Comments on: Is there really too much freedom of speech online?

By: klewso

klewso — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:32:14 +0000

You aint kiddin’ POV.
Isn’t it funny what some of us find “offensive” and others “acceptable” – usually it depends on who utters such “crudities” and of whom?
But that’s not confined to “social media” is it?
What about the offence in our msm in the partisan way they report back to us, what’s happening, strained through their opinion and prejudices? How much of that “(entertainment) industry” only seems to notice someone’s doing the wrong thing, when it’s “the Left”, caught at it? With their market share of influence, under their “self-regulation”, they have codes of conduct/PCP’s they’re supposed to be bound by, but choose to ignore – like when it comes to “balance”?
No one party has all the answers. But how many people seem to think theirs does, and won’t be seen or heard, uttering a critical word against that party – no matter what they do – rather preferring to apologise for them and attack those that do see fault with their policies?

By: POV 888

POV 888 — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:08:11 +0000

I feel pretty lucky to live in a great country that allows freedom of speech. Hey even the cynics get a piece of public space albeit small to air their offensive opinions.

By: Moira Smith

Moira Smith — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:37:24 +0000

‘some online communities have been running for years without descending into a shitfight’ - I used to moderate a couple of online communities and preventing them from descending into a shitfight was a constant effort. Fortunately I had the option of unsubscribing people. This is not censorship. It’s just having rules about how to behave and then - after unsuccessfully trying to explain to people why they way they expressed their valid views was offensive and upsetting - removing repeat offenders for the sake of the majority.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:52:04 +0000

Any writer who claims Mark Day is a ‘distinguished media commentator’ has no credibility.
Mark Day is nothing more than a propagandist for Murdoch. Try reading Day’s articles in the Australian on the phone hacking scandal in the UK. It was the News Corp line verbatim - one rogue reporter etc etc.

By: fractious

fractious — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:11:50 +0000

Surely the greatest irony here is Disney, on behalf of the bunch of patsies that is the APC, complaining about “too much freedom of speech” and “a cacophony of irrelevant and vitriolic comment streams”

Well he orta know. How many times has he and his band of MSM stool pigeons found in favour of the likes of Henderson, Akerman and Devine when their several illiberal, inflammatory and vitriolic untruths were challenged by those of us who knew different?

Personally I’m very very glad that Disney was so discomfited.

By: John Bennetts

John Bennetts — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:29:13 +0000

“Privacy in the 21st Century”…

With only Murdoch press speaking. They know all about privacy. What a (waste of a ) conference!

Get ‘em, Levison. Unleash the dogs. Unfortunately, both he and the British PM have made clear that that won’t happen. Wimps.

By: klewso

klewso — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:22:55 +0000

Tell me about it. Look at what Murdoch did with that “freedom” - to do what he liked with his conservative political PR catalogues and their market share.

By: Pinklefty

Pinklefty — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:10:27 +0000

The internet can be a very depressing place, where barely literate individuals vent stupid prejudices, and smarter people (unencumbered by principles) attempt to manipulate public opinion.

BUT — once you start to censor the rubbish, how do you know when to stop? Obviously, I’d know what to do; but can I really trust anyone else to only censor the ‘bad’ stuff? Noam Chomsky made a valid point when he stated: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

I tried to cancel my Facebook account, but they would only ‘suspend’ it. It serves me right for ever having stuck my fingers in that unsavoury pie. But to censor it, or anything else, leads to a darker path than the one we are presently on.

Many people fail to understand that with freedom comes responsibility. That is to be regretted, but it does not excuse the attempt to regulate the free flow of information. Regulated thought is intellectual slavery and only a short step to a more onerous, physical form of regulation.

By: klewso

klewso — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:57:51 +0000

They also hide behind that PCP sucker-bait/window dressing of their’s, whereby they reckon they can do whatever they like - while “flipping (that) the bird” too.

By: Noely Neate

Noely Neate — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:42:17 +0000

I think that there are so many blogs and the like due to the duopoly we have in the media. I don’t mean ownership, I mean the fact that they all seem to subscribe to left or right or just plain opt out. The population does not actually belong in 2 distinct groups, and are therefore getting sick of being told what the news is, what we should find important, what we should be outraged at etc., and instead of just meekly hiding in a corner, many are now using social media to actually see more than just the 2 MSM opinions available. That threatens the MSM I suppose as it means that plebs are now questioning them, something we are not supposed to do

It is a shame actually, as there are some very good journos out there and it seems they have instructions to fill certain quotas of styles of stories and I would love to see what they would write and consider to be of national importance if they did not have to use the Right vs Left group think?

By: Edward James

Edward James — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:28:20 +0000

When main stream media publish lies it is not impossible, but it can be expensive to do something about it. Some people just let it slide. A court may rule what is defamatory. Until that happens the word alleged plays an important part. drmick is correct there is good reason to call them the bought and paid media. So called freedom of expression / speech can be expensive, and yes often you may be betting your house on what you publish, naming and identifying politicians as liars and publishing allegations of corruption. Because the truth is not always a defense. If someone alleges injurious language. Fighting a drawn out defamation action will send most people broke. Edward James

By: drmick

drmick — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:01:05 +0000

Spot on Klewso. There is not one of them that will print the truth if it is not in their interest.
They will take as much money as you give them to print anything you want them to print, say or show. Hell, they even pay actors, pros and anyone else who will take money to say what they want them to say. Then they hide behind a freedom of speech fog; freedom of speech for who? like everything else these days, it is only for people who can afford it.
It is sort of like the worlds oldest profession really.

By: klewso

klewso — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:10:59 +0000

Is social media doing much more than taking the intent of the “professional” media (much owned and operated as it is, to what end but influence of perception - with it’s partisan bias, where opinion trumps and even obliterates fact, let alone balance) to it’s “logical” extension?
The difference being that one gets paid for their views, and the other does it for free?