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?
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.
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.
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 wrote: » TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram
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
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.
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.
Deleted User wrote: » crazy stuff.
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.
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.
OMM 0000 wrote: » What do you believe he's actually up to?
stefanovich wrote: » Tommy Robinson is a hero
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.
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.
OMM 0000 wrote: » What bans? Sorry I'm not in the loop.
OMM 0000 wrote: » Why would there be a mistrial if someone reported on it?
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?
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.
stefanovich wrote: » https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290
OMM 0000 wrote: » Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Almost as if they don't want to be linked to a racist faudster.
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
