to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

The saddest and the scariest thing is, that if a bunch of grannies on a Forum can be so divided - imagine how divisive the real world out there is becoming, on both sides of the pond.

Allez, j'y vais - au revoir.

Didnt' explain the context of the conversation- I had not criticised the person for reading the DM- but had made a comment about the front cover.

Look at all the papers from al other the world in 1922-33 - bending over backwards to say Hitler was not anti-semite and was quite inocuous. I know many will throw their hands up in the air, and say 'there is no comparison' - and I'd reply 'are you really sure?

How on earth can POGS be accused of 'spoiling for a silly fight'? She has been called racist with no justification at all by some posters who seem to go by the mantra of 'You can agree with me, or you can be wrong'. Shameful behaviour by people who should know better.

Not even Guardian readers?

Of course it hasn't, because I would never dream of criticising someone for reading a certain newspaper.

Before I go for a looong rest - just wondering if the following conversation has ever happened to others:

'How dare you criticise me for reading the Daily Mail. That is censorship and you have no right to judge people for the paper they read'

Moi ' have you seen the front page of the Sun today?

'Ah, The Sun- yes terrible - what vile rubbish - Sun readers are scum'.

Moi ' hmmmm '

www.sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/09/the-press-and-immigration-reporting.html

www.sub-scribe.co.uk/2016/11/how-lego-changes-game-by-doing-nothing.html

Cop out, roses, at 09.55.
You do not have to have the actual paper in your hand to know what the headlines are.
To risk being accused of censorship, you shouldn't be on this thread if you don't want to know the headlines that the DM has been spewing.

My parents used to read the DM and they were not racist. However, I know that they would not be reading it now because of its overt racist articles.

Roses

'Prosecutions can and have, been brought against many papers when they overstep the line.'

yes, the problem is, as said before, is that many of those front pages are borderline - but it is the cumulative and sublimal effect which is so harmful and, yes, racist.

When out of all the lorry drivers who are on their mobiles- you only pick the foreign ones - it does imply that this is a problem with them, and them only - and we all know- whichever side of the 'argument' we are here- that this is blatantly NOT true.

It isn't my feelings that I am concerned about but all those victims of hate crime and prejudice. All of which has increased exponentially since Brexit and the recent press headlines.

The same is now happening in America. Take a look at Fox News and then the experiences of Muslims, blacks and to a certain extent Jewish population with Nazi slogans and symbols being daubed on buildings.

Next we have Le Penn and other right wing politicians. It is in my view a disaster waiting to happen.

During the 30s many people warned of the trouble that lay ahead, and they were told that they were alarmist etc.

Worried voices must be listened to and not ridiculed.

Merlot, my grandchildren are 7 and 10- and they go with their dad to the newsagents every Saturday morning to buy a paper, and choose one for themsselves on occasions- so yes- they are 'confronted' with those headlines- but not with social media, etc. And they can both read beautifully- and often ask why- who are they, etc? And it is not easy to reply for their parents or for us when we are with them.

It's a question of balance- most of us, probably all, agreed that Charlie Hebdo had gone too far and that their headlines and front pages were just too provocative. I totally agree by the way, and I also remember that many of us said that with free speech comes responsibility too- just as with any kind of freedom. There is a massive difference between 'political correctness' or being over-sensitive - to actually being harmful and real attacks on some groups of people- this especially with the cumulative effect of the day in, day out. Did you watch the video I put on yesterday- where the front pages of the Express were shown in quick succession? I do wonder how anyone could not see the sublimal cummulative effect it can have on some/many- especially as Tegan says- those who are, for one reason or another, much more susceptible to those influence.

I'd hazard here that Charlie Hebdo is in fact much less damaging- because it is aimed at a very small niche of the population, and because it is so vile and over the top- that it is clearly seen as such - in a way photoshopped and manipulated photos of real people are not.

As for LEGO - as said above- they have a limited budget and are totally free to choose where they do or don't advertise. LEGO will be my first choice for Christmas presents.

We (my brothers and myself) very young when my parents ensured that we knew that our freedom was one of the best things we had- but that it had to stop where it begins to hurt others. I am very thankful to them. They also taught us to fight racism and discrimination wherever we see it. I discovered 'racism' or the 'taught and indocrinated' fear of the 'other' when I was in the first year at school - children arrived fleeing the uprising in Hungary- and later we had gipsies and the year after lots of Italian children who spoke no French. It was ugly - and I'll never forget. But for the grace of a roll of a dice...

You are now just spoiling for a silly fight POGS.

Perhaps all grans do not think the same as you ww ( or me, either)
I do understand your concerns about what is seen as hate headlines ( can't comment as I don't have any newspapers) but I uphold the free press above everything ( what we like or dislike doesn't matter ) knowing that there are laws in place if anything becomes criminal.Therefore anything else ( not criminal) becomes a matter of morals or ethics, and we should not ever demand that the press conforms to our own feelings.

For right then read "all grans"

Prosecutions can and have, been brought against many papers when they overstep the line.

Who knows, as I am not a 'right wing ' gran and don't think that party politics comes into it anyway.Of course people can say what they think about newspapers printing things they hate and protest about it, a free country and free speech,but that goes for ALL including the newspapers.

Press censorship is not the same as expecting a certain civilising standard in the media. None of us who are horrified at some of the headlines and editorials of the more right wing press have suggested press censorship, but all of us are calling for recognition that it is wrong. So yes we all agree that freedom of speech is a mark of a mature society, but so is the willingness to speak out against what we see as inciting hatred. Perhaps the more right wing grans will be brave enough to speak out against it as well?

There is a feeling amongst some people in this country, that if they don't care for something it should be stopped.

If the DM or any other newspaper printed anything that fell into those categories then they will be taken to court (and have been) otherwise newspapers should be left alone.

If you read my posts on these threads I have said there are laws in place to protect us from hate crimes, slander and libel.
That is exactly why we don't need nanny groups strong arming and browbeating as well.

We can't say what we like as there are laws against inciting racial hatred, and certain terrorist groups are banned etc. So speech isn't completely "free".

All that you CAN say is that 'I do not like what they print' and NOT try and put censorship in place.

To call POGS racist is not only outrageous but quite stupid: POGS is stating the case for free speech and a free press.We censor the press at our peril, some countries would do anything to have newspapers that wrote what they liked.
Free speech means saying anything we like as long as it isn't slander or libel ( we do have laws in place for that) and you cannot say ' I am all for free speech as long as it's responsible' or ( I read this on another thread) 'I am for free speech as long as it's tempered with wisdom' WHAT?? That is not FREE speech!

I am all for free speech but responsible free speech. I am sorry but any one that condones racism or homophobia etc is totally totally wrong.

Pogs To carry your logic concerning freedom of speech, then where would you stop or decide that something being said is unacceptable and highly likely to cause or encourage riot or death?