Ban racists from social media, anti-Semitism report says.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Which of course is no more than just your perception.

No it's not, it's fact. Anti racist legislation was the first anti discrimination law to be introduced. Subsequent laws to protect women, disabled people, gay people etc were weaker than the laws relating to race.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The trouble is where does banning certain groups stop? I really don't believe in censoring groups or individuals because it's a very short step to banning everyone that is deemed to have the wrong ideas and opinions.Free speech has to be extended to all in a democracy.

Well, I always say that the price to pay for being able to express oneself is having to allow others to express themselves also (even if you disagree with said views). This is different to allowing anybody to say what they like, regardless of the effects on others.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No it's not, it's fact. Anti racist legislation was the first anti discrimination law to be introduced. Subsequent laws to protect women, disabled people, gay people etc were weaker than the laws relating to race.

Racial discrimination laws may well have been introduced first but considering the others being given less precedence and 'weaker' is just your perception.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Racial discrimination laws may well have been introduced first but considering the others being given less precedence and 'weaker' is just your perception.

No it's not, the penalties for similar behaviour/offences were either less severe or simply did not exist for non racially motivated discrimination, harassment etc.

[Russ]

Unless you can show any proof of that, it's still just your perception.

[RichardCoulter]

It's fact- believe it or not, you don't actually know everything.

I don't care enough to do your donkey work for you- i'm pretty sure that the verification that you require will be available on the internet.

Erm.....

Basic debating courtesy - you put forward a proposition, you back it up.....

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's fact- believe it or not, you don't actually know everything.

I don't care enough to do your donkey work for you- i'm pretty sure that the verification that you require will be available on the internet.

Just because something is your opinion does not make it a fact and as you're unable to back your view up with any evidence so far it will remain just your perception, as inconvenient as that may be to you.

I could tell everyone you have a conviction for fraud (I do not believe you have such by the way). Unless I can back it up with evidence it's just a perception. As Hugh says if you put forward a premise it's up to you to prove it, not for others to disprove.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Paul M

This sounds like a very bad, very dangerous idea.

"We dont agree with your views, so we will ban you from everywhere".

This is one thing that worries me. One of the foundations of our society is our freedom (within limits, admittedly) to express ourselves. That expression will, from time to time, cause offence. While I don't support racism in any way, shape or form, I am concerned that the amount of controls on what we say being increased will impact on our freedom to disagree with one another. I am worried that we'll end up in a situation where even if we don't get laws controlling what we believe and say, we'll be a situation where we are so concerned about how what we say is being heard that we'll limit it too much, which will have the same effect as any law.

This can (and will) be abused by some people.

Also, there is the slight problem of enforceability. Without the security services devoting a huge amount of resources to monitoring potentially thousands of people, how will we know that a person who has just had some sort of order banning their online access given to them, hasn't just left the court, gone into an internet cafe (there are still some around), paid cash for 15 minutes of access and registered a whole load of other accounts to send abuse from?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Just because something is your opinion does not make it a fact and as you're unable to back your view up with any evidence so far it will remain just your perception, as inconvenient as that may be to you.

I could tell everyone you have a conviction for fraud (I do not believe you have such by the way). Unless I can back it up with evidence it's just a perception. As Hugh says if you put forward a premise it's up to you to prove it, not for others to disprove.

As previously explained, it is not my opinion, it is fact. I ought to know as I studied this as part of my degree and am involved in diversity issues as part of my job to this day. You would know this if you had done your research (this never seems to be a problem on here when various people wish to undermine what others have said).

Interestingly, Lenny Henry is still calling for 'positive discrimination' to get more blacks onto television. I think that there's enough and that it's a fair representation of the population as a whole.

Disabled people make up 16% of the population, yet get only 2.5% of TV acting and presenting jobs.

Fourteen of the last twenty seven Best Actor Oscar winners played someone with a disability, yet none of them were actually disabled.

Breaking Bad was the exception rather than the rule, in that an actor with Cerebral Palsy actually played the part of someone with Cerebral Palsy.

Getting back to the crux of my point, i'm curious to know why racism is taken more seriously by society than other forms of discrimination.

For example, it was made an offence to 'incite racial hatred'. No such provision was made with regards to gay people, those suffering from a disability, women etc.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As previously explained, it is not my opinion, it is fact. I ought to know as I studied this as part of my degree and am involved in diversity issues as part of my job to this day. You would know this if you had done your research (this never seems to be a problem on here when various people wish to undermine what others have said).

Again you're asking us to just believe you. I can find nothing online that backs up what you say. Could you cite some of the sources used in your dissertation? Anything from your job you could link us to?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This could prove interesting.

"Social media users who spread racial hatred should be banned from sites such as Twitter and Facebook, MPs say.

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into anti-Semitism wants prosecutors to examine whether prevention orders like those used to restrict sex offenders' internet access could be used.

The cross-party group also highlighted the use of anti-Semitic terms online.

Last week, a Community Security Trust report said UK anti-Semitic incidents more than doubled to 1,168 in 2014.

The trust - which monitors anti-Semitism in Britain - says this was its highest figure recorded since it began work in 1984."


BBC

Just found out that there's an interesting situation at the moment between the police and lawyers. The police monitor forums, social networking sites, chat rooms, blogs etc.

Sometimes they do this covertly by using a non police registered ip address- lawyers are questioning the use of legislation regarding covert operations and this practice.

Also, lawyers are arguing that views expressed that are not intended for public consumption (even if they are accessible to the public) should not be treated as such.

A blog is defined as being intended for public consumption, whereas they argue that a facebook comment isn't (even if the persons privacy settings do allow the public to access to the material).

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just found out that there's an interesting situation at the moment between the police and lawyers. The police monitor forums, social networking sites, chat rooms, blogs etc.

Sometimes they do this covertly by using a non police registered ip address- lawyers are questioning the use of legislation regarding covert operations and this practice.

Also, lawyers are arguing that views expressed that are not intended for public consumption (even if they are accessible to the public) should not be treated as such.

A blog is defined as being intended for public consumption, whereas they argue that a facebook comment isn't (even if the persons privacy settings do allow the public to access to the material).

Recently I used to work for a government department and our internet presence was randomly monitored. If we put the name of our organisation on our Facebook profiles anything we said on our FB wall, status etc was considered 'fair game' for an inquiry if it was deemed controversial etc whereas if we identified ourselves on a public forum there was less potential for further action to be taken. The rational behind this was on a forum we are just one out of hundreds, possibly thousands whereas on Facebook the page was considered to be US, OURS etc, the comparison was a like a forum being us standing in an open crowd giving our views but FB was inviting someone in to our homes and then saying our bit.

This is why I never disclosed online who I worked for, far too much potential for unwarranted hassle.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As previously explained, it is not my opinion, it is fact. I ought to know as I studied this as part of my degree and am involved in diversity issues as part of my job to this day. You would know this if you had done your research (this never seems to be a problem on here when various people wish to undermine what others have said).

I think Russ and Hugh are saying that unless you provide a link to back up what you are saying, we still don't know for sure if you are right. Saying you studied it as part of your degree and are involved in diversity issues is not really proof. You may have, you may not. I could argue that I am a multi billionaire venture capitalist, thus have in depth knowledge of the world money markets, and you would have no real way (unless you knew me) of knowing whether I'm telling the truth.

Before you say that people wouldn't come on a forum claiming to know something they don't, or claiming to do some job they don't, I've actually seen people do both, on this forum. On one occasion, in the same post.

I'm not saying you don't do what you say for a living, I have no way of knowing, beyond what you say.

BTW, I'm not a multi billionaire venture capitalist. I wish I was a multi billionaire, but have no interest in being a venture capitalist.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I think Russ and Hugh are saying that unless you provide a link to back up what you are saying, we still don't know for sure if you are right. Saying you studied it as part of your degree and are involved in diversity issues is not really proof. You may have, you may not. I could argue that I am a multi billionaire venture capitalist, thus have in depth knowledge of the world money markets, and you would have no real way (unless you knew me) of knowing whether I'm telling the truth.

Before you say that people wouldn't come on a forum claiming to know something they don't, or claiming to do some job they don't, I've actually seen people do both, on this forum. On one occasion, in the same post.

I'm not saying you don't do what you say for a living, I have no way of knowing, beyond what you say.

BTW, I'm not a multi billionaire venture capitalist. I wish I was a multi billionaire, but have no interest in being a venture capitalist.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk

All the information that anyone requires should be available here.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Recently I used to work for a government department and our internet presence was randomly monitored. If we put the name of our organisation on our Facebook profiles anything we said on our FB wall, status etc was considered 'fair game' for an inquiry if it was deemed controversial etc whereas if we identified ourselves on a public forum there was less potential for further action to be taken. The rational behind this was on a forum we are just one out of hundreds, possibly thousands whereas on Facebook the page was considered to be US, OURS etc, the comparison was a like a forum being us standing in an open crowd giving our views but FB was inviting someone in to our homes and then saying our bit.

This is why I never disclosed online who I worked for, far too much potential for unwarranted hassle.

Interesting. I always advise people not to mention where they work either; unless it's something positive.

I have had to deal with inappropriate facebook postings from both current and former employees. It's staggering how many are genuinely shocked that they can't post anything that floats into their mind because "it's their facebook wall"!!

They seem to think that the laws relating to libel etc disappeared the day the internet was invented. Also, they fail to realise that some comments, whilst not against the law, are still inappropriate and can lead to disciplinary action.

Many employers now insist that employees declare all social networking sites that they are a member of and the relevant passwords to them. It is against facebook t&c's to disclose your password to a third party; but most people prefer to do this as opposed to losing a job or not getting the job in the first place.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No it's not, it's fact. Anti racist legislation was the first anti discrimination law to be introduced.

Is it not the case that the Representation of the people Act of 1918 predates any anti racist legislation as we now know it?