
    #41
    animaal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    Myers is a smug windbag. The Times has the right to decide not to employ his services. But I'm not celebrating him being shut down.

    it was a crappy move by the paper to provide editorial oversight and publish his articles, and then push him under the bus when there was a backlash.

    Personally, I disagreed with lot of what he wrote. But there were times when he challenged me. Do we really only want to be exposed to journalists who fall in line with "acceptable" opinions? Historically that hasn't worked out so well.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PeterParker957
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    There does seem to be a list of targets that are encouraged to be mocked and others that are completely untouchable.

    Greggs in the UK published an ad replacing Jesus with a sausage roll. I'm Catholic and I thought it was hilarious.

    However, do that with Mohammed and your a**e is on the business end of a massacre. cf Charlie Hebdo.


  • Options
    #43
    BillyBobBS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,568 ✭✭✭BillyBobBS


    Just the way the world is going I'm afraid. If you don't tow the PC line you are a target. Sad state of affairs.


  • Options
    #44
    PeterParker957
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    BillyBobBS wrote: »
    Just the way the world is going I'm afraid. If you don't tow the PC line you are a target. Sad state of affairs.

    I've just been told I am against equality because I don't want to sit on a focus group discussing women only promotion lists and why they are "the only way to go".

    I give up. The world has gone mad and we can do nothing to stop it.


  • Options
    #45
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    I don't actually think what he said was all that bad in the scheme of things - but he's such an unlikeable, pompous, smug, odious little west brit fúck bag, that I was glad he got sacked anyway.
    Schadenfreude at it's finest.


  • Options
    #46
    darkdubh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,628 ✭✭✭darkdubh


    Himself and Eoghan Harris have a lot in common.








  • Options
    #47
    exaisle
    Registered Users Posts: 2,675 ✭✭✭exaisle


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I don't actually think what he said was all that bad in the scheme of things - but he's such an unlikeable, pompous, smug, odious little west brit fúck bag, that I was glad he got sacked anyway.
    Schadenfreude at it's finest.

    There's nothing like a balanced unbiased opinion.....you lost me at "unlikeable" because what you think of him isn't as pertinent as what you think of what he said, but I do agree that what he said wasn't "all that bad in the scheme of things".

    My understanding is that it was passed by 5 members of the editorial/legal staff and passed unedited.

    Sounds to me very much like the Sunday Times sacked him to protect their advertising revenue and circulation...


  • Options
    #48
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    But was this decided solely by the managerial staff at the paper or was it because of external pressure?

    I find it amusing how people choose to ignore the processes that came into play that weekend and simply view it as a paper no longer requiring the services of an established writer.

    External pressures such as a fear of loss of advertising and readership?
    I'm pretty sure that these were the prime reasons for the paper.

    Why would a paper support one of their employees if it meant that they would lose revenue by doing so?


  • Options
    #49
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    J.k.Rowling is hard work to put it mildly in fairness.


  • Options
    #50
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    animaal wrote: »

    Personally, I disagreed with lot of what he wrote. But there were times when he challenged me. Do we really only want to be exposed to journalists who fall in line with "acceptable" opinions? Historically that hasn't worked out so well.

    He's not a journalist though, not anymore. He's a professional sh*t stirrer like Lena Dunham or Katie Hopkins, just looking to push the buttons for attention. There is nothing stopping the Times or other papers from reprinting his work if he happens to have an original thought beyond his usual output, but looks like his usual output was not passing their (belated) quality control.


  • Options
    #51
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    exaisle wrote: »
    There's nothing like a balanced unbiased opinion.....you lost me at "unlikeable" because what you think of him isn't as pertinent as what you think of what he said, but I do agree that what he said wasn't "all that bad in the scheme of things".

    My understanding is that it was passed by 5 members of the editorial/legal staff and passed unedited.

    Sounds to me very much like the Sunday Times sacked him to protect their advertising revenue and circulation...

    Maybe you misunderstand schadenfreude.

    That it was passed by 5 editorial / legal staff only makes it better:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Shenshen wrote: »
    External pressures such as a fear of loss of advertising and readership?
    I'm pretty sure that these were the prime reasons for the paper.

    Why would a paper support one of their employees if it meant that they would lose revenue by doing so?
    Seeing as most of the action was taken on the Satnight/Sunmorn before the paper went on sale, yeah, the move was a reaction to public outrage. <
    sarcasm
    Even the Indo moved fast to remove from their site any article by Meyers that referenced Jews in less than glowing terms (this too was done before the paper went on sale)
    The whole thing unfolded on Boards on the thread at the time. Dress it up as a necessary business response, if that helps you justify and support the action while still considering yourself principled and fair, etc; but the ****storm only started when word got to London and someone there with more power than anyone in the Irish offices, made a decision. What played out after was only for show.


  • Options
    #53
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,255 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    It's like a bully going around punching people in the face. Finally someone punches back and the bully complains about being punched. Great that someone finally stood up to Myres who made a career of trying to be controversial. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Even in this article he's pretending he doesn't know what freedom of speech is, because he still has it. He's full of shít.


  • Options
    #54
    Prune Tracy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭Prune Tracy


    BillyBobBS wrote: »
    Just the way the world is going I'm afraid. If you don't tow the PC line you are a target. Sad state of affairs.
    I agree but in this case I don't think it applies. He was only on a wind-up, not offering any opinion of substance.
    exaisle wrote: »
    There's nothing like a balanced unbiased opinion.....you lost me at "unlikeable" because what you think of him isn't as pertinent as what you think of what he said, but I do agree that what he said wasn't "all that bad in the scheme of things".

    My understanding is that it was passed by 5 members of the editorial/legal staff and passed unedited.

    Sounds to me very much like the Sunday Times sacked him to protect their advertising revenue and circulation...
    No doubt about it. They were under pressure to do so. In Myers' defence, I think it's actually very unfair that none of those who approved the publication appeared to have faced sanctions.


  • Options
    #55
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    boo-hoo


  • Options
    #56
    Badly Drunk Boy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,517 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Challenging Times for Kevin...


  • Options
    #57
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    "I wholly disagree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it".... (Voltaire).

    Voltaire never said that. It was said about him by one of his biographers Beatrice Evelyn Hall.


  • Options
    #58
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    darkdubh wrote: »
    Himself and Eoghan Harris have a lot in common.







    Amazing that he actually had the gall to get into the chair, considering the whole senate seat thing.


Advertisement