The Guardian brands Elon Musk "Worlds Richest Pub Bore"

Galaxy

I think it is deeply hateful for the BBC to describe violent Male offenders as female, they do it all the time, but my definition of hate wont count.
Who gets to define hate speech? Usually the last people you would want to be in charge of that definition.
As a woman I would rather deal with those who call me names and say I belong in the kitchen than those who wish to control speech. The second group scare the life put of me.

Galaxy You exactly prove my point. For the BBC to 'hatefully' describe violent male offenders as evil, they would have to have an intense negative emotional response towards certain people, things or ideas, usually related to opposition or revulsion toward something. Hate is often associated with intense feelings of anger, contempt, and disgust. and that is clearly not true for the BBC

What you mean is that you find the language the BBC makes you angry, which is something else entirely. The BBC in the language they use are only using the same words and descriptions as used in the law courts, when they have allowed men who identify as women to be addressed as such and as such are making a simple statement

I share your distaste, for the language, but by defining it as 'hateful is to diminsh what the word means and push us to a point where no one is permitted to make any negative speech at any time on anything because it will defined as hate speech.

It would mean that if a friend asked me if a dress she was trying on suited her and my reply was No, your bum looks big in it' I could beup before the court for hate speech.

Galaxy

Because you cant have both. You cant only control the speech you dont like. It doesnt work like that. If you believe in free speech then you have to support the freedom of speech of those you hate.
Musk re instated the gender critical feminists who were banned too.

Do you think there are any limits to free-speech - specifically on social media sites, I mean?

If a hypothetical individual wants to, for example, see another person that he / she doesn't like physically assaulted (for whatever reason) - should that individual be free to post information, either real or fake, in order to encourage an assault?

Because that is what complete freedom of speech entails, isn't it? Otherwise, where do we draw the line? There can be no line under complete freedom to say whatever you like.

Social media is full of misinformation, lies, fake news - among all the other, useful stuff - we could feasibly start a war via social media...

I understand what you are saying, "I don't like what you say but will defend to the death your right", etc, and it's a valiant premise.

But here's my 'take'. We live in a very very imperfect world and, somehow, we have to make it work so that people can go about their lives with relative freedom and safety. If you allow absolute freedom of speech then we will ultimately have anarchy - no barriers, civilisation will fall and people will not only say what they like - they will do what they like. That's where I believe absolute freedom of speech will lead to.

What that free speech might include speech I dont like? Yes I am living on the edge

Galaxy

Because you cant have both. You cant only control the speech you dont like. It doesnt work like that. If you believe in free speech then you have to support the freedom of speech of those you hate.
Musk re instated the gender critical feminists who were banned too.

That is not what the law says. Nor has said since it was defined in law.

Your view of free speech is definitely more out there than most people’s Galaxy.

Because you cant have both. You cant only control the speech you dont like. It doesnt work like that. If you believe in free speech then you have to support the freedom of speech of those you hate.
Musk re instated the gender critical feminists who were banned too.

*Galaxy^

As a woman I would rather deal with those who call me names and say I belong in the kitchen than those who wish to control speech. The second group scare the life put of me.

Why either, or?

Do you think those misogynists who believe you belong in the kitchen would value your opinion?

In online videos, it is alleged that Andrew Tate has said that women are a man's property, belong in the home, and cannot drive.

What freedoms do you think you might have under a patriarchy of such alpha males?

How different is this from the mentality of those men who sexually abused those young girls, really?

What platforms do you think they might allow for you to voice your free-speech opinion - on anything, ultimately?

Musk has re-instated Tate's account.

Someone needs to tell him in words of one syllable to concentrate on weeding his own potato patch. The US is a big country, with some big problems, there is enough to keep him busy there without interfering in British matters. The UK is quite capable of sorting out its own constitutional affairs. We have had worse situations to face in out long and complicated history, and managed fine without his two pennorth.

As for civil war - just no!!

I agree and it isn’t only the BBC who describe violent male offenders as women. The law does this. Police record sex offences committed by men who identify as women as having been committed by women, including rape that involved a penis.
As a woman, I’d rather not have to deal with misogyny in its many forms

Galaxy

I think it is deeply hateful for the BBC to describe violent Male offenders as female, they do it all the time, but my definition of hate wont count.
Who gets to define hate speech? Usually the last people you would want to be in charge of that definition.
As a woman I would rather deal with those who call me names and say I belong in the kitchen than those who wish to control speech. The second group scare the life put of me.

I agree!

Ask any gender critical feminist how free speech has been in the last few years. Are they liars? Did we dream the court cases, or the attempts to get women fired. Most feminists would just laugh at the idea there hasnt been a problem with free speech in this country. It is gas lighting to say that didnt happen.

I think it is deeply hateful for the BBC to describe violent Male offenders as female, they do it all the time, but my definition of hate wont count.
Who gets to define hate speech? Usually the last people you would want to be in charge of that definition.
As a woman I would rather deal with those who call me names and say I belong in the kitchen than those who wish to control speech. The second group scare the life put of me.

Listening to correspondents look ahead today they say that trump and musk are already in disagreement over the visa issues.
Musk desperately needs the people that trump doesn’t want to issue visas too for his tech companies.

Dickens

Musk was convinced the UK was on the brink of civil-war.

It hasn't happened so I think he's doing his best to make sure it does.

BTW, in the interests of 'accuracy' and not spreading false information, it wasn't Musk who said the King should dissolve Parliament, it was another tweeter / poster - Musk simply amplified the post suggesting it, and commented "yes".

... I'm sure Charles is giving the matter careful consideration. Even though that isn't quite the way it works...

Thanks for raising a smile here Dickens. The idea of the King considering the demand he dissolve Parliament and insist on an election is pure Spittin Image

If I use the words "hate speech" it is hate within the categories I defined above ie illegal

not offence or that level.

Musk was convinced the UK was on the brink of civil-war.

It hasn't happened so I think he's doing his best to make sure it does.

BTW, in the interests of 'accuracy' and not spreading false information, it wasn't Musk who said the King should dissolve Parliament, it was another tweeter / poster - Musk simply amplified the post suggesting it, and commented "yes".

... I'm sure Charles is giving the matter careful consideration. Even though that isn't quite the way it works...

It’s simply nonsense to suggest Americans are needed to ensure freedom of speech is maintained. In that, I don’t see freedom of speech as allowing folk to tell others to burn asylum seekers alive - for example.
I’m relieved the riots were stopped as quickly as possible.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you like, providing it does not jepodise the freedom of other people.

So you are not free to speak in support of anti-semitism, racist comments, slander and other talk that makes other people fearful and limits their freedom to speak or live freely.

However, we really could do with a definition of 'hate'. To me it has always meant the extremity of feeling against someone, what I would call verbaal violence, but more recently it seems to mean something someone thinks might offend someone, whether it does or not and merely to express a mild opinion of dislike or puzzlement is defined as hate, were I to say or write (and here I take my life in my hands) 'Pride marches bore me', some people will interprete this as meaning I hate all people who are not heterosexual and would hunt them down and exterminate them, when all I have done is express boredom with certain events.

NotSpaghetti

FriedGreenTomatoes2

unbelievable that Americans are having to fight our our rights to free speech.

Is that what's happening?
Which Americans are you referring to please?

I don't feel my rights to free speech are curtailed at all. I agree with limiting expression of speech where it's illegal as it's hate speech, violent, racist, hate against women, and if it puts people, especially children and the vulnerable at risk. Having read the new social media guidelines carefully

cannot see where the complaints are coming from.

More or less the guidelines here on GN really.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

unbelievable that Americans are having to fight our our rights to free speech.

Is that what's happening?
Which Americans are you referring to please?

'Trump is our only hope' gosh, are things so bad?

MaizieD

Are posters assuming guilt by association WRT Mandelson, or just that having associated with Epstein should kill anyone’s career stone dead?

Guilt by association seems to be ok regarding Elon Musk and Ghislaine Maxwell…

Are posters assuming guilt by association WRT Mandelson, or just that having associated with Epstein should kill anyone’s career stone dead?

GrannyGravy13

Allira

Wyllow3

Yes, apologies, and thanks for correction, the photo is genuine but was taken earlier 2014.

I still stand by my comments

"My reflection Nandalot is that he is totally and dangerously disingenuous.

I'll say why - he has not tweeted nor focused on grooming gangs in his very own country at all. If he cared as claimed this the very least we would expect.

A quote from when this image was circulating 3 years ago:

"He wants images like these to die. We can't let that happen."

I hope you feel the same about the images of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein.

Well, I did think he was just the right kind of person to be able to deal with Trump and Musk.
Perhaps they know too much about each other.

Allira

Wyllow3

Yes, apologies, and thanks for correction, the photo is genuine but was taken earlier 2014.

I still stand by my comments

"My reflection Nandalot is that he is totally and dangerously disingenuous.

I'll say why - he has not tweeted nor focused on grooming gangs in his very own country at all. If he cared as claimed this the very least we would expect.

A quote from when this image was circulating 3 years ago:

"He wants images like these to die. We can't let that happen."

I hope you feel the same about the images of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein.