Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

12-01-2021 1:42am

"Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence."

Seems reasonable. Do go on. You may need a shovel.

Dohnjoe · 12-01-2021 1:45am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What I was attempting to suggest is that a pretext or even a precedent will have been set with regards to this Capitol "insurrection"

When I mentioned that it would portend to increased internet censorship, many immediately screeched "if you incite a riot then you should be shut down"

Except, that's not what I said. I said that increased consorship is imminent.

Thank you to Ted-YNWA for allowing the discussion to continue.

As I mentioned earlier, now anything can be classified as seditious, regardless of whether you or I deem it to be inciteful.

In conclusion, a law that can be used to quash free speech, even if that free speech is inflammatory, will be used for other purposes.

Okay, and what is the conspiracy theory?

ShatterAlan · 12-01-2021 10:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

"Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence."

Seems reasonable. Do go on. You may need a shovel.

By your logic a trad band in a bar can be shut down and hauled off for singing

"Come out ye Black & Tans"
"Highland Paddy"

These songs speak of violence and maybe you might find them innocuous but there's always some stuffed shirt stick in the mud who might classify them as inciteful.

Tom Jones' "Delilah" speaks of a tormented man knifing his partner because he couldn't take her abuse.

How many Heavy Metal and rap songs glorify violence.

Anything can be construed as inciteful if you do enough verbal hoop-jumping.

There's a big difference between standing up and urging people to go out and commit acts of violence, and simply telling stories. But therein lies the rub. Most people with half a brain know the difference. If it is deigned and deemed that what you say "could" be inciteful then anything can be painted in such a light if the object is to silence the message.

NSAman · 12-01-2021 10:40pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

By your logic a trad band in a bar can be shut down and hauled off for singing

"Come out ye Black & Tans"
"Highland Paddy"

These songs speak of violence and maybe you might find them innocuous but there's always some stuffed shirt stick in the mud who might classify them as inciteful.

Tom Jones' "Delilah" speaks of a tormented man knifing his partner because he couldn't take her abuse.

How many Heavy Metal and rap songs glorify violence.

Anything can be construed as inciteful if you do enough verbal hoop-jumping.

There's a big difference between standing up and urging people to go out and commit acts of violence, and simply telling stories. But therein lies the rub. Most people with half a brain know the difference. If it is deigned and deemed that what you say "could" be inciteful then anything can be painted in such a light if the object is to silence the message.

That to me is the prime issue.

Closing down any speech that "breaches the terms and conditions" of our platform.

These platforms in the future are going to face larger and larger issues if they insist on being the thought police for generations now and in the future.

I am sure there will be legislation brought in against them, whether it be personal identification (not a problem for me) or actual sanctions on anything that promotes violence at all. (define violence)

When does the messenger (pun intended) get shot?

ShatterAlan · 12-01-2021 10:50pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, and what is the conspiracy theory?

I can't spell it out in any simpler terms than I already have done.

The USA PATRIOT act was effected to combat terrorism yet has been used to ensnare, charge and convict those who have no links to anything remotely resembling terrorism despite assurances that that was the purpose of the legislation.

People talk about private companies and "their rules".

If you want to get a message across that might embarrass a few people in power do you think that because you voiced that on Twitter, Twitter banned you because THEY were uncomfortable with your thoughts or because they were put under pressure? If ZERO pressure was brought to bear on media whether they be print, digital, audio, video, then anything would and could be broadcast.

Now if you can't get your message across via traditional channels you could set up your own channel. The only problem with that is that the government control the airwaves. So they don't like what you have to say...BAM...end of license.

Rewind back to pre-internet days. You could print and distribute your own newspaper/magazine/newsletter. If they didn't like your message your offices and printing facilities were attacked and destroyed.

That leaves you with standing in the park or on the town square simply speaking. A much tinier audience but again if the message is uncomfortable then you can be easily silenced.

Julian Assange is banged up for no other reason than he published leaked documents that exposed US war crimes. He didn't incite a riot. He didn't sell secrets. All he did was publish the same things that the NYT and The London Times did. But he's being labelled as a traitor to the US (that's funny...he's not even American).

What I'm trying to say in, I suppose, this drawn out explanation is that the Capitol Hill "invasion" has provided ample ammunition to clamp down on freedom of speech under the umbrella that said free speech can vaguely be determined as seditious and anathema to the sanctity of "The Republic".

Zaph · 12-01-2021 11:12pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What I was attempting to suggest is that a pretext or even a precedent will have been set with regards to this Capitol "insurrection"

I'm not sure why you feel the need for inverted commas around insurrection. It was an insurrection, essentially at the prompting of the sitting president of the United States. There's no question as to what else it could be considered. Similarly what Trump did can only be classed as sedition. The definition of sedition is "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch". There's no question that his speech incited people to attempt to stop Congress from carrying out their democratically elected duty of certifying the election votes.

13-01-2021 12:04am

Trad bands, that's quite the ace in the hole for your argument.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 1:51am

NSAman wrote: »

That to me is the prime issue.

Closing down any speech that "breaches the terms and conditions" of our platform.

These platforms in the future are going to face larger and larger issues if they insist on being the thought police for generations now and in the future.

I am sure there will be legislation brought in against them, whether it be personal identification (not a problem for me) or actual sanctions on anything that promotes violence at all. (define violence)

When does the messenger (pun intended) get shot?

You make a good point.

A very easy way to test your hypothesis is to conduct a small experiment.

If you were to go online to, shall we say, Youtube and post a comment on perhaps a football discussion and announce "All Glasgow Rangers supporters should be drowned at birth or knifed in their beds" .... chances are that vile and mouthy comment would be allowed to stand.

If you were to state that you were fully in favour of children being caged (that is violence after all) at the Mexican border and that their parents should be shot or jailed. Again you will find that this type of talk will be allowed.

If, however, you state that your elected representatives are derelict and that the oath that they have sworn has not only been abrogated but sullied and ignored and that you are within your remit to exercise your constitutional right to Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Assembly and the right to petition government to address grievances, then you can be not only limited but furthermore sanctioned.

I see the difference between inciting against A and B. You don't seem to.

Which is inciteful to violence?

A: We should all storm the Hill and teach these bloodsuckers a lesson.

B: We should turn North Korea/Iraq/Iran/Venezuela/Cuba/Syria/Afghanistan/Libya into a radioactive slag heap and let God sort 'em out.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 2:04am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can't spell it out in any simpler terms than I already have done.

It's just a random stream of your world views.

1. Who is behind this conspiracy related to the capital riots? name the accomplices
2. What exactly is their goal?
3. How long has this been happening for? (a basic timeline)
4. Evidence for the above

13-01-2021 2:23am

Walter Mitty stuff.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 11:15am

Zaph wrote: »

I'm not sure why you feel the need for inverted commas around insurrection. It was an insurrection, essentially at the prompting of the sitting president of the United States. There's no question as to what else it could be considered. Similarly what Trump did can only be classed as sedition. The definition of sedition is "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch". There's no question that his speech incited people to attempt to stop Congress from carrying out their democratically elected duty of certifying the election votes.

And I don't know why you even posted what you posted. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic we are discussing. It's irrelevant what your opinions are on Trump, his supporters, the Capitol riot, the incoming Biden administration or whatever. The topic of this thread is that the Capitol riot will be used as a pretext to shut down free speech.

For anyone who is interested here are a few articles that address the topic as well:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-trump-s-twitter-ban-sparks-political-debate-in-australia-over-censorship-concerns

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56164.htm

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 11:16am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's just a random stream of your world views.

1. Who is behind this conspiracy related to the capital riots? name the accomplices
2. What exactly is their goal?
3. How long has this been happening for? (a basic timeline)
4. Evidence for the above

Why are you completely changing the subject?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 11:18am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And I don't know why you even posted what you posted. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic we are discussing. It's irrelevant what your opinions are on Trump, his supporters, the Capitol riot, the incoming Biden administration or whatever. The topic of this thread is that the Capitol riot will be used as a pretext to shut down free speech.

For anyone who is interested here are a few articles that address the topic as well:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/donald-trump-s-twitter-ban-sparks-political-debate-in-australia-over-censorship-concerns

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56164.htm

You don’t seem to understand ‘free speech’, and I don’t have the will to explain it to you because you won’t listen.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 11:31am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why are you completely changing the subject?

Considering this is a conspiracy theory forum, and this is a thread about the Capitol riots, and that you've previously claimed that "something else" happened at those riots..

What is the conspiracy?

If there is none, then what relevance does this thread have to do with conspiracy theories..

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 11:38am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Considering this is a conspiracy theory forum, and this is a thread about the Capitol riots, and that you've previously claimed that "something else" happened at those riots..

What is the conspiracy?

If there is none, then what relevance does this thread have to do with conspiracy theories..

This thread is NOT about the Capitol riots. This thread is about the Capitol riots being used as a pretext to exacerbate censorship. If I am of the opinion that something other than what reportedly happened took place then that is a different story and is completely irrelevant to this discussion/ You are trying to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

It's as if I were to state that the 7/7 bombings in London were going to be used as a pretext to ramp up surveillance all over the UK and install cameras covering every square inch of every city and you come back with some irrelevant questions about the bombings themselves.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 11:41am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

This thread is NOT about the Capitol riots. This thread is about the Capitol riots being used as a pretext to exacerbate censorship. If I am of the opinion that something other than what reportedly happened took place then that is a different story and is completely irrelevant to this discussion/ You are trying to derail the thread by going off on a tangent.

Okay, and you are presumably aware this is the conspiracy theory forum, which begs the question, what does that have to do with conspiracy theories?

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 11:48am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Okay, and you are presumably aware this is the conspiracy theory forum, which begs the question, what does that have to do with conspiracy theories?

I've made my point. I'm not going to play your predictable games of gotcha questions. And if you want to be a moderator then why don't you just apply for the position?

Detritus70 · 13-01-2021 12:02pm

If I walked into a business, startet screaming and yelling and generally acting the arse, I would be asked to leave. If I didn't leave, I would be removed. If I asault anyone, I would be arrested and charged. And NONE of my rights would be infringed.
This is exactly the same.
Freedom of speech does not mean ANYONE ELSE has to enable you or provide you with a platform. You will be yelled at, ridiculed, insulted, warned, infracted, banned and you WILL be charged if you engage in hate speech or incited violence.
If Boards bans you, your rights have not been infringed.
You can open your own Platform where you can say whatever you want, but the whole incitement to violence and hate speech thing will still bite you in the ass.

TL/DR:
No one owes you a platform. If you act the arse, you will get banned and may face charges.
And too fcuking right!

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 12:03pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I've made my point.

Your point doesn't make any sense, I'm not even sure you understand the question.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 12:23pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

If I walked into a business, startet screaming and yelling and generally acting the arse, I would be asked to leave. If I didn't leave, I would be removed. If I asault anyone, I would be arrested and charged. And NONE of my rights would be infringed.
This is exactly the same.
Freedom of speech does not mean ANYONE ELSE has to enable you or provide you with a platform. You will be yelled at, ridiculed, insulted, warned, infracted, banned and you WILL be charged if you engage in hate speech or incited violence.
If Boards bans you, your rights have not been infringed.
You can open your own Platform where you can say whatever you want, but the whole incitement to violence and hate speech thing will still bite you in the ass.

TL/DR:
No one owes you a platform. If you act the arse, you will get banned and may face charges.
And too fcuking right!

This is exactly the same as what?

Detritus70 · 13-01-2021 1:04pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

This is exactly the same as what?

The same as people being banned from Online platforms.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 1:40pm

Detritus70 wrote: »

The same as people being banned from Online platforms.

Its not though. If you wrote a libellous letter in the Irish Times and they printed it, the times would get sued. You write x on twitter, you are banned if you are a certain persuasion, and ignored if you are another, and twitter don't get sued either way.

Try to write some of the things that are left up on twitter on boards even and watch what happens. At least here is fairly consistent in that regard.

Ted_YNWA · 13-01-2021 1:43pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's just a random stream of your world views.

1. Who is behind this conspiracy related to the capital riots? name the accomplices
2. What exactly is their goal?
3. How long has this been happening for? (a basic timeline)
4. Evidence for the above

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Considering this is a conspiracy theory forum, and this is a thread about the Capitol riots, and that you've previously claimed that "something else" happened at those riots..

What is the conspiracy?

If there is none, then what relevance does this thread have to do with conspiracy theories..

Mod

This thread is not about what happened at the Riots.

What ShatterAlan is alluding to is that MSM and social media platform will use this incident to decide themselves what they consider to be 'free speech' and thereby restricting what people can say.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 2:07pm

Yup seems to be a view on censorship, not seeing what the relation to conspiracy theories is yet

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 2:14pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Its not though. If you wrote a libellous letter in the Irish Times and they printed it, the times would get sued. You write x on twitter, you are banned if you are a certain persuasion, and ignored if you are another, and twitter don't get sued either way.

Try to write some of the things that are left up on twitter on boards even and watch what happens. At least here is fairly consistent in that regard.

The times would edit and censor what they print too. They would generally be more severe than Twitter as the times wouldn’t even provide access to their platform in the first place.

It is not a private companies responsibility to provide a platform for people to say what they want. If someone wants that ability then they should create their own platform.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 2:17pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The times would edit and censor what they print too. They would generally be more severe than Twitter as the times wouldn’t even provide access to their platform in the first place.

It is not a private companies responsibility to provide a platform for people to say what they want. If someone wants that ability then they should create their own platform.

Yeah I agree with you. But twitter have their cake and eat it. They get to edit, and also wash their hands of the disinformation they allow up there, that's the point!

To go back to the times, it (normally) doesn't print libellous stuff, lies etc. The daily mail might. The mail is rightly seen as a rag, and can get sued for printing its nonsense as it has done in the past. Twitter is the mail of social media, but doesnt get sued,and it's grown so large that anyone trying to take action against it gets destroyed by it. We actually agree more than we disagree!

EyesClosed · 13-01-2021 2:19pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Yeah I agree with you. But twitter have their cake and eat it. They get to edit, and also wash their hands of the disinformation they allow up there, that's the point!

To go back to the times, it (normally) doesn't print libellous stuff, lies etc. The daily mail might. The mail is rightly seen as a rag, and can get sued for printing its nonsense as it has done in the past. Twitter is the mail of social media, but doesnt get sued,and it's grown so large that anyone trying to take action against it gets destroyed by it. We actually agree more than we disagree!

What's the conspiracy in all this?

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 2:29pm

EyesClosed wrote: »

What's the conspiracy in all this?

That tech companies, backed by their size, power and money, are coming together to influence those who legislate in America, clearly.

Thinkingaboutit · 13-01-2021 2:37pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Already the MSM are calling for the strangling of freedom of speech n the US.

Anyone can be silenced purely if it is deemed that their words might deem them to be construed as fomenting violence.

Parler has already been targeted:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55598887

People will of course continue to agree with these measures because they love Big Brother. O'Brien has made sure of that.

Parler seems to have been an upgraded Wordpress site using an unregistered demo software for user registration, which its joke security was breached (content scraped) and could lead to a possible mass doxxing the result as it required personal identification for activities like group chat. This might be one example where cancel culture might do something good. Whoever was responsible for its security (the earlier Ron Watkins, QAnon mess was an earlier example) should maybe take up market gardening and stay away from computers.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 2:48pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

That tech companies, backed by their size, power and money, are coming together to influence those who legislate in America, clearly.

Thanks for presenting some sort of conspiracy, albeit a vague one

Using this logic, would you also say Boards.ie is part of this conspiracy? Like Twitter, FB, etc it's also a private social media platform and like them it regularly blocks/bans posters for certain views, e.g. in politics threads, many Trump supporters have been blocked, ergo it's part of the same agenda?

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Comments