Contemporary threats to free speech

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3563
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:15 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:08 pm
sorry!!
No worries - without personal contact, getting people's meanings is always hard on the internet.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3563
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:22 am

If a person feels threatened and unsafe for, say, being called a fag, or even called by a pronoun that isn’t preferred, then that person is rather dysfunctional (as is a religious person who feels threatened and unsafe by hearing evolution taught in a school or seeing two gay men kissing), and should definitely consider trying to cultivate some emotional maturity and forbearance. Any civilization that panders to such mental weakness is doomed to collapse from its own weight and rigidity
David Reynolds on fine form again:

http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogs ... peech.html
say what you think is right, and you’ll be OK almost always, morally if not legally. The limits of free thought and expression should be pushed if only to show the crybullies that they can’t push us around!

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:40 am

Here's an example of a threat to free speech that failed -- a claim of libel.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/ ... SC0205.htm

Dr. Andrew Weaver ... brings this action in defamation seeking damages from Dr. Ball.
Most important point about Canadian libel law:
[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.

The judges decision was not favorable to either side.
The defendant, Dr. Ball:
[60] Further, despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth. ...
[61] While each of these errors, looked at individually, may seem quite minor, collectively, they illustrate that Dr. Ball’s approach to gathering facts in support of his opinion or thesis is less than rigorous.
[63] While Dr. Ball presents his central thesis that climate science has been corrupted by politics, the Article offers little in the way of support for that thesis, apart from vague references to missing or falsified data and political manipulation, unsubstantiated and erroneous references to Dr. Weaver as referred to above, and a recommendation that people read a 45-year-old text on climate science written by Professor Hubert Lamb.
[64] Overall, even as an opinion piece, the Article presents as poorly written and it provides little in the way of credible support for Dr. Ball’s thesis.
As to defamation of the plaintiff Dr. Weaver
[66] I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver [in the civil complaint] are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader. This requires the court to assess the words objectively, and not to attribute the worst possible meaning or the meaning that might appear to the plaintiff or a person with an overly fragile sensibility .
[67] Specifically, I do not accept that the Article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness. For example, despite the inferential meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver, there is no allegation, explicit or implicit, that Dr. Weaver cheated taxpayers, dishonestly obtained public funding or shamefully conspired with his students to disrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation to suppress Dr. Ball’s views.
Basis for Decision
[72] That is not to say that the Article is wholly benign as it relates to Dr. Weaver. On Dr. Ball’s own interpretation, the Article suggests that Dr. Weaver is not competent to teach climate science or, at least, teaches it from a biased perspective. The Article suggests further that Dr. Weaver would not be qualified to participate in a multi-disciplinary panel on climate science.
[73] These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent.
[74] However, not every derogatory statement is defamatory. The test again is whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff’s actual reputation (Weaver, at para. 68). Here, I am not satisfied that the impugned words of the Article reach that level. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
[75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.

[76] Moreover, as noted above, the Article is clearly an opinion piece, and statements of opinion are generally evaluated differently than statements of fact. As stated by Mr. Justice Lebel in WIC Radio, at para. 71 of his concurring reasons:
  • "Although distinguishing facts from comment may sometimes be difficult, a comment is by its subjective nature generally less capable of damaging someone’s reputation than an objective statement of fact, because the public is much more likely to be influenced in its belief by a statement of fact than by a comment. …"
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[83] In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:40 am

The best damn government money can buy ...
Kimmel writer quotes every GOP lawmaker’s post-Florida ‘thoughts and prayers’ tweet — and how much money they took from the NRA
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/kimmel ... -took-nra/

:toilet:
Kim

alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by alan » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:09 am

Here is the threat: Russian interference.
As we now know, Social Media was hacked to create discord. By the Russians. This has been proven.
"Lock Her Up"!
"Benghazi"!
30,000 emails!

chownah
Posts: 7308
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:32 am

Do russian citizens have the right to free speech in america?
chownah

User avatar
Dhammarakkhito
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Dhammarakkhito » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:03 am

the right to be wrong
Attachments
drake fsrs.jpg
drake fsrs.jpg (61.57 KiB) Viewed 575 times
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:17 pm

Dhammarakkhito wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:03 am
the right to be wrong
And if Right Speech is outlawed? Where does your image leave you then?
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by DooDoot » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:03 pm

Note: I don't particularly like this girl or the group she is part of but believe she has the right to free speech.
The government has banned Canadian right-wing activist and journalist Lauren Southern from Britain, being held at Calais just days after Austrian activist Martin Sellner and author Brittany Pettibone were refused entry at Heathrow.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03 ... uk-terror/
My favourite (brilliant) Ryan Dawson, banned from You Tube with little notice, including loss of many videos:



(Boring) Sargon of Akkad comments:


pulga
Posts: 1313
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by pulga » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:23 pm

Leaked Docs Expose Media Matters Conspiring with Facebook & Google to Censor Alternative Media

Sharyl Attkisson has a lot of information on Media Matters in her recent best-seller "The Smear".


alan
Posts: 3087
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by alan » Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:14 am

Threats to free speech include those in power shutting down investigations, right?
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... -innocence

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19557
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:47 am

Greetings,

Reject Mayor Sadiq Khan's call for restricting free speech by Tom Rogan.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan delivered a remarkable speech at the South by Southwest, or SXSW, conference on Monday — remarkable for bad reasons, not good ones. He said that he wants social media companies to crack down on free speech.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7308
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:26 am

The people who benefit by spreading lies and misinformation wrap themselves in the flag of free speech to strengthen their ability to spread lies and misinformation to benefit themselves. If these people ever control the media you can kiss free speech good-bye.
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19557
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:32 am

Greetings Chownah,

They already do - except they use the phrase "freedom of the press" instead.

Code: Select all

#OperationMockingbird
#ProjectMockingbird
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19557
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:46 am

Greetings,

YouTube tries to crack down on conspiracy videos
YouTube said the move is part of a broader initiative to crack down on misinformation, though it did not give details on what else is in the works.

While conspiracy videos are nothing new on YouTube, the topic received renewed attention in recent weeks as videos falsely claimed that students speaking out about the Feb. 14 Florida school shooting, which killed 17 people, were "crisis actors" who were not really there when it happened. One such conspiracy video was the top trending video on YouTube until the company removed it — although many similar videos remained up, illustrating the difficulty in instituting any sort of crackdown.

Conspiracy videos, to be sure, are not against YouTube's policies. In the "crisis actor" case, the company said it removed the video because it violated its rules against harassment. As such, YouTube is unlikely to ban misinformation entirely. Instead, it may adopt Facebook's tactic of de-emphasizing such content and making it less likely to be seen.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

chownah
Posts: 7308
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:19 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:32 am
Greetings Chownah,

They already do - except they use the phrase "freedom of the press" instead.

Code: Select all

#OperationMockingbird
#ProjectMockingbird
Metta,
Paul. :)
No they don't....."freedom of the press" is why we know about the people who benefit by spreading lies and misinformation wrapping themselves in the flag of free speech to strengthen their ability to spread lies and misinformation to benefit themselves. If there was no freedom of the press we would not even know about these people.
chownah

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1800
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by lyndon taylor » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:28 am

chownah wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:19 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:32 am
Greetings Chownah,

They already do - except they use the phrase "freedom of the press" instead.

Code: Select all

#OperationMockingbird
#ProjectMockingbird
Metta,
Paul. :)
No they don't....."freedom of the press" is why we know about the people who benefit by spreading lies and misinformation wrapping themselves in the flag of free speech to strengthen their ability to spread lies and misinformation to benefit themselves. If there was no freedom of the press we would not even know about these people.
chownah
They claim its about protecting freedom of speech when really what they're trying to protect is hate speech and slanderous fake news, hardly indicative of right view.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

pulga
Posts: 1313
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by pulga » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:27 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:46 am
Greetings,

YouTube tries to crack down on conspiracy videos

The "top reaction" in the comment section is worth considering:
Aaron wrote:When you have left leaning organizations like Youtube/Google making decisions about what they "feel" warrants censorship, democracy and freedom fail. Twitter admitted to shadow banning conservatives. Facebook brought forth a new "algorithm" that is targeting Conservatives. Youtube is banning Conservatives. Google was caught multiple times giving advantage to the Clinton campaign.

All this, under the "guise" of going after "fake news" and "conspiracies," yet as we've seen over the past year and a half (at least) time and again, it's outlets like CNN, the NYT, WAPO, ms13NBC, and others who repeatedly fabricate and retract fake news stories. Not mention how Yahoo News itself, was used by Christopher Steele's fake dossier, to help the FBI get a warrant to illegal spy on Americans.

chownah
Posts: 7308
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:44 pm

Is Youtube somehow required to show any video that anyone submits? I think not. I think that youtube can pick and chose any one's they want to show or to not show. This is called "freedom".

Is a movie house free to not show any movie they don't want to show? Why of course they are free to not show any movie that they don't want to show....this is called "freedom".

Does Youtube stop anyone from showing the videos that they don't want to show? I think not. I think that youtube does nothing to inhibit other on line endeavors from showing whatever videos they want. This is called "freedom".

What is this whining about youtube being a business and being free to conduct business the way they want. If these whiners want some video publicly available and youtube won't show it then those whiners should find someone who will or start their own on line video service.

Of course lots of people don't want youtube to be free to conduct their business the way the want to....lots of people don't want freedom....lots of people want to force youtube to show their propoganda....lots of propogandists want to end lots of freedoms.....

It is a totalitarian gov't that tells businesses what they must do. Have people forgotten what freedom is?
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19557
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:07 pm

Greetings Chownah,

So you believe in "freedom of the (organized) press" but not "freedom of the (social) press"...? Interesting. Does this mean that if David and our team start silencing you because we don't like your political leanings then you won't object? No "whining" from Chownah?

:twisted:

Code: Select all

#InternetBillOfRights
#IBOR
I expect we'll see social media regulated at some point in the near future, to prevent the kind of discrimination that "top reaction" Aaron draws attention to above, and that Dhamma Wheel will have no trouble complying with it.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikenz66 and 23 guests