- This topic has 53 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
- Posts
Man of the match has been canceled
Its now become “player of the match”Charles Darwin to conquer the World
In general I’m against censorship, it’s a slippery slope. I think that unless
the person is inciting hate or is a danger to themselves or others then let
them do as they wish. If there are people who want to see it, and are prepared
to pay to watch it then that’s their choice. I agree with the writers above, if
you don’t like it, keep well away.I remember when I was going out with my now wife, we went to Paisley to see
The Exorcist. There wasn’t any other film, or B movie as they were then, advertised,
but we found ourselves, for 20 minutes, watching naked ballet. A few chortles
about but no one bothered their backside. The exorcist scared the sh*t out me
though, but I was just 18 and it was ahead of it’s time then.I don’t think Roy Chubby Brown will be rushing back to Dunoon, but I’m not
about to put a fatwa on him.Man of the match has been canceled
Its now become “player of the match”Lol, it wouldn’t surprise me Nathan. My wife was a teacher,
they were told you couldn’t use the term blackboard any
more, it was to be called a chalk board. I’d love to tell
the genius who created that one to get a fecking life.I’ve had a quick look at the Twitter comment he made and someone there said he did see walkouts so who knows? There’s also a fair amount of drivel spouted but it is Twitter.
Walkouts are fine, it’s your right to do so. It’s not however your right to dictate whether others should see it. If the venue didn’t want him they should have said so before the first performance, the ancient art of ’30 seconds Googling’ might have given them some idea as to the content of his act.
I’d love to see Sadowitz but doubt I’ll ever manage it. I’m not bothered by how ‘offensive’ a comedian is or isn’t, just be funny. The magic appeals too.
There were staff at this Sadowitz gig who did complain but had no choice of walking out.
Several organisations, including the Daily Sceptic website and the Free Speech Union, have had their PayPal accounts suspended and the funds within frozen.
When PayPal was asked for an explanation, it said it was because of hate speech promoting violence and intimidation that amounted to a violation of its acceptable use policy.
I am at a loss to know what article on the Daily Sceptic has allegedly promoted hate or violence. It is absolutely absurd to say it has.
As for the Free Speech Union, it campaigns without prejudice for people who have had lawful speech suppressed. Cases have crossed the spectrum from campaigners for womens rights and the right to female only spaces, to republican protestors who were arrested by the police in the last two weeks.
It is not PayPal’s job to censor and demonetise anyone or any organisation expressing lawful opinions just because PayPal disagree with them.
As we head inexorably towards a cashless society, the potential implications are clearly very serious. Say something the government or the big tech companies do not like and you could be in trouble.
PayPal is however happy to allow a support group for “minor attracted people” (paedophiles, in other words) to use its services…
Trouble is, how do you compel PayPal to do business with them? Can you compel them? They are a private company and if they say, and can demonstrate, that their terms have been broken, is there any recourse? I don’t even know if they have to demonstrate it. Many a punter has been shut down by a bookie without explanation and there’s nothing they can do about it for example.
They should have their funds returned though, unless there are other concerns such as money laundering or fraud for which they surely would need evidence.
They are private companies and I expect they have not broken the law as it stands. However, the law needs to catch up with them.
As we move towards a cashless society, the power of these “big tech” companies is obvious. They already wield a lot of power now.
A backbench Conservative MP raised the issue in the Commons yesterday. The response from Penny Mordaunt was hardly encouraging. She clearly did not want to anger a big tech company.
What right do these companies have to act as judge, jury and executioner? There has to be a right of appeal – a fundamental aspect of any justice system. Otherwise it is not alarmist to see a situation in the future where your finances could be suspended with no explanation or right to appeal. Maybe Kafka was a prophet?
There are other cases to take into consideration. A British video blogger who has taken Russia’s side in the Ukraine conflict has had all his cash and assets frozen. He is probably not a very nice person but what has he actually done that is against the law? It is not compulsory to support the UK government’s position on the conflict and we are not officially at war with Russia either, so he is not guilty of treachery.
I quite agree, the law is glacially slow to catch up with real life in many instances. The tech companies damn well know this and are not afraid to exploit it. I no more trust Google or Twitter than I do our elected representatives for example but at least politicians have some sort of scrutiny.
I had not heard about the blogger but he is entitled to express his views (just as we are entitled to tell him to foxtrot oscar) but it is a dangerous path if dissenting views are met with with asset freezing.
PayPal backed down this week and reinstated the accounts it had cancelled, accompanied by a ridiculous statement trying to make out they were the good guys for doing so.
What they really meant to say was “We have done a U turn because it has attracted condemnation across the political spectrum, caused a ton of bad publicity for us and lots of people have closed their PayPal accounts. Please come back”.
What should be done about VISA, and their financing of PornHub?
I saw the Bill Ackmam interview where he said that he’s prepared to go all the way to ensure that there’s no settlement out of court. He will back any amount that VISA offers. He’s after VISA’s conviction…
Interview with Jerry Sadowitz for those interested
Kanye West or whatever he’s called this week has been suspended from Twitter by the self styled ‘free speech absolutist’. Has he been cancelled?
It seems there is a line somewhere.
Remember, cancel culture doesn’t exist…
I suppose it has only taken the police 13 months to admit they got it wrong. Better late than never.
Now Newcastle United should do the decent thing and reinstate her membership.
I wonder how many rights “trans” people have in Saudi Arabia? 85% owners of…Newcastle United!
Police Apologise for “Unacceptable” Hate Crime Probe Into Newcastle Fan’s Social Media Posts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg59q1xgv8o
Thoughts on this? I personally find Walliams absolutely loathsome and painfully unfunny but is what he’s done here really that bad? It’s certainly no worse than some of the stuff that the BBC happily broadcast on Little Britain not all that long ago.
Yes it’s a bit crass but it does sound like an obvious joke to make given the apparent context. I understand why they have to cut it but no doubt there’ll be a storm in a teacup now.
I am not sure about what a Nazi salute has to do with a story about someone not being able to wave properly. It sounds like Walliams was attention seeking, especially when he added another gesture.
I think it is understandable if some people in the audience were offended or upset, especially given the current situation. If so, Walliams should apologise and that should be the end of the matter. I don’t believe he should be cancelled, although it sounds like television executives have had enough of him.
Likewise, I don’t believe comedian Andrew Lawrence should be cancelled either. He made a few silly, tired remarks about Liverpool after the incident on Water Street. They were too boring to be offensive but it is ridiculous how venues have cancelled his bookings. They were only jokes, albeit not very good quality.
I wonder what the modern, we can’t wait to be offended audiences would make of one of our finest comedians: the late, great Freddie Starr? He often dressed up as a Nazi as part of his act. It was utterly absurd but no doubt someone would fail to see the joke today.
On one memorable occasion, according to Mark Lawson in “The Guardian”: “To the visible terror of the host (Des O’Connor), Starr came on wearing a Nazi hat and a Hitler moustache, with the costume bottomed-out by a pair of bloomers decorated with swastikas.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.