Covid 19 CENSORSHIP

by The Fall Guy 14 Replies latest social current

• 

  The Fall Guy

  If anyone voices an opinion with which I disagree or even detest, I can either debate it or walk away.

  The last thing I want is for someone to be silenced by threats. However, it appears that some opinions on social media etc. which contradict the official narrative are being muted. Example: https://www.prolificlondon.co.uk/tv-broadcasting-news/radio-audio-news/2020/04/5g-linked-coronavirus-false-claim-causes-ofcom-issue

  If you deny to others the right to say what you think is wrong, it will not be long before you will lose the privilege to say what you think is right.

  Defense of the freedom of others is in reality, self-defense. A very wise sentiment which everyone should take on board: “I wholly disapprove with what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.”
  
• 

  TD

  I don't really know how it works in the UK, but here in the US, information in medical and legal fields does not necessarily fall under the umbrella of free speech.

  It's why writers offer disclaimers such as, "Always check with your physician before starting any exercise program" or "This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such" when the subject matter strays into these areas of expertise.

  There's a very real risk of liability and it is therefore not censorship if a third party does not want any part of it.
• 

  The Fall Guy

  Expressed opinions should always be accepted as such, but when laws and threats are introduced to silence such opinions, it's time to worry.
• 

  TD

  Well yeah, but the person in your article above claimed to be a "Registered Nurse" when she in fact was not. She then when on to promote her crackpot theories under the guise of a medical professional.

  It's actually a pretty good example of the line where free speech ends.
  
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Freedom of speech is a very important thing.

  However, my freedom of speech does not mean everyone else should willingly and freely offer their platform to me to spread my speech.

  Much less are platforms obliged to offer their technology and services to those who spread false or misleading messages that endanger individual people or society as a whole.

  If on this forum Simon decides to remove my posts simply because he doesn't like what I write, that is not a infringement on my freedom of speech.

  If YouTube or Facebook decide to remove factually incorrect messages that claim COVID-19 is caused by 5G from their platforms, that is not a violation of the freedom of speech of the people spouting such nonsense.

  You and I aren't obliged to allow people who want to proclaim whatever message to do so from our living room using our telephone, or from our back yard.

  Neither are large companies obliged to offer their 'living room' to let people shout dangerous nonsense.

  Freedom of speech means that you can speak your mind without being arrested. That's it.

  And even then our freedom of speech is limited by other people's freedoms and rights...
• 

  cofty

  Totally agree with comments by TD and AA above however this situation is slightly different.

  It isn't the radio station that is refusing to allow idiotic and dangerous conspiracy theories to be be aired, it's the regulator OFCOM who are threatening to sanction the station for permitting the woman to spread lies on their station.

  It does raise an interesting example of the limits of free speech.

  I think you could argue there is a direct and immediate danger of physical harm to others which is perhaps the only legitimate reason to disallow speech.
• 

  smiddy3

  Just a thought occurred to me reading this post how would/could/should this topic apply to The JW religion as to their stance and to propagate their teachings / views regarding Blood transfusions ?
• 

  cofty

  IMO the cult should be legally free to teach that God hates blood.

  However young people should be forced to have transfusions if there is a medical emergency, and the cult should not enjoy financial benefits.

  We should all be free speech fundamentalists. The best defence against bad ideas and lies is exposure to better ideas and truth.
• 

  jp1692

  Cofty: The best defence against bad ideas and lies is exposure to better ideas and truth.

  👍

  
  
• 

  Simon

  The problem is that much of the government and WHO advice has been wrong.

  They said it couldn't be spread by human-to-human contact, they said wearing masks wouldn't help ... who get's to tell those fuckers to shut up? Would the people warning that it WAS dangerous and that wearing masks WAS a good idea be silenced?

  I think we're healthier as a society if we allow crackpot opinions, and debunk them, than ban anyone who deviates from the official line which is 'conveniently' decided by the person also holding the whip. This is incredibly dangerous.

  The failure of the system is in the media not doing basic legwork to debunk and show up crackpots. There was a media post recently in the US where some woman claiming to work on the healthcare frontline was claiming they had no PPE at all. It took 1 minute for an individual to check her profile and see that she hadn't worked in healthcare in years. But the media continued to air the clips because they want the drama, not the facts.