HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

I've been prompted by the Donster Junior saying that banning the DON from Twitter is a breach of his rights to freedom of speech and this article in the Grauniad.

For me, if there is a value in the ideal of 'freedom' of speech, it is around allowing all voices to be heard equally. As soon as someone starts using something to amplify their own voice, be it a megaphone or tweeting to 18 million followers, that equality is lost and the principle is compromised.

As soon as someone starts speaking there is a power relationship between the speaker and the listener, although we often frame this in the concept of manners - 'speak when you're spoken to', 'children should be seen and not heard'. In a sense, as soon as you allow someone else to speak or listen to them, you have submitted to them - temporarily at least. However, this is the roots of demagogic power, as every politician understands. Just go back and review a few Thatcher interviews, she was a master at wielding 'politeness' in her demagogy to shut people up.

Of course the Donster took this power much further to spread barefaced lies and hate favourable to his cause which would have hardly mattered if he had not already had so many people listening. Of course then you add to that the echo chamber effect - everybody just hearing back their own thoughts and ideas an no other, indeed using this power to shout down other voices - the impact is far greater.

So does the Donster have the right to free speech? I'd say as an individual, without amplification, yes, so long as he also listens (even then he is quite capable of co-ercing people). Where he has a track record of spouting untruths, hate and rabble rousing which has a clear and negative impact on other people and groups of people generating greater inequality (in short, not upholding the Constitution of the country which he has been elected to lead), clearly that right must be clearly circumscibed - it is not absolute.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

What about the rights of the owners of Twitter to decide who should be given a platform on their social media service?

What about basic contract law? Where 2 parties agree to do something? And where you can't have a contract where only 1 party agrees.

Good post, Terry.

Too many people think that "free speech" equates to "I can say what I fucken like, and you can't stop me" and that is in no way restricted to America. You only have to witness some of the vile racist and just "wrong," posts on Twitter and the like claiming they are issued under the aegis of "free speech," many from people who really should know better, including, and especially the ignorant and arrogant Mr Toby Young.

I always refer people to the definition/explanation, from Amnesty. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right

Free Speech is our right, under law, and it's our duty to defend it, but to do that we first have to understand exactly what it is.

Basically free speech should be you can say what you want as long as you don't break the laws of defamation.

This is the only way it works. Anything else and you have censors and censorship.

Toby Young talks a lot of shit, he also talks a lot of sense.

Increasingly people are advocating censorship of things they don't like without admitting this subverts free speech.

Absolutely everyone is intituled to there own opinion. With the advent of the internet unfortunately these opinions spread faster than a forest fire. I was always taught to express my opinions but only ever face to face. If that is not possible then be prepared to do so when the time comes.

In the case of Trump I think his comments come under breaking the Law as he was engaged in incitement. I'm sure he would have been banned long before if he hadn't been the President. If anything twitter and social media have been guilty of ignoring activity that contradicts the law. You can say all sorts of rubbish as opinion but encouraging rioting or terrorism certainly exceeds the boundaries of legal free speech subject to local laws.

Your interpretation of trumps rhetoric is somewhat unique. As far as I am aware he never urged anybody to commit crime.

Personally I think the laws on inciting people to commit crime need review.we should start from the assumption that talking regardless of what is said should not be a crime.

I don’t have a problem with somebody having an opinion different to mine although I do get angry when the other person tries to take some sort of authority because they believe that their opinion is somehow “more important” than mine.

Social media cos have had to balance giving a platform to Trump with the “quality” of his posts. The “invasion” on 6th January appears to be the watershed moment when social media accepted that the President had crossed the red line.

Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:21 pm Your interpretation of trumps rhetoric is somewhat unique. As far as I am aware he never urged anybody to commit crime.

Personally I think the laws on inciting people to commit crime need review.we should start from the assumption that talking regardless of what is said should not be a crime.

I would agree entirely

I think many have "crossed the red line" and many times prior to. It would appear to be/is a platform for anyone and it would seem to be irrespective of their motives. As always its down to the individuals interpretations and how they react to it. Everyone imo tends to believe that their opinion is the most important.