Well "nanny" is a British term so I guess they invented the nanny state. It's a shame so many Americans want one too.
what a tedious and exhausting mess, though a helpful reminder of what policing of speech actually looks like, since too many people in this country complain about having their free speech violated without the slightest idea of what that would entail
Face it darling, men do everything better, including being women.
Firstly: The british system does seem overly cumbersome and simplification seems like it would benefit everyone. (I think self-assignment is too low a bar, more on that some other time)
Secondly: What's wrong with having to prove yourself? I find the grind of having to continually prove yourself refreshing and motivating. I'm a black man with a masters degree and I'm constantly having to prove that I'm on the same level as everyone else... but that's life, right? Some folks don't have to prove themselves or are given credit far beyond their abilities, some of us don't. That's the real world.
Thirdly: Ironically, the third-to-last paragraph is ambiguous to whom you're referring to and I initially thought you were misgendering Heyden, rather than referring to Linehan.
It's a damn shame Katie. I wonder when that law was passed in 2003 if it was meant to curb terrorism and no one could imagine social justice types sicking the police on their enemies. This is why people freak out at the slightest infringement of speech! It can lead to this.
@6 Spoken like the natural authoritarian you are.
if Twitter was unplugged today, would something rush in and successfully fill the vacuum, or would everyone just splinter off back to their message boards and Facebook groups for their niche, never again having to cross each other's virtual paths?
9: the right believes in absolute freedom for white people, and no one else.
@8 ah, the “I know what I am but what are you? “ school of argument.
I think my whole family would be arrested under that law just for what they say to each other over a holiday dinner.
Yes, we really need to ban language that causes “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.”
This from the country that brought us Monty Python.
Well, I think that's sort of the point. Being among acquaintances and in private, it's far easier to parse context and actual vs perceived threat. On a public online forum, such context is absent and so some discretion and monitoring of content seems (at least potentially) warranted. I don't know how I feel about it, TBH. @2's characterization as a tedious and exhausting mess, seems about right.
Reading about Karen White reminds me of this fake-trans predator up in BC: https://breaking-news.ca/cant-take-no-for-an-answer-jonathan-yaniv-files-16-human-rights-complaints-against-women-who-dont-want-to-wax-his-balls/
@14 -- Gold Star, baby.
Simple solution: any online service provider has to verify your identity before you can use that service, and you have to use that identity any time you post content. No more fake email accounts and Facebook bots. No more anonymous comments. You’d still have abusive, argumentative nonsense, but you’d have a higher ratio of constructive dialogue to garbage noise. Half the people on Slog would have to worry about getting shivved on the way home for the stuff they say in a reality where they couldn’t hide their true identity.
Two senators try to sneak anti-free speech, pro-Israel law into bill to avert shutdown
The ACLU says the wording is non-binding and “leaves intact key provisions which would impose civil and criminal penalties on companies, small business owners, nonprofits and even people acting on their behalf who engage in or otherwise support certain political boycotts.”
The doxxing bit is a doozy. There was a screenshot of doxxing, but your intrepid reporter still fell back on xe said/xe said.
I don't have Twitter. I don't live in the UK. I feel pretty safe.
@18 Hmmm. We have a constitutional right to free speech but not a constitutional right to anonymity. Hmmm.
@18 Nope. The consensus at the local pub is that public disclosure of your true identity online would unconstitutionally inhibit your political right to be a Nazi or socialist or whatever. Being shivved on the way home by the Stranger editorial staff could hurt someone's feelings.
@23 - Journalists exercise free speech under their real identities all the time.
YES! Publishing your opinion anonymously should earn you a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.