The Premier League versus free speech

[Big Malc]

So it is controversial then

[markg]

Good. 

Hope they can apply it to the Championship too, or League 1 for when we get there

[SiJ]

I clicked on the video and then realised it was Toby Young and instantly switched off. 

 

He's one of these "free speech" merchants who then gets awfully upset when someone uses free speech on him. 

[S36 OWL]

17 hours ago, Big Malc said:

lolwut?

 

It’s about one of the most controversial subjects around these days

 

Whether you agree with her or not, it’s just not true to claim that view isn’t controversial 

 

Some see it as controversial, some don't. I'm in the latter group . Tha Geordie bird who has been banned said nothing wrong ,and her views are perfectly legal.

 

 

[S36 OWL]

16 hours ago, markg said:

Good. 

Hope they can apply it to the Championship too, or League 1 for when we get there

 

[Owl.1867]

Painful as it was, I watched that.

 

Jesus christ.

 

So, what she says does classify as a hate crime first of all.

 

BUT...

 

Despite their use of the word crime, it doesn't appear that anything criminal has been done, she's simply been banned by Newcastle United.

 

And this is where it becomes the classic stupidity of the freeze peach crowd. NUFC Ltd, or whatever they're called, are a private company who host events on private property. If they decide that they don't want to be associated with you then they can ban you, that's their free speech in action.

 

This isn't about free speech; no one has sent her away or done anything to her, she can still turn up and vote in elections etc. All that's happened is that she's made clear some abhorrent views and then a number of parties have decided that they don't want to be associated with her.

 

That's before we get to stadium stasi. What a load of rubbish that was. A "secret intelligence organisation", don't make me laugh. You put these things in the public domain then you can deal with the consequences of that. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

 

As an aside, seeing Young outside the ground talking about what he thinks Newcastle's priorities should be had proper "look at me yobbos, I'm just like you because I like the football premier league, just like you do" vibes.

[markg]

On 04/02/2024 at 02:06, Sykes said:

I've just watched the entire video, and wow, this is actually really ominous and scary stuff. They are literally spying on and compiling dossiers of information on everyday members of the public, right down to trying to determine where they live, for simply expressing opinions that don't fit their agenda.

 

This is a massive breach of privacy by a private company.

 

What is their ultimate goal with this, to ban everybody that doesn't agree with their narrative? 

Wasn't it just taken from what she openly posted in a public forum?

[S36 OWL]

2 hours ago, Owl.1867 said:

Painful as it was, I watched that.

 

Jesus christ.

 

So, what she says does classify as a hate crime first of all.

 

BUT...

 

Despite their use of the word crime, it doesn't appear that anything criminal has been done, she's simply been banned by Newcastle United.

 

And this is where it becomes the classic stupidity of the freeze peach crowd. NUFC Ltd, or whatever they're called, are a private company who host events on private property. If they decide that they don't want to be associated with you then they can ban you, that's their free speech in action.

 

This isn't about free speech; no one has sent her away or done anything to her, she can still turn up and vote in elections etc. All that's happened is that she's made clear some abhorrent views and then a number of parties have decided that they don't want to be associated with her.

 

That's before we get to stadium stasi. What a load of rubbish that was. A "secret intelligence organisation", don't make me laugh. You put these things in the public domain then you can deal with the consequences of that. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

 

As an aside, seeing Young outside the ground talking about what he thinks Newcastle's priorities should be had proper "look at me yobbos, I'm just like you because I like the football premier league, just like you do" vibes.

 

Dosnt it worry you in the slightest that the Premier League are actually doing this ? 

 

Are you happy that they see they see fit to accuse someone of being transphobic when clearly no crime has been committed,  and this woman was simply airing her rightfully held views ,that are perfectly legal. ?

 

It's one thing the plod scanning social media , harassing people over their views ,but when you get companies like the Premier league thinking  they have the right to spy on people ,then that's taking the agenda to a whole new level.

 

This woman has broken no laws ,has committed no crime,  she has just posted her views on social media - which she is perfectly entitled to do . 

 

What we have now seen is the Premier league harrass and stalk her simply because they don't agree with her views. 

 

I've long accepted that the plod willl harasses anyone who holds differing views from the accepted narrative , and I have first hand experience of that .

 

But this woman hasn't committed any crime and she is perfectly entitled to hold ,and air her views and beliefs . 

 

And  your comments about her committing a hate crime are ridiculous.  

[TimoWerther]

6 hours ago, markg said:

Wasn't it just taken from what she openly posted in a public forum?

Technically, a company still requires a lawful basis to process personal data taken from the public domain. Similar to using news about someone historically committing a crime in the past to determine whether to hire them or not, they would still need to justify processing this as part of a hiring decision; particularly in this instance where that processing may infringe on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act provisions. Assume they're relying on legitimate interests, she can object and Newcastle have to demonstrate grounds that override her rights and freedoms (I.e. free speech).

[markg]

1 hour ago, TimoWerther said:

Technically, a company still requires a lawful basis to process personal data taken from the public domain. Similar to using news about someone historically committing a crime in the past to determine whether to hire them or not, they would still need to justify processing this as part of a hiring decision; particularly in this instance where that processing may infringe on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act provisions. Assume they're relying on legitimate interests, she can object and Newcastle have to demonstrate grounds that override her rights and freedoms (I.e. free speech).

Ta mate. 

[Bannofan]

6 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Dosnt it worry you in the slightest that the Premier League are actually doing this ? 

 

Are you happy that they see they see fit to accuse someone of being transphobic when clearly no crime has been committed,  and this woman was simply airing her rightfully held views ,that are perfectly legal. ?

 

It's one thing the plod scanning social media , harassing people over their views ,but when you get companies like the Premier league thinking  they have the right to spy on people ,then that's taking the agenda to a whole new level.

 

This woman has broken no laws ,has committed no crime,  she has just posted her views on social media - which she is perfectly entitled to do . 

 

What we have now seen is the Premier league harrass and stalk her simply because they don't agree with her views. 

 

I've long accepted that the plod willl harasses anyone who holds differing views from the accepted narrative , and I have first hand experience of that .

 

But this woman hasn't committed any crime and she is perfectly entitled to hold ,and air her views and beliefs . 

 

And  your comments about her committing a hate crime are ridiculous.  

 

The problem is your ' differing views that don't fit the narrative'   would be classed as hate speech and harrasment.

 

No, the plod don't harass innocent people for having different opinions if they are perfectly legal. If they have come to your door, you've probably done something to make them knock, no matter how much you protest. 

 

This video will not be watched by me due to the goady wording and the far right , unpleasant track record of Toby Young. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Owl.1867]

7 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Dosnt it worry you in the slightest that the Premier League are actually doing this ? 

 

Are you happy that they see they see fit to accuse someone of being transphobic when clearly no crime has been committed,  and this woman was simply airing her rightfully held views ,that are perfectly legal. ?

 

It's one thing the plod scanning social media , harassing people over their views ,but when you get companies like the Premier league thinking  they have the right to spy on people ,then that's taking the agenda to a whole new level.

 

This woman has broken no laws ,has committed no crime,  she has just posted her views on social media - which she is perfectly entitled to do . 

 

What we have now seen is the Premier league harrass and stalk her simply because they don't agree with her views. 

 

I've long accepted that the plod willl harasses anyone who holds differing views from the accepted narrative , and I have first hand experience of that .

 

But this woman hasn't committed any crime and she is perfectly entitled to hold ,and air her views and beliefs . 

 

And  your comments about her committing a hate crime are ridiculous.  

 

She denied the right to exist of a group of people, based on their gender characteristics. That's hate speech, plain and simple.

 

And yes, I'm massively worried about the way in which private companies can use our data, the way in which our laws are created for the benefit of corporations and the fact that we as people are secondary in concern. But that's not what actually worries you here; you just want to be able to spout hateful views with no comeback.

 

Again, you misunderstand what free speech actually is. 

 

3 hours ago, TimoWerther said:

Technically, a company still requires a lawful basis to process personal data taken from the public domain. Similar to using news about someone historically committing a crime in the past to determine whether to hire them or not, they would still need to justify processing this as part of a hiring decision; particularly in this instance where that processing may infringe on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act provisions. Assume they're relying on legitimate interests, she can object and Newcastle have to demonstrate grounds that override her rights and freedoms (I.e. free speech).

 

The lawful basis will be to prevent disorder. It's tenuous, and as above I'm not in favour of the way in which corporations can use our data, but they can very easily claim to be looking at public fora to see whether any trouble is planned, using details given willingly by ticket holders, and then when they come across these posts they are fully within their rights to deny entry based on not wanting to be associated with those views and the perceived risk of those being aired at the match. The legal grounds for collecting this information are solid; that doesn't mean they're morally right, but despite Young's claims this isn't some secret police stuff, it's perfectly legal.

 

Also, again, no one has taken away her free speech, she's on a flipping video making the same claims again, her free speech has not been impacted at any point. Until you, S36, Toby Young, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg and whoever the hell else can get that point within your comprehension, these debates are pointless.

[TimoWerther]

25 minutes ago, Owl.1867 said:

 

She denied the right to exist of a group of people, based on their gender characteristics. That's hate speech, plain and simple.

 

And yes, I'm massively worried about the way in which private companies can use our data, the way in which our laws are created for the benefit of corporations and the fact that we as people are secondary in concern. But that's not what actually worries you here; you just want to be able to spout hateful views with no comeback.

 

Again, you misunderstand what free speech actually is. 

 

 

The lawful basis will be to prevent disorder. It's tenuous, and as above I'm not in favour of the way in which corporations can use our data, but they can very easily claim to be looking at public fora to see whether any trouble is planned, using details given willingly by ticket holders, and then when they come across these posts they are fully within their rights to deny entry based on not wanting to be associated with those views and the perceived risk of those being aired at the match. The legal grounds for collecting this information are solid; that doesn't mean they're morally right, but despite Young's claims this isn't some secret police stuff, it's perfectly legal.

 

Also, again, no one has taken away her free speech, she's on a flipping video making the same claims again, her free speech has not been impacted at any point. Until you, S36, Toby Young, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg and whoever the hell else can get that point within your comprehension, these debates are pointless.

Erm...I'm simply saying how it works from both their perspectives. Not siding with either or saying who should be saying what or saying who's acting legally or not, so not sure why you're being an arse.

[Owl.1867]

11 minutes ago, TimoWerther said:

Erm...I'm simply saying how it works from both their perspectives. Not siding with either or saying who should be saying what or saying who's acting legally or not, so not sure why you're being an arse.

 

Because you've used that line about how they have to show they have grounds which override her freedoms. That's simply not the case. First of all, it's the American terminology that has been imported in all this culture wars rubbish and doesn't apply to an example in the UK. You were absolutely trying to make comment on who's acting legally, and as I pointed out there is nothing illegal about the gathering of this information. Young, S36 and then you have all tried to turn this into a shadowy issue of corporations spying on us and imposing groupthink. It's not.

 

She made clear some views in a public forum, a private entity didn't want to be associated with those views, and therefore she cannot attend events hosted on private property by that entity. She still has her free speech, she's on the Internet right there, still dehumanising people as much as she wants. 

 

As I said, I have deep concerns about the ways in which civil liberties are being eroded, the way that we sign over control of the legal system to corporations, and many other genuine fears about where things are going. I'm happy to discuss that and have a debate, but we can't debate until simple facts are accepted as true, yet every time this comes up people need convincing about something which is so simple and so yet again it descends into culture wars "I can't say the words I used to say" rubbish.

[S36 OWL]

6 hours ago, Owl.1867 said:

 

She denied the right to exist of a group of people, based on their gender characteristics. That's hate speech, plain and simple.

 

And yes, I'm massively worried about the way in which private companies can use our data, the way in which our laws are created for the benefit of corporations and the fact that we as people are secondary in concern. But that's not what actually worries you here; you just want to be able to spout hateful views with no comeback.

 

Again, you misunderstand what free speech actually is. 

 

 

The lawful basis will be to prevent disorder. It's tenuous, and as above I'm not in favour of the way in which corporations can use our data, but they can very easily claim to be looking at public fora to see whether any trouble is planned, using details given willingly by ticket holders, and then when they come across these posts they are fully within their rights to deny entry based on not wanting to be associated with those views and the perceived risk of those being aired at the match. The legal grounds for collecting this information are solid; that doesn't mean they're morally right, but despite Young's claims this isn't some secret police stuff, it's perfectly legal.

 

Also, again, no one has taken away her free speech, she's on a flipping video making the same claims again, her free speech has not been impacted at any point. Until you, S36, Toby Young, Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg and whoever the hell else can get that point within your comprehension, these debates are pointless.

 

She spoke to the police, who interviewed her , who reviewed her tweets - who confirmed NO CRIME had been committed, and her posts were NOT hate speech, she has done NOTHING wrong and she was perfectly, legally entitled to post what she did. 

 

She has NOT denied anyone of anything. 

[Owl.1867]

1 hour ago, S36 OWL said:

 

She spoke to the police, who interviewed her , who reviewed her tweets - who confirmed NO CRIME had been committed, and her posts were NOT hate speech, she has done NOTHING wrong and she was perfectly, legally entitled to post what she did. 

 

She has NOT denied anyone of anything. 

 

The police chose not to follow up.

 

But besides differences in legal parlance, you do realise that whether she was legally entitled to say it makes no difference, right?

 

If I form a club called the "I believe the sky is green club", and I host the most amazing parties every week that all your friends start going to, and you then decide you want to come along too, I am fully in my rights to see where you publicly stated that the sky is blue and to say that I will bar you from entry to my events until you show that you have learned that the sky is green. No ones denied your freedom of speech, no one is even arguing that I'm right, but those are the rules of my club and you said something that goes against those rules and therefore you can't come to the parties.

 

It doesn't matter that legally you can say that the sky is blue, because its a private club which hosts private parties on private property.