Tommy Robinson jailed

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No. If you make a twitter post which says "Transgender women are not biological women", you will get a police caution. There are two cases of this happening recently.

You're helping prove my point:

A tweet which says "Transgender women are not biological women" is considered harassment by some, and obvious fact by others.

This is why we need free speech. Are you really comfortable letting someone else dictate what is offensive or indecent? How do you know they're not some extremist?

Can you link to a case where somebody only tweeted "Transgender women are not biological women" and got a police caution just for that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No. If you make a twitter post which says "Transgender women are not biological women", you will get a police caution. There are two cases of this happening recently.

You're helping prove my point:

A tweet which says "Transgender women are not biological women" is considered harassment by some, and obvious fact by others.

This is why we need free speech. Are you really comfortable letting someone else dictate what is offensive or indecent? How do you know they're not some extremist?

He did a bit more than just make a statement and got a caution which officially states harassment.

The law hasn't changed. It always banned offensive behaviour. But offensive behaviour =\= saying something deemed offensive.

But again - wrong thread.

Am I comfortable? Yes. Totally. Beacuse I know how to frame my opinions and argue my points without needing to be sensationalist, offensive, hate/fearmongering or appealing to base levels.

ArmaniJeanss

TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He did a bit more than just that and got a caution which officially states harassment.

The law hasn't changed. It always banned offensive behaviour. But offensive behaviour =\= saying something deemed offensive.

But again - wrong thread.

It's not black and white though. What is considered offensive is getting watered down. Look at this for example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html. That's from 2 weeks ago.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's not black and white though. What is considered offensive is getting watered down. Look at this for example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html. That's from 2 weeks ago.

again you have not read past the headline

High Court papers obtained by The Mail on Sunday detail how Mrs Scottow is accused of a 'campaign of targeted harassment' against Miss Hayden, allegedly motivated by her 'status as a transgender woman'.

She is also alleged to have used accounts in two names to 'harass, defame, and publish derogatory and defamatory tweets' about Miss Hayden, including referring to her as male, stating she was 'racist, xenophobic and a crook' and mocking her as a 'fake lawyer'.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

crazy stuff.

ohnonotgmail

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:

• a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
• a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
• a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims
• multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied

Tommy is not big on learning.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's not black and white though. What is considered offensive is getting watered down. Look at this for example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html. That's from 2 weeks ago.

Just realised I was about to highlight the save paragraph as the poster above: this appears to be blatant harassment. It's YOU who's making MY point.

I could also argue that people who transition frequently argue that they are not changing gender (as Scottow States is impossible) they are the same gender to begin with.

But AGAIN - Tommy Robinson thread!!!! I'm started and proven my point, I'm not going to reply to any more posts that are not about Robinson

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Just realised I was about to highlight the save paragraph as the poster above: this appears to be blatant harassment. It's YOU who's making MY point.

Calling a transgender woman a biological male should not be considered harrassment. It is a fact.

If you google this topic, you'll find tons of examples. I just gave one. The UK police are more and more frequently visiting people's homes for things they said on twitter.

My point is this:

Speech is continuously being curbed.

This is because governments will always try to take more power.

If we continue on this path, it is only a matter of time before something you consider inoffensive could get you a police caution.

If you're not aware, the muslim pedophile gangs in the UK were covered up for decades. That's the main reason Tommy wanted to report on it. He felt the courts were continuing to cover up the story.

I believe he should have been allowed cover the story.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Calling a transgender woman a biological male should not be considered harrassment. It is a fact.

If you google this topic, you'll find tons of examples. I just gave one. The UK police are more and more frequently visiting people's homes for things they said on twitter.

My point is this:

Speech is continuously being curbed.

This is because governments will always try to take more power.

If we continue on this path, it is only a matter of time before something you consider inoffensive could get you a police caution.

If you're not aware, the muslim pedophile gangs in the UK were covered up for decades. That's the main reason Tommy wanted to report on it. He felt the courts were continuing to cover up the story.

I believe he should have been allowed cover the story.

They continually harassed somebody using multiple accounts because they were transgender. Again, your understanding of events is as shallow as a puddle.

RWCNT

Deleted User wrote: »

crazy stuff.

Is it? He repeatedly continued to breach user guidelines even when provided with a written warning. I fully expect him to use this to play up the martyr image he's gotten for himself but I'm past the point of caring about the optics of banning him to be honest.

If you support or sympathise with this guy then you're either a bigot or too naive (and im being charitable by using that term) to see what it is that he's actually up to. As a lot of people just don't get it, the best course of action is to limit his exposure and fundraising abilities as much as possible, so I welcome this move.

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

Is it? He repeatedly continued to breach user guidelines even when provided with a written warning. I fully expect him to use this to play up the martyr image he's gotten for himself but I'm past the point of caring about the optics of banning him to be honest.

If you support or sympathise with this guy then you're either a bigot or too naive (and im being charitable by using that term) to see what it is that he's actually up to. As a lot of people just don't get it, the best course of action is to limit his exposure and fundraising abilities as much as possible, so I welcome this move.

What do you believe he's actually up to?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Calling a transgender woman a biological male should not be considered harrassment. It is a fact.

If you google this topic, you'll find tons of examples. I just gave one. The UK police are more and more frequently visiting people's homes for things they said on twitter.

My point is this:

Speech is continuously being curbed.

This is because governments will always try to take more power.

If we continue on this path, it is only a matter of time before something you consider inoffensive could get you a police caution.

If you're not aware, the muslim pedophile gangs in the UK were covered up for decades. That's the main reason Tommy wanted to report on it. He felt the courts were continuing to cover up the story.

I believe he should have been allowed cover the story.

So you want anarchy?

Tommy Robinson demonstrates with proof my point that you can make any point you want if you're intelligent and know how to debate, because he can't do had to play the victim card

There were reasons for the restrictions - to prevent a mistrial - are you aware of those? Or would you have been happy with a mistrial if Tommy was allowed to 'report' freely.

Free speech comes with responsibities and consequences.

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you want anarchy?

Tommy Robinson demonstrates with proof my point that you can make any point you want if you're intelligent and know how to debate, because he can't do had to play the victim card

There were reasons for the restrictions - to prevent a mistrial - are you aware of those? Or would you have been happy with a mistrial if Tommy was allowed to 'report' freely.

Free speech comes with responsibities and consequences.

Why would there be a mistrial if someone reported on it?

stefanovich

Tommy Robinson is a hero

RWCNT

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What do you believe he's actually up to?

Preying on the concerns of his gullible supporters in order to line his own pockets, while whipping up nothing but hatred in the process. If his sole concerns were truly about grooming gangs, terror attacks etc. then he'd concentrate on that, rather than sharing anything and everything that forms a "Muslims bad" and "They're taking over" narrative - e.g. his sharing of the rape crisis centres leaflet, his sharing a news story about a Muslim doctor struck off when a child in her care died, involving himself in the narrative around a video of a Syrian kid allegedly being bullied, and much more.

I don't know if it's all for the money or if he actually is a crypto-fascist and I don't really care either.

stefanovich wrote: »

Tommy Robinson is a hero

What has he actually achieved in your eyes to be described as such?

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

Preying on the concerns of his gullible supporters in order to line his own pockets, while whipping up nothing but hatred in the process. If his sole concerns were truly about grooming gangs, terror attacks etc. then he'd concentrate on that, rather than sharing anything and everything that forms a "Muslims bad" and "They're taking over" narrative - e.g. his sharing of the rape crisis centres leaflet, his sharing a news story about a Muslim doctor struck off when a child in her care died, involving himself in the narrative around a video of a Syrian kid allegedly being bullied, and much more.

I don't know if it's all for the money or if he actually is a crypto-fascist and I don't really care either.

I think some of the things he says are valid, and he should be allowed say them. I also believe he genuinely believes these things.

But I also think there is a money making aspect to it. Whether that's just a nice side effect, or more, I don't know.

GinAndBitter

The timing of these bans is certainly strange, wonder has it anything to do with the hit piece about to be aired by the lying BBC about him.

OMM 0000

GinAndBitter wrote: »

The timing of these bans is certainly strange, wonder has it anything to do with the hit piece about to be aired by the lying BBC about him.

What bans? Sorry I'm not in the loop.

stefanovich

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What bans? Sorry I'm not in the loop.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why would there be a mistrial if someone reported on it?

... Really?

In case you're being serious: to prevent a jury being influenced for a start. Google Levi Belfield and Milly Dowler for a start.

Jonathan Woodgate trial was another.

More recently, Cardinal Pell in Australia.

But your understanding of free speech and the responsibities within seem to be a bit vague to say the least.

Ultimately there IS no such thing as free speech. Would you be comfortable with extremist Islamic clerics having free speech? Or rampant islamophpbia? Or anti-Semitism?

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... Really?

In case you're being serious: to prevent a jury being influenced for a start. Google Levi Belfield and Milly Dowler for a start.

Jonathan Woodgate trial was another.

More recently, Cardinal Pell in Australia.

But your understanding of free speech and the responsibities within seem to be a bit vague to say the least.

Ultimately there IS no such thing as free speech. Would you be comfortable with extremist Islamic clerics having free speech? Or anti-Semitism?

Your examples are not equivalent. Almost no one knew about these rape gangs. There is a strong argument to make that the courts blocking any reporting was business as usual (their rapes had been covered up for decades).

My understanding of free speech is not vague. The issue is most people here have never thought it through, yet for some reason they have strong opinions on it...

Of course extremist Islamic clerics and anti-semites should have free speech. Again, I think you don't understand what free speech is. It doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

To have free speech you have to accept speech you don't like. I understand this is an outrageous concept for some people.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Your examples are not equivalent. Almost no one knew about these rape gangs. There is a strong argument to make that the courts blocking any reporting was business as usual (their rapes had been covered up for decades).

My understanding of free speech is not vague. The issue is most people here have never thought it through, yet for some reason they have strong opinions on it...

Of course extremist Islamic clerics and anti-semites should have free speech. Again, I think you don't understand what free speech is. It doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

To have free speech you have to accept speech you don't like. I understand this is an outrageous concept for some people.

there was a reporting ban in place for the duration of the trials. Note trials, plural. the reporting ban was lifted after all trials had resolved. At the time of the trials the existence of the gangs was well known. And no thanks to tommy. Actual journalists uncovered what was going on.

OMM 0000

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

coincidentally they happen to be the ones who most abuse the terms of service they agreed to when they joined these services.

mcmoustache

GinAndBitter wrote: »

The timing of these bans is certainly strange, wonder has it anything to do with the hit piece about to be aired by the lying BBC about him.

Really?

You think that Facebook banned him because of something in a TV show? That's actually where your mind went with the information that you have?

You didn't consider that maybe using facebook's platform to spread a lie that had the effect of ddosing the phone lines of a rape crisis centre might have had something to do with it or that maybe he simply failed to heed the warning from facebook?

Yeah, it must be the TV show.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

Almost as if they don't want to be linked to a racist faudster.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Almost as if they don't want to be linked to a racist faudster.

That wasn't my point. My point is how the right are overwhelmingly targeted for bans.

There are all sorts of leftist crazies posting crazy stuff, yet they don't get banned.

I look at some antifa accounts and they're constantly talking about hurting people, doxxing people, etc. Yet they almost never get banned.

Surely you can admit there is political bias amongst the media and tech companies?

Hector Savage

Whatever you think of him, this is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/FeAz9AzF4LA

Really nasty nasty bunch Hope not Hate (oh the irony) and BBC panorama investigative journalists.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That wasn't my point. My point is how the right are overwhelmingly targeted for bans.

There are all sorts of leftist crazies posting crazy stuff, yet they don't get banned.

I look at some antifa accounts and they're constantly talking about hurting people, doxxing people, etc. Yet they almost never get banned.

Surely you can admit there is political bias amongst the media and tech companies?

Refusing to give bigots a platform isn't bias. It's common sense. Legit businesses and advertisers won't want to work with companies that promote filth like Yaxley-Lennon.