Katie Hopkins

[The Great Cornholio 902]

26 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Permanently suspended (is this newsspeak for banned?) from Twitter: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53111295

Gotta love cancel culture...

 

How does the left justify overriding freedom of speech? In fact, it actually glorifies their opposition. Hopkins has a pretty big fanbase, all they've done by banning her is simply creating more extremists on the right. 

[Perhaps 1,423]

1 hour ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Gotta love cancel culture...

 

How does the left justify overriding freedom of speech? In fact, it actually glorifies their opposition. Hopkins has a pretty big fanbase, all they've done by banning her is simply creating more extremists on the right. 

 

You can do one like her if you seriously believe the venom she spouts is an example of freedom of speech.

 

Freedom is not the same as being free to spit out hatred without consequence. A tolerant society cannot tolerate hatred, and on that alone she doesn't deserve a presence on the platform.

[time 8,599]

1 hour ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Gotta love cancel culture...

 

How does the left justify overriding freedom of speech? In fact, it actually glorifies their opposition. Hopkins has a pretty big fanbase, all they've done by banning her is simply creating more extremists on the right. 

No-one has overridden freedom of speech, she can say what she likes; it doesn't follow that the owner of any particular service or venue, be it online or physical world has to give her a platform to do it.

[YoungWillz 21,042]

I do love folks who bang on about freedom of speech. Absolutely no concept in statutory law - except under Human Rights legislation.

 

You know, the human rights laws that those such as Hopkins and other fascists want to abolish.

 

 

[Miracle Aligner 249]

Freedom of speech doesn't apply on privately owned sites. They can ban anybody for whatever reason they want. 

[CoffinLodger 1,248]

Katie Hopkins R.I.P.T (rest in Peace on Twitter)

 

I must admit on one hand I will miss her mad ravings , on the other much bigger hand. YIPPEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! 

[The Great Cornholio 902]

4 hours ago, Perhaps said:

 

You can do one like her if you seriously believe the venom she spouts is an example of freedom of speech.

 

Freedom is not the same as being free to spit out hatred without consequence. A tolerant society cannot tolerate hatred, and on that alone she doesn't deserve a presence on the platform.

If you do not support the right for views that you disagree with to be expressed then you are not pro FoS. End of.

 

4 hours ago, time said:

No-one has overridden freedom of speech, she can say what she likes; it doesn't follow that the owner of any particular service or venue, be it online or physical world has to give her a platform to do it.

By that logic, banks can refuse to service people they disagree with - doctors do not have to give surgery to patients they disagree with etc... Businesses and big tech corporations have a responsibility to allow free speech and not discriminate against people because of their political beliefs - which btw is the law!

 

4 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

I do love folks who bang on about freedom of speech. Absolutely no concept in statutory law - except under Human Rights legislation.

 

You know, the human rights laws that those such as Hopkins and other fascists want to abolish.

 

 

None of what you've just said is true. I don't like K Hopkins either but comparing her to Hitler? Fucking grow up...

[CaptainChorizo 1,977]

Louis Farrakhan and David Duke are free to say whatever they want about Jewish people,but like twitter none of us are legally,morally or in any other way obliged to give them a platform.  Same goes to Katie Hopkins,twitter is not sticking a gun in her mouth and forcing her to shut up they are just not giving her a bullhorn on their platform

[YoungWillz 21,042]

4 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

 

None of what you've just said is true. I don't like K Hopkins either but comparing her to Hitler? Fucking grow up...

Oh Kenny where did I mention the long dead Hitler Nazi guy? Point it out. By your logic I'm comparing her to every dead person (going back to the Romans) who wanted to suppress the masses, dissent etc. And btw, no HR legislation or even the Convention on Human Rights existed until long after WWII. So let's be honest here, you've blown that one right up. In your own face. For how could Hitler have wanted then what Hopkins wants now, if the laws didn't exist at the time?

 

You haven't grown up yet little man, I've studied the law probably for longer than you've been alive, I'm guessing.

 

My point, which you've completely chosen to ignore, is that those who would do away with the HR Legislation and make us leave the Convention (which the UK was principally responsible for drafting) rely so heavily themselves on those laws to protect their ability to say and do. Which is the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

As others have said before, she can say what she wants, I generally don't hear it or see it, but many do and actively seek it out. But where would her words be if she was successful in abolishing the very right that protects her right to say? It would be up to the officials from the state to decide.....

[Perhaps 1,423]

19 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

If you do not support the right for views that you disagree with to be expressed then you are not pro FoS. End of.

 

You need to learn how to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of consequence.

 

If I went on Club Penguin and called a kid a cunt, I'd be banned. Would that be a freedom of speech issue? Privately owned sites can set whatever rules they please.

[YoungWillz 21,042]

1 hour ago, Perhaps said:

 

You need to learn how to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of consequence.

 

If I went on Club Penguin and called a kid a cunt, I'd be banned. Would that be a freedom of speech issue? Privately owned sites can set whatever rules they please.

Agreed.

 

Let's face it, there'll always be places or platforms willing to spout views of her and like hers. Christ, imagine a world where we didn't have the protections we take for granted these days. Where the only voice was state propaganda. Where that propaganda was Hopkins and Hopkins alone. Or Corbyn and Corbyn alone. Or James Anderton and he alone. (Admittedly there'd be a lot of bible in that latter propaganda).

 

One day they'll be dead and they won't matter. And another one will come along to fill the void, and one day they'll be dead too. These people don't matter - it's the dangerous idiots who follow their "wise" words and carry out harm to others, actively encouraged by some sanctimonious keyboard warrior.

 

TL;DR Excite, don't incite.

[time 8,599]

4 hours ago, Kenny McCormick said:

By that logic, banks can refuse to service people they disagree with - doctors do not have to give surgery to patients they disagree with etc... Businesses and big tech corporations have a responsibility to allow free speech and not discriminate against people because of their political beliefs - which btw is the law!

 

Which law is that? In British law, the provisions of freedom of expression are enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, (specifically Article 10 reproduced below):

Quote

Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

 

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

As paragraph 2 clearly states, it may may be subject to conditions, restrictions or penalties... etc.etc.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

2 hours ago, time said:

Which law is that? In British law, the provisions of freedom of expression are enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, (specifically Article 10 reproduced below):

As paragraph 2 clearly states, it may may be subject to conditions, restrictions or penalties... etc.etc.

I was actually referring to the Equality Commission Act which states that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs and/or religion. Shows what you know about law.

 

6 hours ago, Perhaps said:

 

You need to learn how to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of consequence.

 

If I went on Club Penguin and called a kid a cunt, I'd be banned. Would that be a freedom of speech issue? Privately owned sites can set whatever rules they please.

FoS does not protect harassment.

 

6 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

Oh Kenny where did I mention the long dead Hitler Nazi guy? Point it out. By your logic I'm comparing her to every dead person (going back to the Romans) who wanted to suppress the masses, dissent etc. And btw, no HR legislation or even the Convention on Human Rights existed until long after WWII. So let's be honest here, you've blown that one right up. In your own face. For how could Hitler have wanted then what Hopkins wants now, if the laws didn't exist at the time?

 

You haven't grown up yet little man, I've studied the law probably for longer than you've been alive, I'm guessing.

 

My point, which you've completely chosen to ignore, is that those who would do away with the HR Legislation and make us leave the Convention (which the UK was principally responsible for drafting) rely so heavily themselves on those laws to protect their ability to say and do. Which is the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

As others have said before, she can say what she wants, I generally don't hear it or see it, but many do and actively seek it out. But where would her words be if she was successful in abolishing the very right that protects her right to say? It would be up to the officials from the state to decide.....

You compared Hopkins to Hitler by calling her a fascist. Once again, grow the fuck up.

[time 8,599]

16 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

I was actually referring to the Equality Commission Act which states that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs and/or religion. Shows what you know about law.

 

 

I know enough about law to know there's no such thing as the 'Equality Commission Act'.

 

If you think otherwise, provide references.

 

 

[Miracle Aligner 249]

26 minutes ago, Kenny McCormick said:

I was actually referring to the Equality Commission Act which states that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs and/or religion. Shows what you know about law.

 

FoS does not protect harassment.

 

You compared Hopkins to Hitler by calling her a fascist. Once again, grow the fuck up.

 

Oh god the irony is unbelievable here.... 

[The Great Cornholio 902]

9 minutes ago, time said:

I know enough about law to know there's no such thing as the 'Equality Commission Act'.

 

If you think otherwise, provide references.

 

 

It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their politics. The Equality Commission act https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance dictates that you cannot discriminate against someone's religion or beliefs in the work place and wide society.

[Youth in Asia 1,087]

I don't see how any of this leads to her death though

[time 8,599]

 

1 hour ago, Kenny McCormick said:

It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their politics. The Equality Commission act https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance dictates that you cannot discriminate against someone's religion or beliefs in the work place and wide society.

It protects against discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, where 'belief' is a 'philosophical belief'. Someones politics may be a valid philosophical belief, but not in the context under discussion.

 

If you think I'm wrong, point me to the relevant section of the law (not the guidance notes).

[YoungWillz 21,042]

2 hours ago, Kenny McCormick said:

 

 

You compared Hopkins to Hitler by calling her a fascist. Once again, grow the fuck up.

This is not what I said and you know it. I've tried to help you understand, and you have repeated the lie you said previously.

 

Freedom of speech is fine provided you don't put words in the mouths of others. You also seem to be rather ignorant in the niceties of the laws which you claim to profess knowledge.

 

Do some research, and try and have debates in the future not based on petty ill educated point scoring. That is something an adult would do.

 

I've heard enough not to listen to your pish anymore.

[gcreptile 10,970]

It's not even a question of the law. She violated the Twitter rules and that's it:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

[Miracle Aligner 249]

2 hours ago, Kenny McCormick said:

It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their politics. The Equality Commission act https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance dictates that you cannot discriminate against someone's religion or beliefs in the work place and wide society.

 

It wasn't her politics she got banned for. She did one of the following:

 

 

Spoiler

 

The Twitter Rules

Twitter's purpose is to serve the public conversation. Violence, harassment and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.

Safety

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies. 

Terrorism/violent extremism: You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism. Learn more.

Child sexual exploitation: We have zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation on Twitter. Learn more.

Abuse/harassment: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm. Learn more.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Learn more. 

Suicide or self-harm: You may not promote or encourage suicide or self-harm. Learn more.

Sensitive media, including graphic violence and adult content: You may not post media that is excessively gory or share violent or adult content within live video or in profile or header images. Media depicting sexual violence and/or assault is also not permitted. Learn more. 

Illegal or certain regulated goods or services: You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities. This includes selling, buying, or facilitating transactions in illegal goods or services, as well as certain types of regulated goods or services. Learn more.

Privacy

Private information: You may not publish or post other people's private information (such as home phone number and address) without their express authorization and permission. We also prohibit threatening to expose private information or incentivizing others to do so. Learn more.

Non-consensual nudity: You may not post or share intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent. Learn more. 

Authenticity

Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter. Learn more.

Civic Integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process. Learn more.

Impersonation: You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others. Learn more.

Synthetic and manipulated media: You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context. Learn more.

Copyright and trademark: You may not violate others’ intellectual property rights, including copyright and trademark. Learn more about our trademark policy and copyright policy.

Enforcement and Appeals

Learn more about our approach to enforcement, including potential consequences for violating these rules or attempting to circumvent enforcement, as well as how to appeal.

Third-party advertising in video content

You may not submit, post, or display any video content on or through our services that includes third-party advertising, such as pre-roll video ads or sponsorship graphics, without our prior consent.

 

 

[YoungWillz 21,042]

2 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

It's not even a question of the law. She violated the Twitter rules and that's it:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

Well just to play devil's advocate, Twitter's rules must be in accordance with the law. Companies can't just set rules which breach the laws to which they are subject.

 

And there is your can of worms - because then you get into the question of jurisdiction and the internet. Look at how China or North Korea deal with it and look at how differing EU countries and the US deal with it. Old Katie may have a litigable case, where does she go to enforce it?

 

Kenny's right on one thing - by "permanently suspending" her it attracts more folk to listen to her. They'll just find it harder to track her down. Like everybody, you can find common cause with folk - then they'll say something with which you violently disagree - I'm sure Hopkins herself may even have lost otherwise avid followers when she turns her attention on their profound beliefs.

 

As I say, one day she'll be dead. And none of her railing at the world will matter.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

2 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

I've heard enough not to listen to your pish anymore.

Tolerant liberal everybody! When in reality you're just a cunt who thinks he's morally superior to everyone else.

[Miracle Aligner 249]

2 hours ago, Kenny McCormick said:

Tolerant liberal everybody! When in reality you're just a cunt who thinks he's morally superior to everyone else.

 

2 posts entered in the 2020 irony award in one afternoon?

 

Do you want to have a plop for the hat-trick old fella? 

[Skinny kiltrunner 553]

6 hours ago, Youth in Asia said:

I don't see how any of this leads to her death though

Shhhhh. Don't interrupt. They're having a dance-off.