[davidjay]

Enough people have been investigated by the police following a tweet or Facebook posting so I don't see why Nick Griffin should be protected just in case he becomes a martyr.

[oboogie]

Enough people have been investigated by the police following a tweet or Facebook posting so I don't see why Nick Griffin should be protected just in case he becomes a martyr.

Quite right, he should be sent down.
Who on earth's said he should be protected, have you got a link for that?

[Adam]

Enough people have been investigated by the police following a tweet or Facebook posting so I don't see why Nick Griffin should be protected just in case he becomes a martyr.

Quite right, he should be sent down.

Too right, throw the book at 'im.

Specifically the fucking massive Qu'ran that used to be kept on this:

[davidjay]

Enough people have been investigated by the police following a tweet or Facebook posting so I don't see why Nick Griffin should be protected just in case he becomes a martyr.

Quite right, he should be sent down.
Who on earth's said he should be protected, have you got a link for that?

Perhaps not 'protected', more 'allowed to.'

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Either everybody is allowed free speech, or nobody is. Not a big dilemma.

[Adam]

This isn't a free speech issue, though. It's a "direct threat of intimidation/incitement" issue.

[oboogie]

This isn't a free speech issue, though. It's a "direct threat of intimidation/incitement" issue.

Absolutely it's freedom of speech issue. Clamping down on our freedoms is exactly what Fascists like Griffin want to do, if we do their work for them they've already won.

You are still conflating two completely separate issues.
1) Should people, including legal political parties, have the right to freedom of speech provided they stay within the law?
2) Should people be punished if they abuse that right by saying something illegal?

I answer "yes" to both of those questions. But they are quite different and descrete.

On the first issue, I'm not in favour of denying a legal political party freedom of speech because without it they are powerless and effectively we are banning the party themselves. I don't want to live in a country which does that however repugnant I personally find that party. Quite apart from the principle, there's also the thin end of the wedge argument, if we accept, on principle, that parties can be proscribed because the majority find their views offensive then sooner or later that principle will be used against a party or organisation which I support.
On the second issue, if what Griffin has said is determined by a court of law to have been incitement and therefore illegal then he should be punished in a manner deemed appropriate by that court.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

This isn't a free speech issue, though. It's a "direct threat of intimidation/incitement" issue.

Exactly. And what Winston said, if he breaks the law then he faces a court. If he doesn't break the law he has the same freedoms as you or I.

[lord_kobel]

And those freedoms do not include a right to use twitter.

[davidjay]

Therein lies the modern freedom of speech dilemma. Historically, it meant that you could say whatever you wanted to say, in public. You could absolutely not claim 'freedom of speech' when, for example, shouting in Strangers Gallery or interrupting a court case. That was when the public/private divide was clear and obvious. Now the internet and especially social media has blurred the lines. You could argue that Twitter is public, because it can be accessed by anyone. You could equally argue that it's private, and access is only by permission of the owner subject to their rules and permission.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

And those freedoms do not include a right to use twitter.

So would you accept a system whereby Twitter chose who could and who could not use their service? What criteria would you recommend? When right wingers demanded that you lose access what would you do?

[visage]

Then surely Twitter is acting as a publisher, and no publisher should be obliged to publish something just because someone wishes to say it.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

If they were a publisher they would have to check every Tweet before it went on the feed.
This would be impossible and would lead to the end of social networking. Is Griffin worth it?

[Kreuzberger]

Correct me if I am wrong but I a pretty certain that the law states that if an online media-owner pre-moderates user content then it is a "publisher". Otherwise, it is not.

Which brings us nicely back to the the filth on the mail's moderated threads...

[oboogie]

And those freedoms do not include a right to use twitter.

Who elected Twitter to have so much control over our democratic process?
If they ban Griffin they should ban all politicians.