nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

[Deleted User]

She's permanently on twitter now tweeting links to wacky stories from a few years ago and every single conspiracy theory she can get her hands on

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hatrickpatrick

listermint wrote: »

She , nor you nor I have the democratic right to a platform

The fact that nonsense is now a thing that lunatics like to spread is gas.

Let me spell it out.

You have no right to a platform.

The end

I explicitly stated this in my post, it's just my political belief that censoring people is scummy. I also believe that online platforms such as YouTube, Twitter etc position themselves as carriers rather than publishers when it suits them, and that it reeks of hypocrisy for them to exercise editorial control in this manner in other circumstances, again when it suits them.

I'm not saying they don't have a right to do it, I'm saying they shouldn't. Freedom of speech online should be protected at all costs, and yes, now that these platforms have totally monopolised several aspects of online communication, I include them in that. I've never particularly cared about the 'rights' of companies or even agreed that this should be a 'thing' to begin with.

hatrickpatrick

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why? Do you think she should be allowed to post whatever she wants in a clear breach of the T&C's she agreed to when signing up?

Should anyone be allowed post whatever they like?

In my view, yes. When it comes to political speech, all political opinions should be "protected classes" or whatever and be covered by discrimination laws when it comes to refusing service based on the airing of political opinion. The internet was more fun and more useful to humanity before the recent wave of partisan censorship took hold.

hatrickpatrick

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Next for what?

Simple question for you,

should Gemma be allowed to post whatever she wants even if its against a sites T&C's that she agreed to when she signed up?

Sites shouldn't be legally allowed to restrict explicitly political or ideological speech as part of their T&Cs. It's bad for democracy when people aren't free to speak their minds about political issues.

Annasopra

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sites shouldn't be legally allowed to restrict explicitly political or ideological speech as part of their T&Cs. It's bad for democracy when people aren't free to speak their minds about political issues.

This isnt merely speaking her mind about politicsl issues. Her videos have been promoting extreme far right hate directed at various minority groups and women. Its bad for democracy when she constantly pushes extreme far right hate targeting certain people and groups.

Gemma herself isnt even a free speech advocate. She threatenened Fiona O'Leary and Fiona "should be dealt with" for speaking out against her. Gemma also has threatened the jobs of people in the media. Gemma tries to silence anyone who disagrees with her.

Stephen15

Gemma actually had a good interview last night with Justin Barrett. Say what you like like about Gemma but Justin Barrett actually seems like an intelligent man and makes some good points.

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

Gemma actually had a good interview last night with Justin Barrett. Say what you like like about Gemma but Justin Barrett actually seems like an intelligent man which makes some good points.

Nah. He's another extreme far right fascist racist who promotes hateful ideology against anyone who isnt a white irish catholic.

[Deleted User]

id be a fan of letting ideas be freely discussed but that has to be an open and honest engagement from all sides and the like of GO'D and her ilk want nothing to do with fair and honest debate. they are leeches that run from reason and take zero responsibility for the truth, quality or consequences of their words

hitching a "free speech" flag to this particular wagon doesnt ring true.

Ash.J.Williams

Stephen15 wrote: »

Gemma actually had a good interview last night with Justin Barrett. Say what you like like about Gemma but Justin Barrett actually seems like an intelligent man and makes some good points.

Intelligent and an insufferable pain in the ring

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

id be a fan of letting ideas be freely discussed but that has to be an open and honest engagement from all sides and the like of GO'D and her ilk want nothing to do with fair and honest debate. they are leeches that run from reason and take zero responsibility for the truth, quality or consequences of their words

hitching a "free speech" flag to this particular wagon doesnt ring true.

Agreed. The irony of supporting Gemmas "free speech" when Gemma constantly tries to shut other peoples speech down.

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nah. He's another extreme far right fascist racist who promotes hateful ideology against anyone who isnt a white irish catholic.

Just like me he dosen't care if you call him a racist it means nothing. I believe there may be a surprise in the next General Election as I do believe the National Party have a chance of gaining seats as they will be running and they will almost certainly get my vote. The current two party situation with FF and FG will not continue there will be a very splintered Dail after the next election which just what we nneed with Brexit.

Would you say the same about Salvini in Italy or the Polish, Czech or Hungarian governments who just like the NP want to preserve their nations. I'm actually in Italy and it breaks my heart that we don't have politicians like Salvini in Ireland I think I may have to move here in the long run.

Stephen15

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Intelligent and an insufferable pain in the ring

Have you heard what he has to say? Speaks a lot of hard truths if you ask me for example regarding Brexit and Islam.

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

Just like me he dosen't care if you call him a racist it means nothing. I believe there may be a surprise in the next General Election as I do believe the National Party have a chance of gaining seats as they will be running and they will almost certainly get my vote. The current two party situation with FF and FG will not continue there will be a very splintered Dail after the next election which just what we nneed with Brexit.

Would you say the same about Salvini in Italy or the Polish, Czech or Hungarian governments who just like the NP want to preserve their nations. I'm actually in Italy and it breaks my heart that we don't have politicians like Salvini in Ireland I think I may have to move here in the long run.

Yes. I would Salvini and Orban are also politicians who's raison detre is based on extreme racist hate. "Preserving nations" is rhetoric designed to demonise and hate. Its vile racist hate.

ILoveYourVibes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I explicitly stated this in my post, it's just my political belief that censoring people is scummy.

Should we allow child pornography then? Instructions on how to build a bomb?

[Deleted User]

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Should we allow child pornography then? Instructions on how to build a bomb?

They are criminal activities.

Political opinion like Gemma's is not as yet a criminal activity.

ILoveYourVibes

Stephen15 wrote: »

Have you heard what he has to say? Speaks a lot of hard truths if you ask me for example regarding Brexit and Islam.

I listened to every word of at least five videos and took notes. I then deconstructed her arguments and presented these videos with notes on certain time stamps as reports for youtube. I know of several people who did the same.

Seeing as youtube has taken them down and they would have been seen by a panel of people I feel my judgement was vindicated.

[Deleted User]

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I listened to every word of at least five videos and took notes. I then deconstructed her arguments and presented these videos with notes on certain time stamps as reports for youtube. I know of several people who did the same.

Seeing as youtube has taken them down and they would have been seen by a panel of people I feel my judgement was vindicated.

What did she say that you took issue with?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

They are criminal activities.

Political opinion like Gemma's is not as yet a criminal activity.

Then you didn't listen to her videos. She was suggesting attacks on minorities. And she promoted hate speech.

[Deleted User]

Stephen15 wrote: »

Just like me he dosen't care if you call him a racist it means nothing.

well thats not necessarily true, is it?

im all for keeping the definitions strictly defined but sometimes when people call you a racist it means that the things you say, do and support could make a casual onlooker believe you may be racist.

[Deleted User]

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Then you didn't listen to her videos. She was suggesting attacks on minorities. And she promoted hate speech.

I've never seen her videos but id be doubtful if she suggested attacking minorities. And hate speech? What is that these days anyway?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never seen her videos but id be doubtful if she suggested attacking minorities. And hate speech? What is that these days anyway?

Oh she REALLY did.

And she suggested people send hate mail to mosques.

Her videos were so long though you would miss it if you weren't careful.

I wanted to get her so i listened carefully for that little snippet that would breach youtube's rules. Took a while.

It would be 5 secs in an hr long rant.

AngryHippie

Is her state of mind being considered as a mental health issue yet ?

She's clearly as mad as a bag of spiders.

People encouraging her are sickos.
People believing her are deluded or daft.

For the safety of the general public, she probably should have to undergo a basic psych exam for a while.

Perhaps some court mandated "lie down on the couch" and "how did that make you feel"

Poor lady is all over the dial.

hill16bhoy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I listened to every word of at least five videos and took notes. I then deconstructed her arguments and presented these videos with notes on certain time stamps as reports for youtube. I know of several people who did the same.

Seeing as youtube has taken them down and they would have been seen by a panel of people I feel my judgement was vindicated.

Thank you, you and others did a genuine public service by doing that.

Hopefully Twitter follow suit very quickly in banning her and her hate speech.

SoundsRight

Looking at recent history, and the way Gerry Adams was mysticised with similar kind of censorship, I'm not sure YouTube's actions will do anything to quell Gemma's appetite. If people don't like what she's saying, just don't listen to her.

micosoft

SoundsRight wrote: »

Looking at recent history, and the way Gerry Adams was mysticised with similar kind of censorship, I'm not sure YouTube's actions will do anything to quell Gemma's appetite. If people don't like what she's saying, just don't listen to her.

Actually it will. Gerry Adams was noteworthy and existed without "social media". Gemma O'Doherty lives off the oxygen of social media - without it she and her rancid ideas will wither on the vine.

micosoft

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never seen her videos but id be doubtful if she suggested attacking minorities. And hate speech? What is that these days anyway?

If you'd never seen videos of Hitler etc etc. Are you doubtful that was not hate speech as well? A fellow poster told you they had carefully listened and literally documented the instances of hate speech in her youtube videos.

What is Hate Speech? It's pretty well defined actually.

Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989
• “hatred” means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on
account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins,
membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation
• Section 2 offence:
“It shall be an offence for a person—
(a) to publish or distribute written material,
(b) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or
material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
or
(c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case
may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having
regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.”

SoundsRight

micosoft wrote: »

Actually it will. Gerry Adams was noteworthy and existed without "social media". Gemma O'Doherty lives off the oxygen of social media - without it she and her rancid ideas will wither on the vine.

I think Gemma may have been quite successful before the rise of social media. I doubt she'll lose any sleep over this.

crossman47

Deleted User wrote: »

They are criminal activities.

Political opinion like Gemma's is not as yet a criminal activity.

But her ant Vax views are just as dangerous as any criminal activity.

[Deleted User]

I think she will become a David Icke type of media celebrity. She attracts a certain fringe element with outlandish claims and conspiracy theories, but after a while her audience becomes bored as her claims become more embarrassing. I feel for her family, it mustn’t be easy to see her being ridiculed so frequently.

jackboy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I wanted to get her so i listened carefully for that little snippet that would breach youtube's rules. Took a while.

It would be 5 secs in an hr long rant.

Have you ever read 1984 by Orwell. This is exactly the type of activity that the thought police and big brother would encourage.

Yes GOD sometimes says things that could be considered extreme. She is careful not to cross the line but she gets carried away during her long live streams and makes bad mistakes. She is going further down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole every day which is actually sad to see. Your actions will do nothing but prove to her, and worse, many others, that there are people out there trying to ‘get’ them.

ohnonotgmail

jackboy wrote: »

Have you ever read 1984 by Orwell. This is exactly the type of activity that the thought police and big brother would encourage.

Yes GOD sometimes says things that could be considered extreme. She is careful not to cross the line but she gets carried away during her long live streams and makes bad mistakes. She is going further down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole every day which is actually sad to see. Your actions will do nothing but prove to her, and worse, many others, that there are people out there trying to ‘get’ them.

people are reporting what she herself is saying yet somehow you think that is a conspiracy against her. If she didnt say these things there would be nothing to report. It is all down to her.