The Guardian brands Elon Musk "Worlds Richest Pub Bore"

I agree Monica but my point us there is no difference between the 'get back in the kitchen' lot and the these rapiats are women, it is all hateful, but only one would fall under hate speech law.

Rapists even.

Galaxy

Nobody believes in complete freedom of speech, so for example I believe you shouldnt be allowed to say I am shoplifter if I am not. But it should be the fewest limits as possible. Controlling speech always impacts the most vulnerable as we have seen in recent years.

Nobody believes in complete freedom of speech

In which case, there have to be limits then, surely?

you shouldnt be allowed to say I am shoplifter if I am not

In the same way that Mark Heath repeatedly said the offender behind the attacks - the murder - of those three girls in Southport was an asylum seeker named Ali Al Shakati. Which he was not.

Heath also wrote that perpetrator was a failed asylum seeker who was on a plane to Rwanda "that got stopped" by the Labour party, Sir Keir Starmer and "other lefties".

None of which was true.

You are not a shoplifter and the murderer was not an asylum seeker.

Neither was he, as was implied, a Muslim. Both his parents were Catholics.

This is the thing with free-speech, it really does come with responsibility, not least the responsibility to be truthful and not post misinformation that can, and did in this case, lead to serious rioting. Which Musk is now capitalising on by suggesting we are (or were) on the brink of civil-war, and allowing Starmer to be mocked for locking people up for hurty-words, and concurring with a post suggesting the King should dissolve Parliament and call an election.

It's insidious, it's absurd, it's dangerous.

Yes.

I wish he was just a pub bore, but I think he is a very dangerous man.

pascal30 I think you are wrong. There is more than one way he can claim British citizenship I think.

Here's some info about descent rules:
birmingham-immigrationlawyer.co.uk/british-citizenship-by-descent/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20you%20may%20be%20eligible,personalised%20guidance%20on%20your%20case.

And then there was an "investing in the UK" route - I'm not sure that loophole has been closed yet...?

Maybe you know?

And where is the responsibility of those who said Biden is fine, or suppressed the information on Bidens son, or who say Male rapists are women. Those lies are ok. I would suggest that is because those of the lies of the powerful and the middle class, where the lies you mentioned are the lies on Twitter which is open to the ordinary people. It is about control and power. Twitten weakens the power of some which is why they dont like it.

Why on earth cant you cope with Musk suggesting the king should dissolve parliament, they are just silly hurty words, and if we are unable to formulate a counter debate to that then to be honest we have lost.

Galaxy

Why on earth cant you cope with Musk suggesting the king should dissolve parliament, they are just silly hurty words, and if we are unable to formulate a counter debate to that then to be honest we have lost.

Is calling Jess Phillips a "rape genocide apologist" or a British caver a "pedo guy" just "hurty" words? Don't you realise that it only takes one deranged lone wolf to be encouraged to take drastic action? If that's your idea of free speech, I really can't support it.

Where will you set the limits, I think jess phillips has been pretty useless in terms of women and girls, I think she is weak and will excuse terrible behaviour. Can I say that or will you say but what if.
It is fine if you dont support it, I dont need you to.

This is the thing, it is insidious, of course it seems reasonable to state you cant call someone a pedo guy, but it never stops there, so apparently now ' allowing Starmer to be mocked' is dangerous. No it isnt. Starmer and whoever holds power should be mocked, preferably by a media (comedians, writers, etc) doing their job.

There's a difference between individuals telling lies to people they know and the wealthiest man in the US using an unregulated social media platform to make libellous statements about public figures. We can't stop EM printing what he wants and supporting who he wants via X but we can recognise what he's doing as wrong. Would anyone support his right, in the name of "free speech" to write anything he wants to, however untrue, damaging or likely to cause harm? It's not about "causing "offence " it's about inciting "hatred" and IMO there's a clear difference.

What is dangerous is the amount of magnification Musk's comments receive. Tell a lie often enoough, it may start to be believed.

Galaxy, the difference is that you are stating your belief about Jess Philips, in a reasonable way, and who else will see it? Just us GNs on this thread. But with Musk it is an amplified command, 'Jess Philips should be in jail.' It is no longer an opinion, it is dangerous mysoginistic hate speech.

sorry 'misogynistic'

Tell a lie often enoough, it may start to be believed

Absolutely Maremia - as was proved in Southport in the summer, with frightening consequences.

I find it shocking that some on GN support Musk in his disgusting libel of Jess Phillips - calling it ‘just hurty words’.

We saw, in the summer riots, how Musk’s ‘hurty words’ can incite people to violence.

Now he’s directing his vengeance towards Jess Phillips.

This man is dangerous!

You think it is reasonable maremia but others might not. Who gets to decide that? As I say I am much more frightened of those who want to control speech, they cause damage to the very people they claim to protect.

Regarding Jess Phillips, on BBC Questiion Time on 29th January 2016 she commented that the treatment and assaults of multiple women in Cologne by immigrants was just like a weekend night out in Birmingham

The clip is still available

With social media platforms, everything is out there forever.

GG Jess Phillips was wrong to say that. I would argue it was offensive language rather than language to incite hatred - there is a difference.

Nevertheless, does her comment make her a ‘rape genocide apologist’?

LizzieDrip not in my book.

Sorry LizzieDrip my previous post was unclear.

I think she was extremely stupid to make those remarks, it has left her open to criticism regarding her take on assaults on women which will prove uncomfortable for her in her position of Safeguarding Minister.

A case of engage brain before open mouth

Does it make her a rape, genocide apologist no, but it does through doubt on her understanding of what is now her brief

Jess Phillips apologised immediately. She was wrong to say it but - many women will confirm ‘going out’ in a boozy town centre is risky for women

Throw not through 🤷‍♀️

Jess Phillips seems well qualified for her role

Iam64

Jess Phillips apologised immediately. She was wrong to say it but - many women will confirm ‘going out’ in a boozy town centre is risky for women

Women have been raped and assaulted since time began, they should be safe to go out and have a drink anywhere.

This is a male problem, whatever their ethnicity.

Sounds like victim blaming.