Katie Hopkins

Why would i have you on ignore?' i have my opinion you have yours get over it' as far as being impressed with our own opinions goes its you that seems to have got the hump coz your being ignored..

 

Although true I'd still rather have freedom of speech rather than give it up to " protect" us from deadbeats such as Katy Hopkins .

https://www.thenational.scot/news/1...sals-see-journalists-jailed-damaging-stories/

Once you start to censor then there's no turning back or as the above story highlights where it ends up .

 

In fairness those proposals part of a consultation.

 

You offered an opinion*, I offered facts which make your opinion seem absurd**. I’d have thought the adult reaction would be… Ah I hadn’t realised that, fair enough, she’s not very bright then is she.

*and as I’ll never get tired of saying, being entitled to an opinion does not equate to that opinion having any value

**even if she hadn’t been daft enough to get sacked from the Daily Mail and LBC, and become persona non grata for the mainstream media, going to court against Jack Monroe was monumentally stupid and cost her her family home. So rather than being a millionaire controversial darling of the media, she’s now an out of work racist bitch.

 

Difficult call when deciding on censorship or free speech sometimes. For me Katie Hopkins is a vile human being who in some ways makes Hitler seem like a liberal snowflake. However, at what point should she be censored if at all? If she says things that are to most people extremely offensive but are simply her opinions should she be censored? I think its down to whether she breaks the law in a democracy by what she says. If she does she should be banned from all platforms and/or locked up. If she's not breaking the law in a democracy then I sadly think she shouldn't be banned. I'm open to alternative views though...

 

She’s part of a right trio then isn’t she

 

If i agree with you can we wrap this up?' good grief your like a dog with a bone' ok you're right i'm wrong' for heavens sake..

 

Freedom of speech is a very tricky issue.

I grew up at a time when all lefties would support anyone’s right to say whatever they wanted. And it’s what I want to hold onto, but there’s a problem because the world has changed.

We live in a world where your ‘freedom of speech’ is no longer a matter of your human rights, subject to the laws of your country. But now, a handful of billionaires control the narrative for the majority of the world’s population.

So, ridiculously an imaginary cartoon character gets a Facebook ban for threatening violence against an imaginary child*. But you’re free to racially abuse a real life black footballer. Because the rules are arbitrary, badly written and just as badly implemented.

Should I be free to racially abuse a footballer (it’s not illegal)? Should Katie Hopkins be free to dog whistle Nazi solutions re refugees (it’s not illegal)? Or should those things be called out, and if necessary de-platformed.

*Grumpy Skeletor is a 21st century hero, worth looking up.

 

Popper's Paradox of Tolerance:

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

Popper were a nob! He were just tryin to sound clever.

 

It's worth adding that these social media platforms have Ts & C's that you agree to when you sign up. Breaching them is punishable by ban. Is that censorship if you've breached an agreement with the platform you signed up to use? It's not like Twitter etc just woke up one morning and made a political decision as some claim.

Hopkins, Robinson and Trump breached these multiple times and were warned before their bans.

 

It's a huge dilemma the censorship issue. In an ideal world whatever odious people like Hopkins said would be irrelevant because we'd have a population well educated enough and versed in critical thinking to see them for what they are.
Unfortunately our education system continues to fail us and we are where we are with whole electorates across the world manipulated by people like Trump, Johnson, Orban, Erdogan.

 

...Modi, Bolsanaro, Duda.

Then those who have rigged things to suit themselves. Lukashenko, al-Assad, Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un and the military junta in Myanmar.

And sure there will be dictators in Africa, Middle East, Asia and South America whose situations escape me.

Pretty grim reading when you list how many there are..

 

We are talking about the same Katie Hopkins who barring paying out 24K in damages managed to flog the family home and make the profits vanish before entering into an IVA and not paying a penny out in legal fees or anything else she owed money on.

Id say she is a bit more astute than you give her credit for.

 

I'll agree she was astute enough to employ a competent solicitor. No way she was responsible for anything beyond that.

I imagine said solicitor took an extortionate fee mind.

 

Herein lies the problem . What becomes the measure of what should be banned and what should nt ? Katie Hopkins says some racist things about Muslims and gets banned . Tony Blair leads us into an illegal war leading to the death of 100,000s of Muslims and dosent get banned . Who becomes the arbiter of who's good and who isn't ?
My view is that if a crime has been committed regarding speech then they should be charged under existing legislation . If found guilty then a ban , not before otherwise we are going to end up in a situation where the state uses private companies to silence people be that Twitter , Facebook etc without trial . Do remember , corporate and state power merging to work against the people can be seen as a definition of fascism .

 

Using a private platform to promote hate is one thing, starting an illegal war is another entirely.

Private companies like Facebook judge people on how they use their platform not what actions they have committed in general life outside of the platform.

Governments and law enforcement judge whether someone has broken their laws regardless of whether it involves a private social platform.

The two things are completely separate already.

People like Hopkins do what they like on social media and knowingly breach terms they signed up for. They then claim they're being censored because of some great conspiracy instead of the fact they just breached rules laid out in black and white. Not to mention receiving multiple warnings about previous postings before their eventual ban.

 

You lose the argument when you try to shoehorn Blair into a conversation about FoS.

And the merging of corporate and state power. Take the tin hat off, the worlds been run by the elite in and out of government since the beginning of time. Zuckerberk wields more power than Biden, and it’s not a secret we should be wary of. It’s obvious fact.

But naff all to do with Hopkins, or Tommy Robinson. As someone else pointed out; in a free society, we should be able to allow hate mongers free reign to say what they like. But that relies on everyone else being bright enough to do their own critical thinking.

Hate to be the first to bring it up, but Hitler didn’t start with gas chambers, do we allow that to happen again? Where do we draw the line?

 

Only asked !!!!

 

I see what your saying but places like Twitter are the modern day public square where all subjects are discussed . Whether you find those subjects distasteful or not is down to your personal point of view .

https://www.cnet.com/news/whats-section-230-the-social-media-law-is-in-the-crosshairs-of-congress/

Ironically the social media giants cannot be prosecuted for anything written on their platform ( their not classed as a publisher ) but then act like a publisher by banning as they see fit . Dosent take much to see the slippery slope in which we seem to be heading .....