4 ms·

Tommy Robinson Exposes the Coordinated Effort to Silence You

eesmith 7y ago
Since I hadn't heard of him, Wikipedia claims: > Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), known as Tommy Robinson, is a British far-right and anti-Islam activist.[18][19] He is the co-founder and former leader of the English Defence League,[20] and later served as a political advisor to former UKIP leader Gerard Batten. The linked-to text reads like it's from a far-right viewpoint, so I assume it's the same person.
rvz 7y ago
No person should ever be silenced for their views even if you disagree with them. It is the first start into understanding why they have these views. Censorship just silences and sweeps the opposing view under the carpet and makes the debate one-sided. A healthy and rational debate is one where both sides have the opportunity to express their opinions without getting constantly flagged/dead or banned. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
- eesmith 7y ago
  "Silenced" here appears to mean something different than "prohibited from any form of communication." Since clearly we can see him expressing his views by following the above link. It appears to be that "silenced" here means something lesser, more like "not allowed to use certain platforms as a way to communicate to others, based on rules those platforms decide for themselves." Freedom of association is, like freedom of speech, a core component of the human rights. These are, of course, sometimes in tension. But just like a newspaper isn't forced to publish all of the letters sent to the editor, and a billboard company isn't forced to post all messages, neither is Facebook forced to host all messages. Facebook and Instagram are for-profit commercial platforms, with the primary goal of making revenue via advertising. They are free to decide how to maximize their revenue. Are their other similar organizations where we require them to host communications they might not like to host? Certainly - look at common-carriers like the telephone company. But the argument doesn't seem to be that we should force Facebook, etc. to be common-carriers, but rather that simply exercising their freedom of association is an affront to free speech - which if true, would surely lead to an unhealthy society where the heckler's veto overrides any sort of discourse. BTW, Hall's quote from "The Friends of Voltaire" describes Voltaire's views concerning the revoking of Helvétius's right to publish De l'esprit, its ban in Rome, and more. By my reading, Hall doesn't imply that Voltaire meant to also 'defend to the death' the right for Helvétius to force a given publishing company to publish his book - something which wasn't needed as it was quickly re-published across Europe.

Since I hadn't heard of him, Wikipedia claims: > Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), known as Tommy Robinson, is a British far-right and anti-Islam activist.[18][19] He is the co-founder and former leader of the English Defence League,[20] and later served as a political advisor to former UKIP leader Gerard Batten. The linked-to text reads like it's from a far-right viewpoint, so I assume it's the same person.

rvz 7y ago

No person should ever be silenced for their views even if you disagree with them. It is the first start into understanding why they have these views. Censorship just silences and sweeps the opposing view under the carpet and makes the debate one-sided. A healthy and rational debate is one where both sides have the opportunity to express their opinions without getting constantly flagged/dead or banned. 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

eesmith 7y ago
"Silenced" here appears to mean something different than "prohibited from any form of communication." Since clearly we can see him expressing his views by following the above link. It appears to be that "silenced" here means something lesser, more like "not allowed to use certain platforms as a way to communicate to others, based on rules those platforms decide for themselves." Freedom of association is, like freedom of speech, a core component of the human rights. These are, of course, sometimes in tension. But just like a newspaper isn't forced to publish all of the letters sent to the editor, and a billboard company isn't forced to post all messages, neither is Facebook forced to host all messages. Facebook and Instagram are for-profit commercial platforms, with the primary goal of making revenue via advertising. They are free to decide how to maximize their revenue. Are their other similar organizations where we require them to host communications they might not like to host? Certainly - look at common-carriers like the telephone company. But the argument doesn't seem to be that we should force Facebook, etc. to be common-carriers, but rather that simply exercising their freedom of association is an affront to free speech - which if true, would surely lead to an unhealthy society where the heckler's veto overrides any sort of discourse. BTW, Hall's quote from "The Friends of Voltaire" describes Voltaire's views concerning the revoking of Helvétius's right to publish De l'esprit, its ban in Rome, and more. By my reading, Hall doesn't imply that Voltaire meant to also 'defend to the death' the right for Helvétius to force a given publishing company to publish his book - something which wasn't needed as it was quickly re-published across Europe.