Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[nomadking]

If JK Rowling wasn't already well established, would she have been published nowadays?
You have to be able to criticise things, people, groups etc, otherwise you end up with a very distorted and one-sided set of view of those things.
If something is factually wrong, then somebody presenting those incorrect things can be proved wrong. As opposed to the current system of "I don't like it, so you're not allowed to say it, no matter how true it is".

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If JK Rowling wasn't already well established, would she have been published nowadays?

If the content was seen as good by a publisher then I'm sure she would be.

Originally Posted by nomadking

As opposed to the current system of "I don't like it, so you're not allowed to say it, no matter how true it is".

Don't think this is true, I think you're possibly extrapolating some unique situations to make a more broad brush statement.

[RichardCoulter]

Indeed. This bill aims to protect people (particularly vulnerable groups) from inappropriate behaviour by others.

As an example, take a look at this thread:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...5#post36121345

Hugh disagreed with my statement that Virgin are again the most complained about company as he believed that it was only partially correct.

He did it in a polite and reasonable manner, so his right to disagree with my statement wouldn't be affected by the new legislation.

Disagreeing with someone else's point of view (as long as it's done in a right manner, with consideration and in a holistic manner) isn't inappropriate behaviour.

Disagreeing with someone's assertion that green is the best colour is fine, but taking the mickey out of them for spelling it wrong when they have declared that they have dyslexia isn't. Disagreeing with everything that they say as a form of harrassment in a gratuitously nasty, snide, sarcastic way (in the same way as has been done countless times) isn't. Mocking someone known to have dementia who says the same thing twice in error isn't.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Indeed. This bill aims to protect people (particularly vulnerable groups) from inappropriate behaviour by others.

Disagreeing with someone else's point of view (as long as it's done in a right manner and with consideration and in a holistic manner) isn't inappropriate behaviour.

Disagreeing with someone's assertion that green is the best colour is fine, but taking the mickey out of them for spelling it wrong when they have declared that they have dyslexia isn't. Disagreeing with everything that they say as a form of harrassment in a gratuitously nasty, snide, sarcastic way (in the same way as has been done countless times) isn't. Mocking someone known to have dementia who says the same thing twice in error isn't.

May I just add that if someone makes (empty) threats about taking legal action against people who call out daft things they say then isn't fine either, whatever excuse the person uses for saying the daft things.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If the content was seen as good by a publisher then I'm sure she would be.

Even if that meant the publishers offices being protested by Trans Radical Activists, and twitter pile on to campaign against buying any books published by this company that works with hateful transphobe JK Rowling..........

That's what would happen.

It's only now that she has her fame is she above this, but an author starting out wouldn't be touched.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

May I just add that if someone makes (empty) threats about taking legal action against people who call out daft things they say then isn't fine either, whatever excuse the person uses for saying the daft things.

This post, however, when taken together with all previous posts and compared to how he speaks to others could be viewed as unlawful discrimination and harrassment by Ofcom.

Continuing to contact or refer to someone who has expressly asked them not to is an offence under the Harrassment Act, be it in person, over the phone, by electronic means or in any other way, be it in public or in private. I imagine that a very dim view indeed would be taken of someone who chose to blatantly disregard the law and then went on to publicly mock it's effectiveness.

Referring to a person's known neuro diversity as 'an excuse' and being deliberately disparaging about their attempts to communicate as 'daft' is unlawful under the Equality Act.

I'm surprised that he doesn't know this and would proceed to do it as a Mental Health First Aider, you'd think he'd know better.

In a real life situation, would an attempt to publicly humiliate someone with a stutter for the way that they speak be acceptable?

Likewise, would an attempt to publicly humiliate someone with Touretts Syndrome be referred to as saying 'daft things' following an outburst caused by their tick be made?

Probably not (I hope!), but it does go to show that some people still regard those with neuro diversity issues as fair game and it has to stop.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If the content was seen as good by a publisher then I'm sure she would be.


Don't think this is true, I think you're possibly extrapolating some unique situations to make a more broad brush statement.

Staff working on Rowling’s latest children’s book, The Ickabog, at Hachette were so “upset” they threatened to down tools. The management pushed back. “We will never make our employees work on a book whose content they find upsetting for personal reasons, but we draw a distinction between that and refusing to work on a book because they disagree with an author’s views outside their writing, which runs contrary to our belief in free speech,” was the official statement.

Even established authors have been cancelled. Only certain groups are allowed to be "upset" or have people "upset" on their behalf. How far would I get if I drew up a list of things and opinions that I fine offensive, and I reported them to the Police?



In how many instances is the argument more than simply "I don't like it"? Are reasoned arguments given?

This discussion particularly intensified last week, after a group of prominent artists, writers, and journalists signed an open letter in the US monthly Harper’s Magazine. With signatories including Noam Chomsky, Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie, this letter was a defence of “open debate” – something these public figures feared is becoming increasingly unavailable. “The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted… it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought,” it reads. “Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.”

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This post, however, when taken together with all previous posts and compared to how he speaks to others could be viewed as unlawful discrimination and harrassment by Ofcom.

Do we really need to go trawling through all your past posts?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Continuing to contact or refer to someone who has expressly asked them not to is an offence under the Harrassment Act, be it in person, over the phone, by electronic means or in any other way, be it in public or in private. I imagine that a very dim view indeed would be taken of someone who chose to blatantly disregard the law and then went on to publicly mock it's effectiveness.

I refer you to my private message of 07:58 23rd August 2016.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Referring to a person's known neuro diversity as 'an excuse' and being deliberately disparaging about their attempts to communicate as 'daft' is unlawful under the Equality Act.

Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm surprised that he doesn't know this and would proceed to do it as a Mental Health First Aider, you'd think he'd know better.

You're not doing anyone any favours if you're not honest with them. What should you say to someone who's in the midst of a psychotic episode and are threatening to use violence because they think (wrongly) that violence will make everything right and everyone will agree they've done the right thing?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

In a real life situation, would an attempt to publicly humiliate someone with a stutter for the way that they speak be acceptable?

No, the same as I wouldn't ridicule someone about, for example, their accent. However, having a stutter or an accent doesn't give someone carte blanche to say daft things and if they did then they should expect to be picked up it and shouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Likewise, would an attempt to publicly humiliate someone with Touretts Syndrome be referred to as saying 'daft things' following an outburst caused by their tick be made?

See my previous comment.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Probably not (I hope!), but it does go to show that some people still regard those with neuro diversity issues as fair game and it has to stop.

What has to stop are people thinking their conditions should be a free pass to get away with each and every action and the consequences. Would you be ok with a known paedophile claiming they should be allowed to do what they want because of their condition? Would you be OK being robber by a registered drug addict because they had to do it to feed their habit? I could go on but I hope even you can get the picture.

Oh, and one last thing. My comment wasn't aimed at you, it was just adding to your list of things you considered to be unacceptable. But I suppose as they say, if the cap fits and all that!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Even established authors have been cancelled. Only certain groups are allowed to be "upset" or have people "upset" on their behalf. How far would I get if I drew up a list of things and opinions that I fine offensive, and I reported them to the Police?

J.K. Rowling's book wasn't cancelled as you yourself acknowledge.

Regarding your statement "As opposed to the current system of "I don't like it, so you're not allowed to say it, no matter how true it is" you've not proved this point either.

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Even if that meant the publishers offices being protested by Trans Radical Activists, and twitter pile on to campaign against buying any books published by this company that works with hateful transphobe JK Rowling..........

That's what would happen.

It's only now that she has her fame is she above this, but an author starting out wouldn't be touched.

No one would know an author's views on transgender issues unless that author was extremely well-known and spoke about them. And people protesting against an unknown author's views would get little media coverage so serve little purpose.

Publishers are pretty keen on the freedom of publication. Mein Kampf is still published in English, for example.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Do we really need to go trawling through all your past posts?



I refer you to my private message of 07:58 23rd August 2016.



Q.E.D.



You're not doing anyone any favours if you're not honest with them. What should you say to someone who's in the midst of a psychotic episode and are threatening to use violence because they think (wrongly) that violence will make everything right and everyone will agree they've done the right thing?



No, the same as I wouldn't ridicule someone about, for example, their accent. However, having a stutter or an accent doesn't give someone carte blanche to say daft things and if they did then they should expect to be picked up it and shouldn't be surprised.



See my previous comment.



What has to stop are people thinking their conditions should be a free pass to get away with each and every action and the consequences. Would you be ok with a known paedophile claiming they should be allowed to do what they want because of their condition? Would you be OK being robber by a registered drug addict because they had to do it to feed their habit? I could go on but I hope even you can get the picture.

Oh, and one last thing. My comment wasn't aimed at you, it was just adding to your list of things you considered to be unacceptable. But I suppose as they say, if the cap fits and all that!

Whether past posts are inspected or not is entirely down to you.

I didn't realise that you had continued to contact me for a further six years, despite being asked not to.

Your ridiculous responses truly show that you don't have a clue about the breadth and severity of the widely varying neuro diverse range of conditions and the potential effects of continuing with your remarks, despite being told about them.

It concerns me greatly that you appear to genuinely believe that your behaviour is appropriate and acceptable.

I suggest that, in order to put this to bed, the best thing for everybody involved is for you to accept an offer of training (arranged in conjunction with your employer. The breaches of the law and of their own diversity policies don't have to be mentioned- the aim is to educate, not punish you), or for you to voluntarily desist with your misinformed and offensive remarks going forward.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

J.K. Rowling's book wasn't cancelled as you yourself acknowledge.

Regarding your statement "As opposed to the current system of "I don't like it, so you're not allowed to say it, no matter how true it is" you've not proved this point either.

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------


No one would know an author's views on transgender issues unless that author was extremely well-known and spoke about them. And people protesting against an unknown author's views would get little media coverage so serve little purpose.

Publishers are pretty keen on the freedom of publication. Mein Kampf is still published in English, for example.

The threat was there, and others have been cancelled.
Link

As with all the Fantastic Beasts films, Rowling wrote and produced the new one. She also, you know, created the whole ‘wizarding world’ universe, as it’s called, in which Fantastic Beasts and the Potter books and flicks are based. But she is apparently so toxic that her name must now be hidden away from pre-teen cinephiles.
This isn’t the first time this has happened, either. Last month, it was reported that Rowling has been left out of an upcoming HBO Max retrospective on the Potter films, confined to archive footage. Stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint will all be involved — alongside practically the entire cast — but the woman who these three pretty ropey talents owe their careers to will not.

People are having to self-censor. Are you saying that if you or I wanted to write a book, we wouldn't have to self-censor?
Link

Young authors may be self-censoring because they worry they will be "trolled" or "cancelled", according to celebrated writer Sir Kazuo Ishiguro.
Sir Kazuo, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2017, warned that a "climate of fear" was preventing some people from writing what they want.
...
His comments come after a number of freedom of speech disputes, with writers being "cancelled" or facing threats to boycott their work. High-profile targets have included JK Rowling, Julie Burchill and Jeanine Cummins.

So how many instances are there, where the cancellers properly explain their position? Eg My JK Rowling and Hachette example, simply being "upset" and disagreeing with an opinion, ISN'T a proper explanation and proof of their position being right.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The threat was there, and others have been cancelled.
Link
People are having to self-censor. Are you saying that if you or I wanted to write a book, we wouldn't have to self-censor?
Link

So how many instances are there, where the cancellers properly explain their position? Eg My JK Rowling and Hachette example, simply being "upset" and disagreeing with an opinion, ISN'T a proper explanation and proof of their position being right.

Again, you fail to address the questions with tangential questions and links.

1. No evidence of books being cancelled. Hachette has not cancelled any of Rowling's books. Some staff may not like them but they're still published. We need to look at what's actually happening as oppose to imagining some kind of scifi world where these things might happen..

2. Your statement "As opposed to the current system of "I don't like it, so you're not allowed to say it, no matter how true it is."
Again, no evidence that this is the current system. If there's a market and funding for content we'll hear it, from Nigel Farage to James O'Brien.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

So how many instances are there, where the cancellers properly explain their position? Eg My JK Rowling and Hachette example, simply being "upset" and disagreeing with an opinion, ISN'T a proper explanation and proof of their position being right.

J K Rowling's book was not cancelled by Hachette.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Your ridiculous responses truly show that you don't have a clue about the breadth and severity of the widely varying neuro diverse range of conditions and the potential effects of continuing with your remarks, despite being told about them.

Just because YOU think they are "ridiculous responses" doesnt make them so, you are not the sole judge of what is or is not 'ridiculous '.
You have however proved the point we have been making again and again about opinions being subjective, yours does not match mine atm.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It concerns me greatly that you appear to genuinely believe that your behaviour is appropriate and acceptable.

It concerns me that you think yours is (and was).

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I suggest that, in order to put this to bed, the best thing for everybody involved is for you to accept an offer of training (arranged in conjunction with your employer. The breaches of the law and of their own diversity policies don't have to be mentioned- the aim is to educate, not punish you), or for you to voluntarily desist with your misinformed and offensive remarks going forward.

I suggest you keep your 'suggestions' about what other people should do to yourself.
Perhaps I need to remind you that the only Judge & Jury on CF are the administrators.
If you start with your attempts to control and/or threaten other members again, your membership will be suspended.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Whether past posts are inspected or not is entirely down to you.

I didn't realise that you had continued to contact me for a further six years, despite being asked not to.

Your ridiculous responses truly show that you don't have a clue about the breadth and severity of the widely varying neuro diverse range of conditions and the potential effects of continuing with your remarks, despite being told about them.

It concerns me greatly that you appear to genuinely believe that your behaviour is appropriate and acceptable.

I suggest that, in order to put this to bed, the best thing for everybody involved is for you to accept an offer of training (arranged in conjunction with your employer. The breaches of the law and of their own diversity policies don't have to be mentioned- the aim is to educate, not punish you), or for you to voluntarily desist with your misinformed and offensive remarks going forward.

Or just block him, but that's too easy isn't it. As you'd not get to use words such as desist or legal action. How many people have you personally threatened with legal action on forums? Funny thing is, whilst I've had some arguments on these forums, not once have I ever been threatened with legal action (apart from you) or have I ever needed to threaten legal action to someone.

The one common problem in all of this seems to be you and I have a very funny feeling that your disability plays no part in that.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Again, you fail to address the questions with tangential questions and links.

1. No evidence of books being cancelled. Hachette has not cancelled any of Rowling's books. Some staff may not like them but they're still published. We need to look at what's actually happening as oppose to imagining some kind of scifi world where these things might happen..

2. Your statement "As opposed to the current system of "I don't like it, so you're not allowed to say it, no matter how true it is."
Again, no evidence that this is the current system. If there's a market and funding for content we'll hear it, from Nigel Farage to James O'Brien.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

J K Rowling's book was not cancelled by Hachette.

So JK Rowling hasn't been boycotted in several ways? So Hachette have never cancelled a book because the staff complained?
What is more sinister is people having to self-censor. That is by its very nature hidden and is impossible to prove.

As Jordanian-American author Natasha Tynes discovered, this arrangement can extend to criticising someone online for eating on a train. Tynes’s remarks about a Washington Metro employees’ behaviour may have been judgemental, interfering even, but swathes of social media users went further and said Tynes’ remarks were racist because the staff member she was criticising was black. Her book deal was duly canned.