Freedom of Speech and YouTube comments

[pax]

You need to find more important things to get upset about , Rich.

 

[Theta.G]

You know England is part of Britain, not the other way around right?

Guess I'd better be more careful not to criticise politicians or the queen so often, I might have the police knocking down my door any day now...

Lmao whoops, i screwed that one up. Baited. Had to happen sometime i guess. that must mean free speech arrests no longer exists Oh no!!
hahahaha

Anyway if you do, and you live there just make sure to protect yourself. Anon. While a large portion of arrests are "clear cut hate speech" there's roughly 10-15% that are highly questionable arrests.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

Lmao whoops, i screwed that one up. Baited. Had to happen sometime i guess. that must mean free speech arrests no longer exists Oh no!!
hahahaha

Anyway if you do, and you live there just make sure to protect yourself. Anon. While a large portion of arrests are "clear cut hate speech" there's roughly 10-15% that are highly questionable arrests.

Don't worry, having lived in Britain my entire life I'm aware of what the hate speech laws are. If we were arrested for critisising politicians or calling the queen an ignorant fossilised leecher then 99% of the adult population would be convicted criminals.

 

[pjcnet]

Sounds like you're being harassed by one of the many trolls, I fully understand how this can be upsetting, especially for someone on the autistic spectrum, but you have to learn to ignore it.

You can try reporting it, but the Google / Youtube mods are hopeless, well "helpless" is probably a better word. It's not because they're hopeless on an individual level, but because they're ridiculously understaffed to moderate the many thousands of videos and comments appearing on Youtube every single day. If someone reports something, it probably doesn't even appear on the long list of reports that the mods have to flick through unless multiple people report it or maybe if it's reported by a high profile member it might get their attention easier, and even then it's only dealt with if they spot it amongst so many reports and see it as a priority. I would compare moderating Youtube to attempting to moderate 20 ASPIESCentrals on your own, obviously it would eventually get out of hand. A lot of the moderation is actually done by bots instead, including moderation of the video content itself, but sometimes people find workarounds. For instance there's various copyrighted materials that aren't allowed on Youtube, if people publish them normally a bot will often eventually identify them, so people publish them with large graphical borders around them instead or even more often they publish a short video with a link to the copyrighted material that is hosted elsewhere, or a scam site that is at the very least full of extremely naff ads.

 

[xudo]

Mainly Britain.



Average people. So free speech for everyone right, except average citizens who even slightly resemble one of their views in anyway? Any views that oppose the narrative. Thanks for proving my point SD. You summed it up nicely. Free speech for all except this group, that group, these people, those people.

#What is free speech?

This made me both shake my head and laugh. Do you know how many programmes slate both politicians and the Queen/royal family on a daily basis?? Its not even only the topical comedy shows. Anyone is free to say what they think of any of our politicians, without fear of arrest. Obviously, death threats and the like may be treated differently, as they should.

Recently, the two founders of 'Britain First have been jailed. Now, as much as their followers would like to believe, this wasn't because they speak the truth or are on a crusade to save Britain from those pesky Muslims - it was because they harassed people (including a pregnant woman and her two small kids) and incited religious hatred.

'Britain First' are also not a political party, despite their wish to be seen as one. They're a collection of racists and Islamophobes shouting in the streets. They tout themselves as standing up for victims of sexual abuse, yet have a known paedophile within their group. They are a hate group through and through.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to commit other crimes. If you harass somebody, you have committed a crime, whether or not you feel you were just expressing free speech. Harassment is a crime and they were convicted. The same for inciting religious hatred. You are free to say "I don't like Islam" but not to tell people (very publicly) "all Muslims are rapists and the Qur'an tells them to rape people." One is a simple statement and the other is likely to lead some people to believe that a certain religion is bad, and may also lead some to do something stupid (like attack a Mosque for example.)

Don't worry, having lived in Britain my entire life I'm aware of what the hate speech laws are. If we were arrested for critisising politicians or calling the queen an ignorant fossilised leecher then 99% of the adult population would be convicted criminals.

The entire panel and every guest on 'Have I Got News For You" every week

 

[Suzanne]

Freedom of speech is just a catch phrase today and really, it has always been that way; just with the media, things are heightened.

I rarely comment on youtube, but recently I did, because this female is interested in the turpin family and trying to find out the truth. She admitted and felt sure she would get slammed for it, but did not believe extended members had been abused and I just commented and said I did not either, being that I have and so recognise authentic ones and not.

She utterly confused me, because she responded with: did I say I don't believe them? So I responded and said well, yes, unless I am hearing things. She then said that she would have to go back and listen herself, but her who video was about it; so that has really confused me.

True freedom of speech really cannot be fully inforced, because we are all passionate about what we believe and very rarely are we tolerant of others who have a different view.

 

[Theta.G]

This made me both shake my head and laugh. Do you know how many programmes slate both politicians and the Queen/royal family on a daily basis?? Its not even only the topical comedy shows. Anyone is free to say what they think of any of our politicians, without fear of arrest. Obviously, death threats and the like may be treated differently, as they should.

Recently, the two founders of 'Britain First have been jailed. Now, as much as their followers would like to believe, this wasn't because they speak the truth or are on a crusade to save Britain from those pesky Muslims - it was because they harassed people (including a pregnant woman and her two small kids) and incited religious hatred.

'Britain First' are also not a political party, despite their wish to be seen as one. They're a collection of racists and Islamophobes shouting in the streets. They tout themselves as standing up for victims of sexual abuse, yet have a known paedophile within their group. They are a hate group through and through.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to being able to commit other crimes. If you harass somebody, you have committed a crime, whether or not you feel you were just expressing free speech. Harassment is a crime and they were convicted. The same for inciting religious hatred. You are free to say "I don't like Islam" but not to tell people (very publicly) "all Muslims are rapists and the Qur'an tells them to rape people." One is a simple statement and the other is likely to lead some people to believe that a certain religion is bad, and may also lead some to do something stupid (like attack a Mosque for example.)



The entire panel and every guest on 'Have I Got News For You" every week

Since it wasn't obvious enough I'll restate it. SD got triggered and assumed i am "far right" because of: "Average people. So free speech for everyone right, except average citizens who even slightly resemble one of their views in anyway?" [ such as a desire for peace ]
His assumption is wrong. I don't care about Britain First. Not far right. That's the assumption of someone who is highly polarized. Note: Average people, slightly resemble. How he got far right nazi out of that, i don't know and don't care.. I care about free speech which is what the initial post was about. Having to do with Youtube censorship. If you want to derail further into race baiting send a message ~

Back on topic.

 

[Judge]

In a nutshell if one wants or expects the authorities to chime in on a website, it will take the perception of a criminal act being committed or at least worthy of an investigation.

Otherwise forget it when it comes to civil matters. Where you're ultimately at the mercy or indifference of those who administrate a website where their actions (if any) aren't likely to even consider civil laws at all.

As with most any civil matter, it's ultimately up to you as a potential plaintiff to reach out to legal counsel to pursue the matter with your own resources. With no guarantees of a positive or just outcome.

 

[xudo]

Since it wasn't obvious enough I'll restate it. SD got triggered and assumed i am "far right" because of: "Average people. So free speech for everyone right, except average citizens who even slightly resemble one of their views in anyway?" [ such as a desire for peace ]
His assumption is wrong. I don't care about Britain First. Not far right. That's the assumption of someone who is highly polarized. Note: Average people, slightly resemble. How he got far right nazi out of that, i don't know and don't care.. I care about free speech which is what the initial post was about. Having to do with Youtube censorship. If you want to derail further into race baiting send a message ~

I never said you were far right. I only mentioned Britain First and their convictions as it was very recent and many (wrongly) claim what they were doing was simply 'free speech' and that they were imprisoned simply for having a differing opinion.

Back to the topic of free speech, average people are not being imprisoned in this country (UK) for maligning politicians or our royal family.

EDIT: I also have no idea what 'race baiting' is.

 

[Judge]

Back to the topic of free speech, average people are not being imprisoned in this country (UK) for maligning politicians or our royal family.

Reminds me of an average fellow who was a school teacher and son of a miner. -Willie Hamilton (RIP).

Anyone recall him? Quite a character. A maligning politician.

Who became a member of Parliament (1950-1987) and fiercely advocated abolishing the monarchy on general principal. Both a Republican and member of the Labour Party. Who wasn't particularly guarded about his comments about the Royals. Calling the Queen "a clockwork doll", Princess Margaret as "a floozy" and Prince Charles as a "twerp".

Needless to say years ago he got a lot of press on this side of the pond.

 

[Theta.G]

I never said you were far right. I only mentioned Britain First and their convictions as it was very recent and many (wrongly) claim what they were doing was simply 'free speech' and that they were imprisoned simply for having a differing opinion.

Back to the topic of free speech, average people are not being imprisoned in this country (UK) for maligning politicians or our royal family.

EDIT: I also have no idea what 'race baiting' is.

Ok. i apologize, interpreted you wrong. Dealt with too many people who use it as manipulation.
ex. If you support [x] group then you support child slavery, pedo's, racism etc. red herring attacks-> which devolve into ethnic debates and so on.

 

[SevenOfNine]

NT society is so ‘scarred of its own primal self’ that it’s impossible to discuss any such subject properly at all anywhere.

People who really really rant about say - Jimmy Savville or Rolf... remind me of homophobes. They’re usually gay themselves.

YouTube - great platform but possibly the worst trolling place on the net.

Trolling was pretty much invented on YouTube way before the other social media platforms.

Personally - I wouldn’t bother trying to communicate on YouTube at all unless it’s your own work/video etc.

 

[SevenOfNine]

Free speech??

Doesn’t exist at all. It’s a BS.

Try discussing bombs in a US airport and then claim free speech..

In the UK too. Try saying the C word in the uk within war shot of s stranger and you’ll be arrested in no time.

 

[xudo]

In the UK too. Try saying the C word in the uk within war shot of s stranger and you’ll be arrested in no time.

Seriously? I use that word in public and have yet to be arrested. I literally cannot eye roll hard enough at your comment.

 

[Mr Allen]

Free speech??

Doesn’t exist at all. It’s a BS.

Try discussing bombs in a US airport and then claim free speech..

In the UK too. Try saying the C word in the uk within war shot of s stranger and you’ll be arrested in no time.

I was called C word at work last year and the guy wot said it weren't arrested.

On the contrary I lost my job for telling him to F off in front of customers.

 

[WildCat]

 

[Judge]

In the US the notion of unlimited "free speech" has somehow remained a popular misconception since World War One. A time when the Supreme Court began to adjudicate various cases which have defined the actual limits of free speech. From legal benchmarks known as "the bad tendency test", to the "Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger". Yes- conditions do indeed apply!

Though since then such benchmarks have been legally eroded to accept socially volatile forms of free speech, as long as they didn't breach yet another benchmark- speech which precipitates an imminent, lawless action. That if (whatever it might be) doesn't happen, it's essentially protected free speech.

Being insulted in itself does not rise to a legal threshold of an imminent, lawless action. And an insult in itself is unlikely to be recognized as a form of slander or libel without some ability to substantiate a perceived loss. And if you are perceived to be in the public domain, well...you may be "naked to the wind" relative to the ugliest in political satire and insults.

Nor does hate speech alone count as well. That the catalyst to make such acts a crime lies in a legal determination of being able to directly connect such spoken or written words to an intentional act of violence.

Perhaps the one concern that may- or may not skew such legal concepts is in the interpretation of potential acts of terrorism. Where FAA regulations give commercial flight crews quite a lot of leeway in restraining passengers for just about any reason. Which IMO remains quite a controversial issue in itself.

Essentially the freedom of speech our Founding Fathers once envisioned, ended long ago with the notion established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that shouting "fire!" in a crowded auditorium was not a form of protected free speech.

 

[NothingToSeeHere]

In the UK too. Try saying the C word in the uk within war shot of s stranger and you’ll be arrested in no time.

This is so funny... the 'c word' isn't even considered a serious swear word in the uk, people say it all the time, I know people who regularly use it as a pet name for close friends.

 

[Judge]

Interesting story which clearly reflects Britain's stricter interpretation relative to "free speech" and hate crimes compared to the US.

Heil pug?

YouTuber Faces Jail For Teaching Dog Nazi Salute

 

[Servelan]

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech unless it is inciting, such as 'go and rough up some [fill in the blank]' because King George III of England would not tolerate criticism and dissent from the colonists. Ppl are protected by that even when they are being hateful.