The Myth of Orwellian Network Propaganda

[Heathen Hammer]

1/2. Repeating same false claim won't make it true. Explaining something and justifying it are different things.Latter implies positive statements about the matter, which Sargon didn't even make.
3. So basically you just happen to agree with censorship by authoritarian pseudo-democratic governments, while censorship corresponds to your own political beliefs. The difference between us is that I find all forms of censorship as unacceptable, while you are trying to justify it.
4. This has to do with lack of pragmatism and rationality in modern Western left.
5. That has nothing to do with political parties. Removing content that would generate revenue is against shareholders interests.
6. I'm just pointing out the double standards in your argument.

[Kritias]

1/2. Repeating same false claim won't make it true. Explaining something and justifying it are different things.Latter implies positive statements about the matter, which Sargon didn't even make.
3. So basically you just happen to agree with censorship by authoritarian pseudo-democratic governments, while censorship corresponds to your own political beliefs. The difference between us is that I find all forms of censorship as unacceptable, while you are trying to justify it.
4. This has to do with lack of pragmatism and rationality in modern Western left.
5. That has nothing to do with political parties. Removing content that would generate revenue is against shareholders interests.
6. I'm just pointing out the double standards in your argument.

Heathie, saying something twice, thrice or a million times won't make it right. Firstly, you misunderstand the word 'justifying' as visible from the bolded part. Jystifying something doesn't require positive comments; it only requires the avoidance of condemnation (1) and the offering of some excuse for the act (2). Sargon did both of these things in the space of three lines. Check the link and get back to me.

2. I agree with censorship when done under the rule of law and in its spirit, as any law-abiding citizen must. The nonsense about censorship being my political belief is just an attempt to annoy me, and you'll soon understand that this tactic doesn't work on me. The statement about the United Kingdom and Germany being authoritarian pseudo-democracies is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. I believe an Englishman or a German would have a lot more to say about you calling their countries pseudo-democracies than I ever could. There are many in TWC you could quiz on how horribly suppressed they feel by their authoritarian trash governments. Or not.

3. You don't get to decide what's pragmatism or rationality is. Especially when your use of both has been rather dubious, judging by this debate.

4. I see you understood your mistake bringing up the anti-trust investigation so you reverted back to the more vague argument about cutting extremist, neo-nazi and fascist content from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter as your last line of defense. Again, these companies have a ToS that you as a user agree to; if you break the ToS, your content gets deleted. I think your experience in TWC should have shown how common this approach is.

5. You think that by saying Saudi Arabia is equal in suppressing the rights of their citizens to the United Kingdom, you've somehow pointed out my double standards? How? And why? But mostly- How? Well, Heathie, let's go down the rabbit hole for just one second. Saudi Arabia allows for more guns than the United Kingdom. So according to your own logic, the Saudi Arabians are freer than the British. If this statement sounds paradoxical, it's because it is. It's also not true, unless I were trying so hard to make a point true that I was willing to overlook almost everything else than the ability to pack a gun.

[Heathen Hammer]

Heathie, saying something twice, thrice or a million times won't make it right. Firstly, you misunderstand the word 'justifying' as visible from the bolded part. Jystifying something doesn't require positive comments; it only requires the avoidance of condemnation (1) and the offering of some excuse for the act (2). Sargon did both of these things in the space of three lines. Check the link and get back to me.

2. I agree with censorship when done under the rule of law and in its spirit, as any law-abiding citizen must. The nonsense about censorship being my political belief is just an attempt to annoy me, and you'll soon understand that this tactic doesn't work on me. The statement about the United Kingdom and Germany being authoritarian pseudo-democracies is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst. I believe an Englishman or a German would have a lot more to say about you calling their countries pseudo-democracies than I ever could. There are many in TWC you could quiz on how horribly suppressed they feel by their authoritarian trash governments. Or not.

3. You don't get to decide what's pragmatism or rationality is. Especially when your use of both has been rather dubious, judging by this debate.

4. I see you understood your mistake bringing up the anti-trust investigation so you reverted back to the more vague argument about cutting extremist, neo-nazi and fascist content from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter as your last line of defense. Again, these companies have a ToS that you as a user agree to; if you break the ToS, your content gets deleted. I think your experience in TWC should have shown how common this approach is.

5. You think that by saying Saudi Arabia is equal in suppressing the rights of their citizens to the United Kingdom, you've somehow pointed out my double standards? How? And why? But mostly- How? Well, Heathie, let's go down the rabbit hole for just one second. Saudi Arabia allows for more guns than the United Kingdom. So according to your own logic, the Saudi Arabians are freer than the British. If this statement sounds paradoxical, it's because it is. It's also not true, unless I were trying so hard to make a point true that I was willing to overlook almost everything else than the ability to pack a gun.

Kritie, you are the one repeating same incorrect statement over and over again. Sargon never said that he approves of these events, he points out why they happen. Now you can argue that he is incorrect as to why they happen, but saying that he approves of them is intellectually dishonest.
2. So you finally admit that you support censorship and by extension of that admit that you think you can't win with your ideas in a good faith debate. At least you are being honest.
3. If you think that wokeness and authoritarianism is peak pragmatism, then you are the one whose understanding is dubious.
4. Huh? The legality of ideological crusades at shareholder's expense is rather questionable. It can also be argued that not doing anything about it would give corporations unprecedented power over society. It seems that virtue-signalling big tech has been given chance to cool it with playing internet's commissars for quite some time, and now chickens are coming to roost. Hope they enjoy getting breaken up.
5. That's not what I said. Saudi Arabia and UK both impede on individual freedoms of their citizens, former more intensely then latter, but the argument "country X violations of their citizen's individual rights is their own business" is a pretty terrible argument, especially for someone who wants everyone to think he argues for liberal democracy.

[Kritias]

Kritie, you are the one repeating same incorrect statement over and over again. Sargon never said that he approves of these events, he points out why they happen. Now you can argue that he is incorrect as to why they happen, but saying that he approves of them is intellectually dishonest.
2. So you finally admit that you support censorship and by extension of that admit that you think you can't win with your ideas in a good faith debate. At least you are being honest.
3. If you think that wokeness and authoritarianism is peak pragmatism, then you are the one whose understanding is dubious.
4. Huh? The legality of ideological crusades at shareholder's expense is rather questionable. It can also be argued that not doing anything about it would give corporations unprecedented power over society. It seems that virtue-signalling big tech has been given chance to cool it with playing internet's commissars for quite some time, and now chickens are coming to roost. Hope they enjoy getting breaken up.
5. That's not what I said. Saudi Arabia and UK both impede on individual freedoms of their citizens, former more intensely then latter, but the argument "country X violations of their citizen's individual rights is their own business" is a pretty terrible argument, especially for someone who wants everyone to think he argues for liberal democracy.

Heathie,

1. No. Read it again. Sargon offers excuses, and you offerr excuses for Sargon.
2. I said that I am a law-abiding citizen and if the laws of my country establish some censorship, then I agree to those laws. Don't twist my meaning as if I said that I endorse censorship globally. What's more, I showed you, again and again, that it's legal to take down some content.
3. Read again my post.
4. Yes, that's what you said. You drew clear parallels between the S.A and the UK. Toppling your argument on its head produces the above outcome.

[Heathen Hammer]

Kritie:
1. No, Sargon offers and explanation. As it was pointed out to you, repeating same incorrect statement over and over again won't make it true.
2. That's one Orwellian attitude to endorse authoritarianism. If you lived in Saudi Arabia would you agree with their laws? What about China?
3. I did. My point is still correct.
4. You were the one that said "It is their business", I pointed out while this argument is wrong.

[Kritias]

Heathie,


1. When someone talks about a generally condemnable subject, as is terrorism, any mentions of 'lack of options' isn't an explanation; it's way more than that. The explanation, if you want to call it that, was that the issues the terrorists raise are true [sic]. The 'lack of options' is the excuse part. Also, for someone who takes time and time again the position that leftists are taking to violence because they can't win arguments with words, it's very dubious that (1) you fail to see how someone argued that the use of violence by the alt-right was justified and (2) you keep on refusing the fact that someone of the alt-right made a booboo and admitted right and center that they excuse terrorist acts.

2. Again, no. I'm Greek, you know, I can say no as many times as you like. It's like, our national word. Comparing Saudi Arabia, China, and what other country you will throw in the mix next to the United Kingdom and Germany is plain dishonest. The United Kingdom and Germany offer exponentially more freedom to their citizens than the 90% of the rest of the world, and statistics argue that includes the U.S, too, as I've shown you. Trying to depict those counties as authoritarian dictatorships because they have laws on censorship AS DOES THE UNITED STATES doesn't make them authoritarian. And trying to twist what I wrote above, that I am a law-abiding citizen and I respect the laws of my country, to paint me as a censor happy authoritarian crazed leftist is also plain dishonest.

3. No. One more time into the breach, Heathie. Commercial laws are covering companies. Are you Heather Hammer Ltd or just a plain average citizen? If the latter, then it doesn't apply to you.

4. Once again. The UK and Deutchland are more free than most countries in the world, and the freedom indexes I provided support that this includes the United States. Above in capital letters in case you missed it. Legislation on censure is part of every nation's legislation, as I have shown to you before, and it's their business. Trying to draw parallels to actual dictatorships and trying to paint independent researches and organizations as 'biased' is just your attempt to introduce alternative facts here due to you not liking what the real facts are.


If you have any organization branding the UK, Germany or their laws on censorship as 'authoritarian' I'd like to see it.

[Iskar]

One should also note that there is a fundamental difference between putting certain statements or types of communication (holocaust denial, Volksverhetzung/sedition) under threat of punishment by the law on the one hand and actual censorship on the other.

Censorship kicks in before anything is published. It is the practice of the executive to forbid any publication unless it be checked and potentially altered or removed by government officials first.
Laws making certain statements or types of communication illegal apply after the fact, i.e. they do not prevent the first publication of such materials but put it under threat of punishment.

In contrast to censorship, which happens in secret and is uncheckable by the public, laws against certain statements are transparent, need to be debated and voted on in parliament(s) and can be repealed if the populace votes in an appropriate majority to that effect.
In fact, censorship is completely forbidden by the German constitution and this is part of the unalterable articles 1-20:

Art 5. (1) [...] Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.

("Censorship does not take place.")

[Heathen Hammer]

Krithie
1. Lots of subjects are condemnable. Explaining them isn't endorsing them.
2. I'm not saying they are identical,but UK and Germany don't deserve a pass for violating rights of self-expression and other individual freedoms of their citizens.
3. Heather Hammer Ltd certainly has a nice ring to it. In any case, Google and Facebook are commercial entities. Going on ideological crusades at shareholders dime can be interpreted as going against their interests. They are there for profits, not spreading of ideology dictate by voices in heads of the staff.
4. Again, if you claim that countries which restrict their citizen's freedoms are more "free" then countries that don't, then something is wrong with your standards or you are plainly trying to appeal to former.

One should also note that there is a fundamental difference between putting certain statements or types of communication (holocaust denial, Volksverhetzung/sedition) under threat of punishment by the law on the one hand and actual censorship on the other.

That's literally what censorship is. Germany has censorship.

[Aexodus]

One should also note that there is a fundamental difference between putting certain statements or types of communication (holocaust denial, Volksverhetzung/sedition) under threat of punishment by the law on the one hand and actual censorship on the other.

Censorship kicks in before anything is published. It is the practice of the executive to forbid any publication unless it be checked and potentially altered or removed by government officials first.
Laws making certain statements or types of communication illegal apply after the fact, i.e. they do not prevent the first publication of such materials but put it under threat of punishment.

In contrast to censorship, which happens in secret and is uncheckable by the public, laws against certain statements are transparent, need to be debated and voted on in parliament(s) and can be repealed if the populace votes in an appropriate majority to that effect.
In fact, censorship is completely forbidden by the German constitution and this is part of the unalterable articles 1-20:
("Censorship does not take place.")

Really? So a law against criticising the government in speech would not be censorship? What would it be then? I don’t agree with the German definition of censorship. Maybe it’s a language thing, where you guys have a different concept of it. I definitely don’t know of censorship being limited to just stopping the publication of or editing something.

English wiki page:

Censorshipis the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".^[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by a government,^[5] private institutions, and corporations.

German wiki page:

Censorship ( Latin censura ) is an attempt to control information .Restrictive procedures - usually by government agencies - seek to control mass media or personal information traffic in order to suppress or prevent the spread of unwanted or unlawful content.^{[1] [2]} Often, totalitarian statesuse censorship more stringently.^[2]

I think there’s definitely different conceptions of what censorship is in English and German. It seems that in the anglosphere, censorship in our definition of the word can certainly kick in after anything is said or published. Whereas the German idea of censorship seems to see it as limited to directly controlling information. I fear this conception of the subject leaves Germany vulnerable to arguments in favour of censorship, even if “Zensur” is illegal. Look at the skengdo rappers that were imprisoned for their music post factum, or the infamous Nazi pug debacle. The Guardian even categorises both those articles in its “censorship” section devoted to freedom of speech related stories.

It is the practice of the executive to forbid any publication unless it be checked and potentially altered or removed by government officials first.

Do you mean that censorship can only be done by the state?

[Kritias]

Really? So a law against criticising the government in speech would not be censorship? What would it be then? I donÂ’t agree with the German definition of censorship. Maybe itÂ’s a language thing, where you guys have a different concept of it. I definitely donÂ’t know of censorship being limited to just stopping the publication of or editing something.

English wiki page:


German wiki page:


I think there’s definitely different conceptions of what censorship is in English and German. It seems that in the anglosphere, censorship in our definition of the word can certainly kick in after anything is said or published. Whereas the German idea of censorship seems to see it as limited to directly controlling information. I fear this conception of the subject leaves Germany vulnerable to arguments in favour of censorship, even if “Zensur” is illegal. Look at the skengdo rappers that were imprisoned for their music post factum, or the infamous Nazi pug debacle. The Guardian even categorises both those articles in its “censorship” section devoted to freedom of speech related stories.



Do you mean that censorship can only be done by the state?

Okay, after research the laws for censorship in Germany falls under two categories: according to (a) Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, the public denial of the Holocaust, the use of Nazi imagery (except for educational purposes) as well as communist images or symbols since the KPD is also banned alongside the Nazi party, or generally propagangizing the nazis or the communists. (B) Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors) under which certain publications can be censored (in the sense they cannot be exhibited publicly to be purchased) and other sub categories that violate personal rights of German citizens, such as publishing private (aka nude) photos. So far, so good I trust. Because I can't really see something so outlandish that would make Germany an 'authoritarian trash' state. Unless you have a problem with t he Germans not allowing Nazi or communist imagery and propaganda.

England, lets talk England. The United Kingdom has its own way of dealing with freedom of speech as you can see here. Now, it can be argued that the laws in place are more archaic in their understanding, but still the rights are there albeit needing a different justification that what you demand them to have. In regards to the points you raise: The drill rappers you note were classified as a 'gang' by the Metropolitan police because of their general activities which they allegedly brag about in their songs. So, that may be a reason for them getting arrested. Of course alleged gang activity and making music are two completely different issues. The fact is the metropolitan police used the songs themselves to point out the group is bragging on illegal activities that 410 allegedly committed. In any case, there's more than a simple violation of freedom of speech going on in this case.

On the issue of the Nazi pug, Meechan was fined because in his videos he's giving the command for the pug to raise its paw with some very, very offensive stuff. Whether Meechan himself thought he was being hilarious at the point is not here nor there; the fact is that by uploading it to YouTube he was trying to tap in a current trend that makes the nazis 'funny' (you must have seen the memes), in order to make himself more known. And it worked, because after he caused the controversy and refused to pay his fine for this self-marketing stunt, he received donations through crowdfunding and went into politics with UKIP - hardly a victim of suppression of free speech, I'd say.

On to the Heathen

1. You say he explained it, I say he excused it. There's no convincing you if you don't want to see the other side.
2. Look above on what these violations are. Again, both these countries score higher than the United States in all freedom indexes. So, saying another country isn't free because you compare it to a, largely imaginary [here, here, here, here], view on the freedom of the United States is plainly wrong. Also, three cases in two countries with more than 150 million people between them isn't a symptom of social repression; surely, if they were as authoritarian as you claim, we'd hear way more cases. More close to hundreds, or even tens of hundreds - not countable by hand, though.
3. Once again, the private posts you make on Facebook and Twitter do not generate profit for their shareholders. In fact, if the two platforms become infested with hate speech and other stuff, this will directly damage their profit because more moderate people may decide to stay away; you see an ideological crusade against free speech where there's simply a business plan for sustainable growth and user retention. And once again, there's the ToS; If you break it, you get demonetized, or get your posts pulled down.
4. There's no country in the world that doesn't restrict aspects of their citizens' rights in some way, shape or form. It's all part of the social contract in living in a society. You saying that some countries restrict rights and other don't shows how much misinformed you are on what the legal statures in the US really contain [here]. My suggestion is go open the legal statures and see what the terms you throw here really mean. Or check the links I've given you above. But this argument is based uncomfortably on fantasy; freedom of speech just doesn't work the same you think it does.

[Aexodus]

Okay, after research the laws for censorship in Germany falls under two categories: according to (a) Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, the public denial of the Holocaust, the use of Nazi imagery (except for educational purposes) as well as communist images or symbols since the KPD is also banned alongside the Nazi party, or generally propagangizing the nazis or the communists.

Yes, but Iskar was saying that this is not censorship at all. If not, what is it.

(B) Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors) under which certain publications can be censored (in the sense they cannot be exhibited publicly to be purchased) and other sub categories that violate personal rights of German citizens, such as publishing private (aka nude) photos. So far, so good I trust. Because I can't really see something so outlandish that would make Germany an 'authoritarian trash' state. Unless you have a problem with t he Germans not allowing Nazi or communist imagery and propaganda.

Germany’s not authoritarian trash. I never said that. I do have a problem with banning Nazi or Communist imagery actually. It’s not illegal in the UK and we’re fine.

England, lets talk England. The United Kingdom has its own way of dealing with freedom of speech as you can see here. Now, it can be argued that the laws in place are more archaic in their understanding, but still the rights are there albeit needing a different justification that what you demand them to have. In regards to the points you raise: The drill rappers you note were classified as a 'gang' by the Metropolitan police because of their general activities which they allegedly brag about in their songs. So, that may be a reason for them getting arrested. Of course alleged gang activity and making music are two completely different issues. The fact is the metropolitan police used the songs themselves to point out the group is bragging on illegal activities that 410 allegedly committed. In any case, there's more than a simple violation of freedom of speech going on in this case.

But there is a violation of free speech by banning music no? The government taking their videos off YouTube sounds like censorship.

At the end of the day Skengdo and AM had nothing do with any gang crime. This is like the moral panic in the 90s over gangster rap by NWA or Dre.

On the issue of the Nazi pug, Meechan was fined because in his videos he's giving the command for the pug to raise its paw with some very, very offensive stuff.

And it wasn’t justified.

Whether Meechan himself thought he was being hilarious at the point is not here nor there; the fact is that by uploading it to YouTube he was trying to tap in a current trend that makes the nazis 'funny' (you must have seen the memes), in order to make himself more known.

You haven’t explained why he should have been arrested?

And it worked, because after he caused the controversy and refused to pay his fine for this self-marketing stunt, he received donations through crowdfunding and went into politics with UKIP - hardly a victim of suppression of free speech, I'd say.

Considering the charge was ‘causing gross offence’, and the judge specifically said ‘context doesn’t matter’, he is definitely a victim of censorship.

There’s a whole thread here about Free Speech in Britain if you want to take a look. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...eech-in-the-UK

[Gaidin]

Yes, but Iskar was saying that this is not censorship at all. If not, what is it.

The outlawing of symbols of unconstitutional organizations. The law is pretty straightforward as to what it is. It gets argumentative and somewhat subtle as to what they will consider acceptable use.

Germany’s not authoritarian trash. I never said that. I do have a problem with banning Nazi or Communist imagery actually. It’s not illegal in the UK and we’re fine.

Your history from that era is slightly different from theirs. Pardon me for not being shocked that they have a stronger reaction.

[Heathen Hammer]

Kritias
1. You just keep saying that, but it is pretty obvious that he didn't really endorse it or thought anything positive about them.
2. As I said, if countries that can jail someone for a social media post score higher then countries then don't on some kind of "freedom" index, then metrics are either wrong or are handed out for political reasons.
3. They make money for shareholders via advertising, generated traffic, etc.
4. I'm talking about inherent rights that are necessary for a democratic society to function, such as right of self-expression and freedom of speech. I think you need to actually look at the links you yourself posted, as well as make yourself familiar with constitutional law in US, which disproves your claim.

[Kritias]

Yes, but Iskar was saying that this is not censorship at all. If not, what is it.

I think Iskar raised the issue that censorship as you guys understand it acts differently between the two nations discussed, and between those nations and the US. And I am saying this because Iskar raised the point that there's really no censorship if something goes public; the whole point of censorship is to block something from reaching the public sphere.

GermanyÂ’s not authoritarian trash. I never said that. I do have a problem with banning Nazi or Communist imagery actually. ItÂ’s not illegal in the UK and weÂ’re fine.

The jab was aimed at the Heathen, since we've been having this discussion where he claims the United Kingdom and Germany is authoritarian trash [sic]. I'm sorry for the confusion, Aexodus.

But there is a violation of free speech by banning music no? The government taking their videos off YouTube sounds like censorship.

I didn't read anywhere that the music itself was banned; only that the 410 group was accused of illegal activities which they were bragging about on the songs.

At the end of the day Skengdo and AM had nothing do with any gang crime. This is like the moral panic in the 90s over gangster rap by NWA or Dre.

That's why on my last reply I was underlying the word 'allegedly'. The fact is the metropolitan police acted against the rappers based on alleged criminal activity, not their song writing skills. The songs were used as an exhibit of illegal activities, since they were hinting towards being responsible for shootings. I agree totally with you that moral panic is behind this and frankly it was just the sort of ridiculous news to draw attention during the infotainment era.

You havenÂ’t explained why he should have been arrested?
Considering the charge was ‘causing gross offence’, and the judge specifically said ‘context doesn’t matter’, he is definitely a victim of censorship.
ThereÂ’s a whole thread here about Free Speech in Britain if you want to take a look. https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...eech-in-the-UK

As you know YouTube videos are monetized with ad revenue. What Meechan did was 'cause gross offence' with intention to monetize the video. In any commercial activity rules and regulations apply. And while, yes, he was arrested for this breach of a couple commercial ethics laws, he was only fined 800 pounds and that would be that. Similar stories can be read with companies and individuals trying to make money, so I don't see the cause for alarm on the free speech front.

Meechan did not say something publicly and got fined for it; he uploaded a video for ad revenue, as all people who upload to YouTube do. So, this isn't a free speech issue but a commercial ethics issue at the worst. The video was quickly passed off as comedy, and some people like Ricky Gervais saw the comedic value on it, but again Meechan isn't employed as a comedian or offer the services of a comedian. The judge made a very narrow decision on who can and who cannot sell 'comedy' on YouTube and ruled against Meechan [which he explained in the context doesn't matter bit, since this is a commercial activity and not something someone says].

The real problem I see here is that we're discussing about the ruling of a judge without having any info on the document he composed along with the sentence where he explains the rules and the reasoning for the fine; we just have the 'context doesn't matter' bit which could mean extremely different things when read in any two sentences.

For the Heathen;

When someone says that an action is done out of lack of other options, they are not explaining why the action has happened. Especially when the action is terrorism. You trying to say that "We had no other option" is an explanation is dishonest, especially when you seem to advocate for a good faith debate. Explain to me how the explanation that terrorism is caused by lack of other options is a good faith stance on any debate, please. So, if they are not explaining it then the above sentence must mean something else. What might that be? The world wonders.

I asked you for any metrics that show the United States are more free than the United Kingdom and Germany, and you still haven't given me any. I showed you indexes of internationally acclaimed institutions and you call them 'wrong' and 'political'. Please show me the right, non-political indexes. There either must be some, or else this is just your misconceptions of the world.

For the rest of your points, read my replies so far. I've covered that already, and more than a couple of times.

[Aexodus]

In any commercial activity rules and regulations apply. And while, yes, he was arrested for this breach of a couple commercial ethics laws, he was only fined 800 pounds and that would be that. Similar stories can be read with companies and individuals trying to make money, so I don't see the cause for alarm on the free speech front.

C’mon critias. The law in question is article 127 of the communications act 2003. It is any electronic message which is seen as grossly offensive. This has nothing to do with commercial ethics laws mate.

[Heathen Hammer]

Krithias,
Okay, so it looks like we are progressing here. So you no longer admit that Sargon was "encouraging terrorism", but just that his argument itself was bad and you disagree with it. I'm glad our conversation helped you to see to the constructive rational side.
I don't recall US jailing people over social media posts. I mean I can presume there are laws concerning immediate threats of violence, but it is in no way comparable to jailing people for youtube videos or jokes like it can happen to one in UK or Germany.
I see you steadily dropped certain points against which you could no longer argue. I'll graciously accept your defeat on those ones.

[Kritias]

C’mon critias. The law in question is article 127 of the communications act 2003. It is any electronic message which is seen as grossly offensive. This has nothing to do with commercial ethics laws mate.

I disagree, Aexodus. It makes sense that the case would go under communications act 2003, since it was an electronic communication ie a YouTube video. It also makes sense to go under article 127, since I quote

Both domestic and European case law have addressed the issue of Article 10 and racist / religious hate crime speech: DPP v Collins confirmed that it is consistent with Article 10 to prosecute a person for using the telecommunications system to leave racist messages. Effect must be given to Article 17 of the convention, which prohibits the abuse of any Convention rights, as held in Norwood v the UK (2004) 40 EHRR SE 111.
The European Commission has held that extreme racist speech is outside the protection of Article 10 because of its potential to undermine public order and the rights of the targeted minority: Kuhnen v Germany 56 RR 205.
The ECtHR has confirmed that Holocaust denial or revision is removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17: see Lehideux and Isorni v France [2000] 30 EHRR 665; and M'Bala M'Bala v France (application no. 25239/13), which ruled that a blatant display of hatred and anti-Semitism disguised as an artistic production (comic performance), even if satirical or provocative, was not protected by Article 10.

So, as you can see, the judge tried the case under EU precedent on using "hate speech" for commercial benefit. In addition, you can see here the layout of indicators and parameters required for a legal procedure under article 127.

At the Heathen,

I never said he encourages terrorism. I said he offered justification for it when it comes from white supremacists because according to him they have no other choice. This is really not something you can spin any different. It's simply what he writes. This is also the second time you tried to claim I agree to something I didn't. It's in very poor taste so please stop doing this. And if you got this wrong, I would encourage you to reread my arguments again to see whether you're arguing against yourself this whole time.

[Aexodus]

I don’t give a hoot about EU law.

The law Meecham broke was for ‘being grossly offensive’.

At any rate, I disagree with this Orwellian law. It should be repealed.

[Heathen Hammer]

So maybe a modern Western countries just shouldn't have laws like that Act? You know, since this kind of thing belongs in middle ages or XX century dictatorships. It is safe to say that UK laws are stuck in the past.

[Kritias]

@Aexodus & @Heathen Hammer,

I disagree.
This emphasis on using the word Orwellian is very troubling based on why you apply it to some of the news you presented here.

Orwell saw the citizens of 1984 unable by law to speak the 'truth'. The whole premise of freedom being the right to say two plus two equals four rests on the fact that the citizens of airstrip one cannot tell what is real and what isn't if the Party doesn't tell them first.

So, does this also mean that the people whom you claim were muffled by the government, the social media platforms and other agencies/institutions were telling the truth? And if yes, what is that truth?