UK Riots

[dday9]

I'm surprised that this hasn't made it on the forums yet, but I'm surprised to see the lack of information coming out about the riots going on in the UK after the mass stabbing by a second generation immigrant did against little girls at a dance studio.

The only reason I know about it is because of the Michael Malice show, he tends to follow the politics there much more closely than pretty much any other American I listen to.

But apparently London's police chief has threatened to jail non-citizens (e.g. Americans) who connect the fact that the guy who did this is a product of UK's immigration system, apparently he's gone so far as saying "being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law." Obviously he doesn't understand southern culture, tell us not to do something and you're almost guaranteed that it will be done anyways.

Any who, I can't really find much information on what's happening to the guy, what's going on with the riots, etc. I guess it isn't all that surprising considering, but does anyone know where I can find more information? Preferably I'd like sources in the UK on both "sides".

[Shaggy Hiker]

I thought that was over with a few weeks ago. Are there still riots going on?

Also, what's a 'second generation immigrant'? Are we all immigrants by that standard? That sounds like a way to somewhat subtly paint them as 'other'. The guy was born in Wales. In the US, that would make them a US citizen, not some 'product of the immigration system', unless we are all products of the immigration system.

[FunkyDexter]

Some of that's just straight up wrong and some hints strongly at bias. Sorry, DD, but I think your source needs questioning on this one.

The riots aren't ongoing. They kicked off for one weekend and then disappeared. They threatened to come out on the following Wednesday but failed to materialise and, instead, we saw massive counter protests. In Bristol we just had a street party when they didn't show up which is kind of the perfect response really.

"Mass stabbing" is accurate but an overly emotive choice of words for what happened. A guy stabbed 3 young girls (pre teens I think) at a Taylor Swift themed dance party. It was horrible but barely qualifies as "mass".

He was a second generation immigrant but, of course, that's another way of saying "native". He was from Cardiff, just down the road from me.

People have been jailed for incitement but it's not limited to non UK citizens. That's the first I've heard that mentioned and I suspect it's a misrepresentation. We have laws against incitement and hate speech so these are being entirely validly applied.

To understand why it's being pursued virulently you need to understand the things that were being said. They've traced the origins of it back to a Russian fake news farm that posted that the stabbings had been carried out by a Muslim immigrant which was, of course, an outright lie. Some UK far right bloggers amplified it, mainly via X but they used other social media too, and our right wing media, particularly GBNews and TalkTV ran it as factual. We even had a member of parliament, Nigel Farage, parroting it (although, of course, he only "asked" if it was a Muslim with terrorist connections and expressed the "legitimate concern" that our security services were withholding information.)

To reiterate, he wasn't Muslim and he wasn't an immigrant. He was British and not strongly religious of any strain.

So in this case, a lot of the people commenting were deliberately inciting racial violence, which is a crime in the UK. A bunch of other commentators were smart enough to fall short of identifiable incitement but were sure as hell piggy backing on it to make bank.

In the end it was a storm in a tea cup but could have been far worse. For example, the rioters tried to burn a hotel full of Asylum Seekers down with them in it. They filled a dumpster with chipboard and wood pellets, set light to it and used it to block the fire ext. When you're literally trying to burn women and children to death you're pretty clearly in the wrong. And they attacked mosques full of people even though the perpetrator wasn't Muslim. The riots were clear racial hatred and are being treated as such.


Edit> As an aside, he was of Rwandan extraction which the right wing media are now hinting at as showing just how dangerous immigrants from there can be. That's after they spent the last 6 months telling us all how safe a country it is so it's just fine to send our Asylum Seekers there with no option of return even if their claim is upheld. Because our right wing media does not understand irony.

[dday9]

That's why I really wanted additional sources, I wasn't even sure the riots were on-going.

I did know that there was false reporting that the guy was Muslim and did this in the name of religion, but only because of the podcast I heard on Michael Malice's show with Carl Benjamin where he clarified that people were falsely accusing the attacker and that it isn't right. He also said something about Nigel Farage, but to be honest, I don't really remember much of what he said on that point, what I do remember was that he explained how Farage got a huge amount of votes but because they weren't spread out between the different jurisdictions he doesn't really hold much power because of how voting takes place in the UK.

I think y'all are getting hung up on the phrase 2nd generation immigrant. I'm not saying the guy is an immigrant. I brought it up because there appears to be an issue with violent crime among the children of immigrants. It seems like there is this weird gap where people who actually immigrated to western countries commit very little crime, but their children do. Its something I don't quite understand. Maybe it's just the publicity those crimes get and the statics don't actually bear it out ¯\_(?)_/¯

In the end it was a storm in a tea cup but could have been far worse. For example, the rioters tried to burn a hotel full of Asylum Seekers down with them in it. They filled a dumpster with chipboard and wood pellets, set light to it and used it to block the fire ext. When you're literally trying to burn women and children to death you're pretty clearly in the wrong. And they attacked mosques full of people even though the perpetrator wasn't Muslim. The riots were clear racial hatred and are being treated as such.

That is terrible. I had heard that there was some protests against mosques, but I didn't know that some had turned violent.

By the way, if you have some sources I can look at, I would appreciate it. But I tend to ignore the BBC because of their state affiliation, so pretty much anything not state affiliated I would want to look at. I think it's because I don't really know where to look is the reason I know so little about what's going on.

Edit - Apparently VBForums doesn't recognize the shrug emoji face. That's funny.

[TysonLPrice]

Unrelated other then it reminded me of another example of far right news jump on the wrong thing, although the impact was more of an embarrassment then people threatened. Texas had a real freeze going on. Way back when they decided not to join the national electrical grid so they are kind of on their own. There were widespread power outages and Fox news was broadcasting all kinds of pictures of windmills covered in ice and mocking green energy and how it was hurting Texans. Turns out only a small percentage of energy comes from windmills, Texas deliberately choose not to cold weather protect them like northern states, and the real issue was their grid.

But that didn't stop Fox from mocking green energy until the counter stories mocking their coverage them came out. Them they just shut up and acted like they never ran the story.

[wes4dbt]

I think y'all are getting hung up on the phrase 2nd generation immigrant. I'm not saying the guy is an immigrant. I brought it up because there appears to be an issue with violent crime among the children of immigrants. It seems like there is this weird gap where people who actually immigrated to western countries commit very little crime, but their children do. Its something I don't quite understand. Maybe it's just the publicity those crimes get and the statics don't actually bear it out ¯\_(?)_/¯

Here in the US the right is doing the same thing. They use the term 2nd generation immigrant too because a lot of people hear that term and just hear "immigrant". And the right is doing their best to make people fear immigrants.

Purely a guess but I think high crime rates can be more accurately attributed to low income. Unfortunately a high percentage of immigrant fall into that category.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That second generation thing may not be just crime. Second generation immigrants can be interesting in a variety of ways, though whether or not it is statistically valid I have no idea.

I went to college with the son of an immigrant couple. That couple started a restaurant and poured their heart and soul into it. That's not uncommon. Immigrants to the US start companies at a far higher rate than those born in the US. Pouring your heart and soul into a business you start isn't uncommon, regardless of immigration status. However, in this case, the guy I went to college with was a bit different, and it might have been due to the dedication his parents put into their business. He was rather rudderless, which may have been some kind of a reaction to the obsessive focus of his parents. He was a really good artist. I considered taking some of his paintings, in case he hit it big, cause he really was good. But he couldn't seem to focus on anything enough to stick with it. Even with his paintings, he'd just redo them, or change subjects, or just abandon them.

I wonder if hyper-motivated first generation immigrants tend to produce unmotivated offspring?

[FunkyDexter]

I brought it up because there appears to be an issue with violent crime among the children of immigrants.

I don't think that's true but I don't know. My experience is that they're pretty much the same as third or higher generation immigrants with, perhaps, a slightly higher level of family and community values that declines to a base norm as the generations advance. For example, I find that families of Caribbean extraction are very tight and South Asian families tend to stay living together way longer than ethnically White families - though I get the impression that's often due to economic factors as much as social. That's only my anecdotal experience, though, and I don't have any hard statistics to back it up.

Farage got a huge amount of votes but because they weren't spread out between the different jurisdictions he doesn't really hold much power because of how voting takes place in the UK

Yeah, we have a system that's somewhat similar to your electoral college. In a General Election you don't actually vote for the Prime Minister or Party, you vote for a local Member of Parliament and then, technically, the elected MPs from a single party form a majority and vote for a Prime Minister to lead them. Political parties don't have any technical legal standing but represent de facto voting blocks. It's kinda like if your Senate or Congress also played the role of the Electoral College. Farage got a significant (14% so a small minority but a significant one) of the popular vote but not concentrated enough in any particular areas to win more than 2 seats.

I should mention that Farage doesn't normally poll that high. Reform (who he's currently leading) did well this time round due to the disarray the Tories are in who would normally have eaten up most of that share. He also did well pre-Brexit because that was such an exercising single issue. Other that that whatever he's doing has normally shown up in single digit percentages.

if you have some sources I can look at, I would appreciate it. But I tend to ignore the BBC because of their state affiliation

Here are a few. I'll try and draw from both sides of the divide/favour those that are generally considered impartial:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg55we5n3xo
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/why...em-2024-08-07/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2593103.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-many-involved
https://news.sky.com/story/why-are-p...he-uk-13191139
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots
I haven't actually read through those articles as I just took a quick scattergun but they're all at least credible source.

Personally, I'm a fan of the BBC. It's doesn't really have a state affiliation, as such, but it is funded by state money. There are actually several steps between the governing party and the BBC's editorial team to try and ensure it's independence and they do a pretty good job. Mostly the BBC ends up with an anti-government slant if anything.

[TysonLPrice]

I don't think that's true but I don't know. My experience is that they're pretty much the same as third or higher generation immigrants with, perhaps, a slightly higher level of family and community values that declines to a base norm as the generations advance. For example, I find that families of Caribbean extraction are very tight and South Asian families tend to stay living together way longer than ethnically White families - though I get the impression that's often due to economic factors as much as social. That's only my anecdotal experience, though, and I don't have any hard statistics to back it up.

Yeah, we have a system that's somewhat similar to your electoral college. In a General Election you don't actually vote for the Prime Minister or Party, you vote for a local Member of Parliament and then, technically, the elected MPs from a single party form a majority and vote for a Prime Minister to lead them. Political parties don't have any technical legal standing but represent de facto voting blocks. It's kinda like if your Senate or Congress also played the role of the Electoral College. Farage got a significant (14% so a small minority but a significant one) of the popular vote but not concentrated enough in any particular areas to win more than 2 seats.

I should mention that Farage doesn't normally poll that high. Reform (who he's currently leading) did well this time round due to the disarray the Tories are in who would normally have eaten up most of that share. He also did well pre-Brexit because that was such an exercising single issue. Other that that whatever he's doing has normally shown up in single digit percentages.

Here are a few. I'll try and draw from both sides of the divide/favour those that are generally considered impartial:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg55we5n3xo
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/why...em-2024-08-07/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2593103.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-many-involved
https://news.sky.com/story/why-are-p...he-uk-13191139
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots
I haven't actually read through those articles as I just took a quick scattergun but they're all at least credible source.

Personally, I'm a fan of the BBC. It's doesn't really have a state affiliation, as such, but it is funded by state money. There are actually several steps between the governing party and the BBC's editorial team to try and ensure it's independence and they do a pretty good job. Mostly the BBC ends up with an anti-government slant if anything.

The BBC is on my favorites news list. I review it almost every day.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Hasn't the BBC put out some pretty funny comedies over the years? Not just things like Liz Truss, either.

[FunkyDexter]

The BBC typically does 3 things well: Comedies, Kids TV and Current Affairs. Fawlty Towers was originally made by the BBC and, if they never do anything funny again, that will be enough.

For some good Lis Truss comedy you should check out the Liv Struss YouTube channel

[dday9]

I looked into this a little bit more and I think it comes down to the concept of "freedom of speech" not being valued or enshrined outside of the US.

I think that incitement of violence being a criminal act is more or less universally accepted as not being covered under freedom of speech, but I think where it tends to deviate to some extent in the US and a huge extent outside is when it comes to lies or the reason behind so call "hate speech" laws.

In the US there is a minority that believes lies, "hate speech", or dissonant opinions should be unlawful but the overwhelming majority would probably agree that there shouldn't be any criminal penalty. Whereas in the UK, the majority appears to be flipped. Even "right-wing" brits think that employers shouldn't be allowed to fire employees for views that they hold. A think a good example is "I own a company that is decidedly pro-abortion, but I have an employee who is vehemently opposed" or flip it around "I own a company that is decidedly anti-abortion, but I have an employee who is vehemently in favor", in the US I think most would agree that the employee could be fired because there is a freedom of association in the employee/employer relationship so while there is no criminal penalty that doesn't mean that there is no societal penalty whereas outside the US I don't think that would be the case and in fact in the UK there have been judicial precedent that justifies that.

This case where there was an individual who committed this horrific act I think draws the lines a little more distinctly. My opinion is that anyone committing violence or calling for violence should be criminally prosecuted. But if you have individuals who are falsely saying that this guy was Muslim or saying that legislation (in a broad sense) is what caused this, then they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for it. And it looks like there are cases of individuals getting jail time for tweets that do not call for violence but spew anti-Muslim rhetoric, which is just insane to me.

It seems like to be labeled outside the US as a free speech absolutist is essentially an accusation that you want to be able to spout lies or racial slurs without repercussion, which is certainly not the case.

By the way, tangentially related, but looking into this is seems like while the UK is fairly strict about this, Scotland has gone full authoritarian on the matter. Looking at the Hate Crime and Public Order, it seems like even the most benign thing can be criminal if the accuser can loosely link the accused of being motivated by prejudice which is absolutely insane to me.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You should probably look at German law. They're a bit more traumatized by the history of hate speech, and it appears to be reflected in their law.

In the US, it's a pretty gray area. What you do and say as an employee, and therefore a representative of a company, is not covered in the same way as what you do and say as a private individual. Since that's usually a pretty slippery distinction, it seems like a pretty slippery area of the law.

[FunkyDexter]

I think that incitement of violence being a criminal act is more or less universally accepted as not being covered under freedom of speech

That's roughly right for here but I think its worth being pedantic. The issue is incitement to commit a crime. This is important when you consider misinformation. We don't have any laws against lying (except in furtherance of a crime, e.g. fraud) and nobody is being charged with lying. People are being charged with incitement to commit a crime and most of the people lied as part of that. Lots of folks who just said "I heard this guys a Muslim" have had social backlash but they're not being charged with anything because that's not, in and of itself, criminal.

A good example of the sort of thing people are being charged for include Lucy Connolly, a Tory Councillor's wife, who tweeted "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******s for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it." Given that a bunch of people then went out and tried to set fire to a hotel it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that that was incitement to commit arson.

Incidentally, racism isn't a crime here either but it does count as an aggravating factor. So stabbing someone is a crime, stabbing someone because they're black is the same crime but carries a higher sentence. Just not liking because they're black isn't criminal. We have a number of categories like this. Off the top of my head it's gender, sexuality, race and religion but don't be surprised if I've missed one.

My opinion is that anyone committing violence or calling for violence should be criminally prosecuted. But if you have individuals who are falsely saying that this guy was Muslim or saying that legislation (in a broad sense) is what caused this, then they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for it.

That is actually what's happening, at least in theory.

it looks like there are cases of individuals getting jail time for tweets that do not call for violence but spew anti-Muslim rhetoric

I don't think that's true but I'm open to hearing about cases that contradict me. I think the confusion may be coming from the fact that it's very hard to define where opinion ends and incitement starts. If I say, "Black people smell funny" that's certainly racist but it's not going to be taken as incitement. If I say "Let's go and kill some blacks" that's certainly incitement. If I say "black people deserve to die" we're starting to get into a very grey area. I haven't called for a specific crime but I have made a post that was likely to cause a criminal reaction and can, therefore, be considered for an incitement charge. When we have grey areas like that we consider context. So under normal circumstances it probably wouldn't be taken to trial but in the context of the events of a couple of weeks ago it would be.

It's also worth noting that, in most of these cases, the defendent's have immediately plead guilty, so the actual line of where incitement starts isn't really being tested.

It seems like to be labeled outside the US as a free speech absolutist is essentially an accusation that you want to be able to spout lies or racial slurs without repercussion

No but there is an uncomfortable correlation. In truth I think it's the other way round: people who want to spew hate tend to hide behind a veil of free speech absolutism. I personally think that genuine free speech absolutists are perhaps naïve but I don't think they're hateful.

[2kaud]

My opinion is that anyone committing violence or calling for violence should be criminally prosecuted

More generally, anyone committing a crime or inciting others (however caused) to commit a crime is liable for criminal prosecution.

[wes4dbt]

That's roughly right for here but I think its worth being pedantic. The issue is incitement to commit a crime. This is important when you consider misinformation. We don't have any laws against lying (except in furtherance of a crime, e.g. fraud) and nobody is being charged with lying. People are being charged with incitement to commit a crime and most of the people lied as part of that. Lots of folks who just said "I heard this guys a Muslim" have had social backlash but they're not being charged with anything because that's not, in and of itself, criminal.

A good example of the sort of thing people are being charged for include Lucy Connolly, a Tory Councillor's wife, who tweeted "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******s for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it." Given that a bunch of people then went out and tried to set fire to a hotel it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion that that was incitement to commit arson.

Incidentally, racism isn't a crime here either but it does count as an aggravating factor. So stabbing someone is a crime, stabbing someone because they're black is the same crime but carries a higher sentence. Just not liking because they're black isn't criminal. We have a number of categories like this. Off the top of my head it's gender, sexuality, race and religion but don't be surprised if I've missed one.

That is actually what's happening, at least in theory.

I don't think that's true but I'm open to hearing about cases that contradict me. I think the confusion may be coming from the fact that it's very hard to define where opinion ends and incitement starts. If I say, "Black people smell funny" that's certainly racist but it's not going to be taken as incitement. If I say "Let's go and kill some blacks" that's certainly incitement. If I say "black people deserve to die" we're starting to get into a very grey area. I haven't called for a specific crime but I have made a post that was likely to cause a criminal reaction and can, therefore, be considered for an incitement charge. When we have grey areas like that we consider context. So under normal circumstances it probably wouldn't be taken to trial but in the context of the events of a couple of weeks ago it would be.

It's also worth noting that, in most of these cases, the defendent's have immediately plead guilty, so the actual line of where incitement starts isn't really being tested.

No but there is an uncomfortable correlation. In truth I think it's the other way round: people who want to spew hate tend to hide behind a veil of free speech absolutism. I personally think that genuine free speech absolutists are perhaps naïve but I don't think they're hateful.

A very well crafted explanation, good of you to take that much time.

It sounds very much like our laws. Here we call it "hate crimes". And it also adds to the amount of penalty. I like the laws but there is an inconsistency on it's application. Though I don't know how you could shape these laws to prevent that.

Perfection is hard to achieve. I think they broke the mold after I was born. lol

[dday9]

I don't think that's true but I'm open to hearing about cases that contradict me.

I've found a couple of instances, but they're sources are... sketchy. So I'm not going to bring them up.

I did, however, find official numbers from 2010 - 2015 http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/di...6030001367.pdf, although I had to use the wayback machine in order to access the PDF and the arrest categories at least go against your understanding. The three that stand out the most to me are:

• Send false message by public electronic communication network to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety
• Cause to be sent by public communication network a false message to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety
• Persistently make use of public communication network to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety

The other two categories include "menacing" which I think probably falls under the incitement language we brought up. But those three are specifically tailored to how one feels, which I just don't understand.

There are people out there who annoy the ever living crap out of me, heck my children cause me constant anxiety by stuff they say, but they shouldn't be arrested for it.

[FunkyDexter]

there is an inconsistency on it's application. Though I don't know how you could shape these laws to prevent that.

Yeah. It's because the border between "just expressing an opinion" and "incitement" is subjective so different juries and judges are likely to arrive at different conclusions for the same set of facts.

Send false message by public electronic communication network to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety
Cause to be sent by public communication network a false message to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety
Persistently make use of public communication network to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety

I couldn't get the link to work (goes to a 404) so can't look at the actual source but I'll read between the lines from what you've posted and take some guesses. You mention that these are "arrest categories" rather than charges and I suspect that might be significant. Given their descriptions, my guess is that they were contributory to a harassment charge. Again, this is one of those wishy washy area where subjectivity would come into play. A single instance wouldn't usually constitute harassment but repeated instances would and there's no fixed number a bad actor could game out. So my guess (and it is a guess) is that these are factors that contribute to an arrest and a whole set of them would sit as evidence to back up a charge. I'll be honest, though, I'm guessing from almost no data and likely completely wrong.

What I do know is that I'm allowed to lie and I'm allowed to be a dick. I know it'll be hard to believe but I've very occasionally done both, I've even done it on the internet (I know, right, hard to picture aint it) and nobody ever arrested me for it.

Hell, if finding electronic communications cause anxiety is a crime I'm dragging half the membership of this forum in front of the beak right now



Edit> I did a quick google for "Arrest Category" to see if I could find a more concrete definition - couldn't find anything. I did find this which might provide some useful info on what we consider an offence but I didn't wade through it - it's pretty long.

[dday9]

I'll definitely check out that link you posted. But like I said, I had to use the WayBack machine in order to access it because apparently it's been removed. The last snapshot showing it up was 2017-02-26: https://web.archive.org/web/20170226...6030001367.pdf

Edit - Jeez, that is table is long.

[FunkyDexter]

Jeez, that is table is long

Yeah, we can be pretty imaginative where crime is concerned

That link proved more fruitful because it gives the piece of legislation in question: Section 127 of the communications act. And you're very close to correct. The piece you cited is under sub section 2 (clauses a to c). So you're pretty much right in substance though the phrasing is a little different.

I do remember that the Tories were in power in 2003 and, while I don't remember that being a particularly fraught time, they do have a habit of overreaching with legislation. Particularly where protest is concerned but also around subjects like harassment. I've got to say, it seems like a VERY loosely worded piece of legislation to me. I'll also say that I haven't seen any prosecutions under this act for behaviour that was simply "annoying" so, probably, this is a case of prosecutors not wanting to bring cases lightly to avoid setting precedent if they fail.

[dilettante]

My opinion is that anyone committing violence or calling for violence should be criminally prosecuted.

Hmm. Like the people here calling for Trump to be murdered just before the 1st assassination attempt?

I was shocked that we didn't at least see bans. Hopefully the FBI/SS/DHS have them on watch lists now.

[TysonLPrice]

Hmm. Like the people here calling for Trump to be murdered just before the 1st assassination attempt?

I was shocked that we didn't at least see bans. Hopefully the FBI/SS/DHS have them on watch lists now.

Yes...along with the people that posted all that mis-information and inane videos against vaccinations and basic pubic safety measures during covid 19. I wonder how many people "literally" died from those posts? Banning those people people may have saved lives. But , there is that* darned freedom of speech in the way again.

[wes4dbt]

Hmm. Like the people here calling for Trump to be murdered just before the 1st assassination attempt?

I don't remember this happening here. Got any examples? I'd be interested to see who it was.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't remember this happening here. Got any examples? I'd be interested to see who it was.

I was wondering about that, as well.

[PlausiblyDamp]

I was wondering about that, as well.

I imagine it is in the same place as all the evidence showing immigrants really are eating peoples' pets

[FunkyDexter]

Pretty sure RFK would eat someone's pet but only if it was roadkill first.

[dilettante]

Yes...along with the people that posted all that mis-information and inane videos against vaccinations and basic pubic safety measures during covid 19. I wonder how many people "literally" died from those posts? Banning those people people may have saved lives. But , there is that* darned freedom of speech in the way again.

So now you want to claim "freedom of speech" for your calls for Trump's assassination here?

I called it out at the time but of course was ignored again.

And I thought "whataboutism" disqualified a person's argument here. Oh, I forgot. Double standard.

[PlausiblyDamp]

So now you want to claim "freedom of speech" for your calls for Trump's assassination here?

I called it out at the time but of course was ignored again.

And I thought "whataboutism" disqualified a person's argument here. Oh, I forgot. Double standard.

Nobody else seems to remember people here calling for Trump's assassination, would be good if you could provide a link to the post(s) in which this happened.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, somebody is conveniently mis-remembering, but I'm not sure who. Perhaps Dil can find such a post, or even point towards the right thread that might have wandered towards that topic.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Yeah, somebody is conveniently mis-remembering, but I'm not sure who. Perhaps Dil can find such a post, or even point towards the right thread that might have wandered towards that topic.

Perhaps it isn't anything other than Alternative Facts or perhaps something more akin to a created story - you know. Not a falsehood at all...

[FunkyDexter]

I do remember folks saying things along the lines of "shame he missed" (I'm paraphrasing) which I didn't like but that's not the same as calling for an assassination.

Given that both potential assassins have been card carrying Republicans and given Trump's own rhetoric and that of his coterie, I think any criticism the Reps want to make should be directed inward.

[sapator]

I come back find the shame.
He claimed that Biden should take him out there was half the forum asking if he was on a murderous lust and he claimed he do not support any violence. Then an admin removed a lot of my "comments" towards him.
Then on this forum dday unsubscribed https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....w-weeks/page12 again because of him,
And now he said that the Israel attack was brilliant knowing exactly what will happen as we was wondering if people will take it the wrong way...Duh.

[dday9]

I don't remember this happening here. Got any examples? I'd be interested to see who it was.

There was the Kathy Griffin bloody decapitated Trump head, but I tend to chalk that up under more of an artistic impression than an actual threat. There's a couple of instances of that like when George Lopez joked that he'd take out trump for half of the Iranian bounty after the killing of Soleimani, again, that's a joke.

But there are some that are more serious from celebrities like Madonna saying "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." or Johnny Depp posing the question "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" (in context it was not an academic or genuine question).

Then there are the general wacko's on social media that cheered when Trump got COVID, some going as far as saying "I hope he dies".

By the way, this isn't one sided. There have also been similar threats against Biden, particularly by wacko's on social media, but I don't remember any celebrities (or high profile people) calling for violence. The focus on threats against Trump is just to answer your question (which I took as a genuine question).

[dday9]

Yes...along with the people that posted all that mis-information and inane videos against vaccinations and basic pubic safety measures during covid 19. I wonder how many people "literally" died from those posts? Banning those people people may have saved lives. But , there is that* darned freedom of speech in the way again.

I will not say that there were some extreme (and unproven) suggestions by people who had no idea what they were talking about during COVID which did result in some deaths, but this is a great instance of valuing freedom of speech. One instance in particular I'm thinking of is that one guy who drank fish cleaner (or something to that effect) and died as a result.

But people were getting banned for suggesting that cloth masks (that were recommended all throughout COVID) do little to no good protecting against the virus, people were getting banned for suggesting that if the 6' distance rule worked then why wasn't brought back when the next wave came through, people were banned by pointing out that COVID shots are not vaccines in the traditional sense, people were banned by pointing out that the virus is likely going to be seasonal, people were banned when pointing out that there is an incredible age variance with COVID and questioning that if you were under 60 and healthy then why take a chance on an unproven pharmaceutical product that was shielded from liability, people were banned that suggesting natural immunity outweighs the benefits of the vaccine or any one of the boosters. This had a serious effect of people (including doctors) who suppressed what they would say because it was a constant game of figuring out what you could or couldn't say.

Don't forget, people were getting banned who suggested that Remdesivir (a key drug used during COVID) shouldn't be used. Here is a drug that was withdrawn for human use during Ebola because people were literally dying of organ damage, but then reauthorized under the emergency actions taken during COVID. There were doctors who were banned because they pointed out that not only was Remdesivir previously considered extremely unsafe, but that hospitals had a financial incentive to give people courses of the medicine to the tune of multi-thousand dollar bonuses.

Now at the time when corporations like Meta, Alphabet, and Twitter (at the time) started banning these individuals, I took the opinion of "they own the business, they don't want that kind of discussion, and they are completely within line to ban these people even if I disagree with the decision". But now it has been proven, thanks to Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss, that the Biden administration were reaching out to these companies asking the question "why haven't these accounts been looked at" with the veiled threat that if something wasn't done then their company would be in jeopardy. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg came out with a public apology directed to the House Judiciary Committee, describing the pressure that he was facing by the federal government and that it was wrong to essentially bend the knee. So while this is not a clear violation of people's first amendment rights, it was definitely pressure put forth by the federal government in an attempt to silence dissonant opinion.

Had there been a "public square" approach during COVID, there still would have been wacko's suggesting all sorts of weird/bad stuff, but there would have been others who felt more comfortable to come out and say "I may not agree with the CDC guidelines, but what you're suggesting is nuts. Instead, look at XYZ that isn't proven but is still safe nonetheless". That is essentially what the Great Barrington Declaration came out and said and yet all three epidemiologists suffered the wrath of this quasi attack on traditional free speech America has had for literally centuries. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's ban (and shadow ban by Twitter/X) was only lifted this year!

So yes, people literally died from misinformation. How many people died because of overuse of ventilators at a time when you'd get banned by suggesting ventilators should only be used in the most extreme COVID cases? How many people died because they were overweight which exponentially increased your chances of getting serious sick from COVID at a time when you'd get banned by suggesting the best thing that you could do if you were overweight was to start exercising and eating better? How many people died or got seriously ill because they couldn't take Ivermectin (unproven for COVID but cheap and safe to take) at a time when doctor's were losing their licenses for prescribing it? In the words of the Tootsie Pop owl "the world may never know."

[Peter Porter]

I don't remember this happening here. Got any examples? I'd be interested to see who it was.

There was the Kathy Griffin bloody decapitated Trump head, but I tend to chalk that up under more of an artistic impression than an actual threat. There's a couple of instances of that like when George Lopez joked that he'd take out trump for half of the Iranian bounty after the killing of Soleimani, again, that's a joke.

But there are some that are more serious from celebrities like Madonna saying "I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." or Johnny Depp posing the question "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" (in context it was not an academic or genuine question).

Then there are the general wacko's on social media that cheered when Trump got COVID, some going as far as saying "I hope he dies".

By the way, this isn't one sided. There have also been similar threats against Biden, particularly by wacko's on social media, but I don't remember any celebrities (or high profile people) calling for violence. The focus on threats against Trump is just to answer your question (which I took as a genuine question).

Wes was commenting about Dil's accusations of VBForums' members, not celebrities and politicians.

Here's what he was responding to:

Hmm. Like the people here calling for Trump to be murdered just before the 1st assassination attempt?

I don't remember this happening here. Got any examples? I'd be interested to see who it was.

[TysonLPrice]

I will not say that there were some extreme (and unproven) suggestions by people who had no idea what they were talking about during COVID which did result in some deaths, but this is a great instance of valuing freedom of speech. One instance in particular I'm thinking of is that one guy who drank fish cleaner (or something to that effect) and died as a result.

But people were getting banned for suggesting that cloth masks (that were recommended all throughout COVID) do little to no good protecting against the virus, people were getting banned for suggesting that if the 6' distance rule worked then why wasn't brought back when the next wave came through, people were banned by pointing out that COVID shots are not vaccines in the traditional sense, people were banned by pointing out that the virus is likely going to be seasonal, people were banned when pointing out that there is an incredible age variance with COVID and questioning that if you were under 60 and healthy then why take a chance on an unproven pharmaceutical product that was shielded from liability, people were banned that suggesting natural immunity outweighs the benefits of the vaccine or any one of the boosters. This had a serious effect of people (including doctors) who suppressed what they would say because it was a constant game of figuring out what you could or couldn't say.

Don't forget, people were getting banned who suggested that Remdesivir (a key drug used during COVID) shouldn't be used. Here is a drug that was withdrawn for human use during Ebola because people were literally dying of organ damage, but then reauthorized under the emergency actions taken during COVID. There were doctors who were banned because they pointed out that not only was Remdesivir previously considered extremely unsafe, but that hospitals had a financial incentive to give people courses of the medicine to the tune of multi-thousand dollar bonuses.

Now at the time when corporations like Meta, Alphabet, and Twitter (at the time) started banning these individuals, I took the opinion of "they own the business, they don't want that kind of discussion, and they are completely within line to ban these people even if I disagree with the decision". But now it has been proven, thanks to Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss, that the Biden administration were reaching out to these companies asking the question "why haven't these accounts been looked at" with the veiled threat that if something wasn't done then their company would be in jeopardy. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg came out with a public apology directed to the House Judiciary Committee, describing the pressure that he was facing by the federal government and that it was wrong to essentially bend the knee. So while this is not a clear violation of people's first amendment rights, it was definitely pressure put forth by the federal government in an attempt to silence dissonant opinion.

Had there been a "public square" approach during COVID, there still would have been wacko's suggesting all sorts of weird/bad stuff, but there would have been others who felt more comfortable to come out and say "I may not agree with the CDC guidelines, but what you're suggesting is nuts. Instead, look at XYZ that isn't proven but is still safe nonetheless". That is essentially what the Great Barrington Declaration came out and said and yet all three epidemiologists suffered the wrath of this quasi attack on traditional free speech America has had for literally centuries. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's ban (and shadow ban by Twitter/X) was only lifted this year!

So yes, people literally died from misinformation. How many people died because of overuse of ventilators at a time when you'd get banned by suggesting ventilators should only be used in the most extreme COVID cases? How many people died because they were overweight which exponentially increased your chances of getting serious sick from COVID at a time when you'd get banned by suggesting the best thing that you could do if you were overweight was to start exercising and eating better? How many people died or got seriously ill because they couldn't take Ivermectin (unproven for COVID but cheap and safe to take) at a time when doctor's were losing their licenses for prescribing it? In the words of the Tootsie Pop owl "the world may never know."

My point was he was the pot calling the kettle black. Nothing more.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If we look at the world at large, then there are probably people saying that darn near anybody should be killed. It's a figure of speech in at least one part of the world. I don't think we can say much on that. We can say something about what is said by us, and what is said here. I felt that Dil was saying that people here had said something, and I don't remember that happening.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I come back find the shame.

Please stop violating the AUP by misspelling words that would otherwise be censored. It's too hard to tell whether or not it was intentional or not (after all, you also managed to misspell 'same', but in a way that is pretty funny).

He claimed that Biden should take him out

Not sure where this was, but if it was in response to the SCOTUS ruling that presidents have absolute immunity, then it was a pretty on-point hypothetical about the SCOTUS ruling. They essentially said that is not illegal for a president to murder their opponents. That is the logical conclusion of their ruling. It's not saying it is right, it's saying that the ruling itself was dangerously wrong.

[Shaggy Hiker]

After spending a fair amount of time considering some of Niya's points, I have come up with a tedious proof that free speech isn't possible. As it is plodding and tedious, I won't post it unless somebody really wants to read it.

I think we should strive for speech that errs on the side of free, but I don't believe truly free speech is even theoretically possible. There will be censorship. It will be explicit or implicit, but it will be there.

[Peter Porter]

Maybe Technology Advice needs to fine-tune "Prohibited Content" in it's TOS for all their sites like VBForums to prevent accusations without proof.

This is what it looks like now:

14. Prohibited Content. You agree that You will not post any Prohibited Content or use any Prohibited Content in connection with the Services. “Prohibited Content” is Content that: (i) is offensive or promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual, or is pornographic or sexually explicit in nature; (ii) bullies, harasses or advocates stalking, bullying, or harassment of another person; (iii) involves the transmission of “junk mail,” “chain letters,” unsolicited mass mailing, or “spamming”; (iv) is false or misleading or promotes, endorses or furthers illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous; (v) promotes, copies, performs or distributes an illegal or unauthorized copy of another person’s work that is protected by copyright or trade secret law, such as providing pirated computer programs or links to them, providing information to circumvent manufacturer-installed copy-protection devices, or providing pirated music, videos, or movies, or links to such pirated music, videos, or movies; (vi) is involved in the exploitation of persons under the age of eighteen (18) in a sexual or violent manner, or solicits personal information from anyone under eighteen (18); (vii) provides instructional information about illegal activities such as making or buying illegal weapons, violating someone’s privacy, or providing or creating computer viruses and other harmful code; (viii) solicits passwords or personally identifying information for commercial or unlawful purposes from other Users; (ix) except as expressly approved by TechnologyAdvice, involves commercial activities and/or promotions such as contests, sweepstakes, barter, advertising, or pyramid schemes; (x) contains viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots, corrupted files, or similar software; (xi) posts or distributes information which would violate any confidentiality, non-disclosure or other contractual restrictions or rights of any third party, including any current or former employers or potential employers; or (xii) otherwise violates the terms of this Agreement or creates liability for TechnologyAdvice.