When I grew up we had people like Macmillan as the PM. Followed by Ted Heath. Both of whom were one nation Conservatives with views much closer to mine than yours. Only Thatcher in my lifetime really wasn't. That some in the "grass roots" still cling to the kind of politics she espoused is sad, but they are in the minority these days. We are moving on. Thankfully.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Let's hope sense prevails and the bill is massively watered down. As an aside, I always enjoy the free speech myth of our countries. In Ireland, we only just got rid of the blasphemy laws. Stephen Fry was facing possible prosecution until sense prevailed.
In Britain it has always remained a treasonable offence to say certain things. There has also always been censorship 'for the common good'. Although, I don't think either has been used much recently. Spy catcher was pretty tame, but he nearly got into serious trouble. Off the top of my head the Aussies saved him (can't remember the name - should Google it - Peter Stalker?).
I don't really personally like the US free speech - looking at it currently, it seems to give free reign to shout abuse at anyone for anything, sometimes whilst toting a gun!
However, at least no one gets prosecuted - freeing up court time - if you want to see a positive. Plus, I guess you can criticise what you like without fear, that only seems to work for some however. Others of all political leanings, don't get off so lightly these days. Often the Law doesn't need to do anything - the Internet police make up their own laws.

Red and Blue Army!

If that becomes the law his statement is correct.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Dec 2020 4.44pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Will you be able to say:=

'What's £20 to the bloody Midland Bank'?

Ewan McTeagle RIP was at home when he said it.

The Sturgeon storm-cyclists will be knocking on the door.

"If a statement isn't objected to that is by definition 'inoffensive'."

Objections can be silent and they can be anticipated. What might be inoffensive to you might be offensive to an advertisers perception of how his customers will react.

"Trump could have started new wars if he had wanted to....but perhaps he was fed up with fighting Bush/Obama/Biden's never ending wars....as they were."

No-one starts wars for fun. Sometimes it becomes necessary to defend yourselves or to support others who are being oppressed. Turning a blind eye to suffering is the reaction of the weak and selfish

"If free speech existed you wouldn't need to qualify it."

Unqualified free speech does exist. What doesn't is the right to say it whenever and wherever you wish. I own a house. You don't have the right to enter it at a time of your choosing and say whatever you like to me, or anyone else. You don't have the right to cover my walls with your opinions or plant your political banners in my garden. You need to do those things at home, or somewhere else that is sympathetic to you. The social media companies are no different. If one of them bans a contributor because their content is deemed unacceptable to the site's standards then that contributor merely needs to seek an alternative which will accept them. Unless there was intervention at national level, which made such posts unlawful, there is nothing at all to complain about.

"Editors allow lies to be published all the time....what a ridiculous statement."

Of course they don't! The lawyers would have a field day if that was even remotely true. They allow opinions to be published and they will allow journalists and op-ed writers to miss facts and weave facts to present things from a particular perspective. That's not lying. It's painting the picture they believe shows a greater truth.

"Social media restrict and edit Trump's posts. That is the action of a publisher and against the protections that were afforded to them."

Why should Trump be treated any differently to anyone else? They don't actually edit them. Twitter posts warnings that the claims being made are disputed. Which seems pretty mild but very accurate. His posts are not restricted and many are not touched but if potentially misleading information is appearing they surely have a moral and ethical duty to point that out. Should they not then they would be obliged to ensure that the torrent of replies which follow every Tweet of his, most of which are highly critical, received the same prominence as his.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Opinions are not being censored. That's a misconception. Social media companies are merely responding to their advertisers and users preferences in their own commercial interests. They aren't removing posts because of any personal objections. If people want the truth, then that's what they will try to give them. If they see what is regarded as a lie, then it will be flagged or removed.

These are pure lies."

I have had to leave my original comment standing or my answer wouldn't make sense. There is a significant difference between what the social media companies are doing and real censorship, although I have grave doubts that it's subtle nature will be comprehended, let alone accepted, by my critic.

That necessarily involves some kind of authority doing the censorship, making laws or regulations. Social media companies aren't authorities. They are owners of their own houses, as described above, and all they are doing is protecting their own space and their own interests. Those seeking to use their space aren't being censored when they can find other outlets. They are just being denied a particular space which isn't their own.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Between us maybe. But someone has made a judgement that we all must follow, just as they do in almost every aspect of life. That's why we have laws and elected representatives to determine what they need to be. They are the someones.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.