Freedom of Speech

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
10,874
Reaction score
13,096
As a society what does ‘Freedom of Speech’ actually mean in 2020?

Jake Hepple of Burnley was fired by his employers after expressing his personal views first on an airborne banner and then on social media. Police had already determined that currently no criminal offences had come to light. Of course there might have been other factors which Mr Hepple's employers took into account.

Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey was fired in apparently similar circumstances when she re-Tweeted someone else’s comment which conveyed a conspiracy theory about Israel.

My own opinion is that Jake Hepple presumably checked his contract of employment before embarking on his stunt and decided that the almost inevitable loss of his job was a risk worth taking. Ms Long-Bailey clearly hadn't considered the content of what she posted and the potential consequences.

Social media gives us all a voice and a platform unimaginable thirty years ago which must surely be a good thing. The ‘rules’ appear indistinct and subjective but can have a real impact on the lives of individuals.
 

Rover

Moderator
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Posts
3,826
Reaction score
5,901
Can I say "Winnie the Poo is a bear of colour"!;)
 

06042020

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Posts
31
Reaction score
19
As a society what does ‘Freedom of Speech’ actually mean in 2020?

Jake Hepple of Burnley was fired by his employers after expressing his personal views first on an airborne banner and then on social media. Police had already determined that currently no criminal offences had come to light. Of course there might have been other factors which Mr Hepple's employers took into account.

Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey was fired in apparently similar circumstances when she re-Tweeted someone else’s comment which conveyed a conspiracy theory about Israel.

My own opinion is that Jake Hepple presumably checked his contract of employment before embarking on his stunt and decided that the almost inevitable loss of his job was a risk worth taking. Ms Long-Bailey clearly hadn't considered the content of what she posted and the potential consequences.

Social media gives us all a voice and a platform unimaginable thirty years ago which must surely be a good thing. The ‘rules’ appear indistinct and subjective but can have a real impact on the lives of individuals.

It's a really interesting question, and doesn't have one clear answer I think!

For what it's worth, the below cartoon makes an important point.

 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,565
Reaction score
4,024
It's a really interesting question, and doesn't have one clear answer I think!

For what it's worth, the below cartoon makes an important point.

There is a difference with Twitter and Facebook etc. They receive legal immunity because they claim that they don't / can't monitor what is on their platform. If in the next breath they are actively monitoring and censoring people, then they should no longer receive that legal immunity.

In my opinion Twitter and Facebook are private corporations and entitled to do what they want, and allow onto their platforms whoever they want to. They can't continue to receive that immunity though. There are other questions of them interfering in elections, but let's face it, they are garbage at it - they keep losing, so they keep doing the same thing but to more extremes - and they keep losing.

Worth noting Twitter's share price this week, down 13% since they banned Katie Hopkins and she stated that she was off to Parler.com (a free speech rival). It would be fantastic if Twitter is turned into MySpace.com because of them actively censoring people. It hasn't needed any legislation, people just got up and walked. Parler.com is great, so much interaction for Conservative minded people. It isn't until you see what is shared on Parler.com that you realise what was being hidden from you.

Far from being some of the darkest few weeks we have had for a while, I think a lot of people just woke up. Sky sports and the Premier league will take a whacking for their knee nonsense, Burnley fans openly saying no to their own club and not renewing their season tickets. Tide is turning against the wokeys.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
10,874
Reaction score
13,096
For what it's worth, the below cartoon makes an important point.

Fair comment. In the instance of Mr Hepple I fully support his right to express himself. Whether I agree or disagree with him is irrelevant. I haven't yet heard him dripping about the loss of his engineering job at Paradigm Precision but I also fully support the firm's decision to 'let him go'.
Many employment contracts contain a 'disrepute' clause which permits the employer to impose sanctions on an employee who creates adverse publicity for the firm. Clearly one's relationship with one's employer is a factor to be considered before engaging in a stunt, not after.

Sky sports and the Premier league will take a whacking for their knee nonsense, Burnley fans openly saying no to their own club and not renewing their season tickets.

I've been surprised by the amount of support in Burnley for Mr Hepple's airborne banner stunt. The condemnation by broadcast and print media was overwhelming and yet the local groundswell of support for his actions was barely covered.

The club's reaction was arguably because its commercially important branding values had been challenged rather than because the club actually regards itself as representing 'the community'. Same goes for any other club in the football business.
 
Top