It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK State Goes Full On Authoritarian

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe



Well, yes, human rights are for humans, even the ones you don't like.


So you think the 'rights' of murderers, rapists and paedophiles outweigh the 'rights' of their victims or their right to respect and just common decency?

You think the 'rights' of murderers, rapists and nonces outweighs the damage to society viewing these criminals commit these acts does?

There are lots of people 'I don't like' and I'd never advocate suppressing their 'rights' for that reason alone.




posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Tartuffe



Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Do those 'rights' extend to murderers, rapists and #ing nonces?

Of course those who commit such acts are criminals.
Do you think viewing these people committing their crimes should be legal or desirable?



Well, yes, human rights are for humans, even the ones you don't like.
So are you arguing that video's of real rape and murder are covered under human rights and should not be censored???
Really?

I've made my point here and anyone who reads all our posts can make their own minds up about how you have not supported censoring such videos, as child porn is, in this thread.

If you support censoring child porn, as I do, then by default you do in fact support the principle of censorship in certain circumstances.

edit on 9-4-2019 by SerenTheUniverse because: Stupid auto correct spelling lol



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

In all the long years I’ve used the internet and of all the weird and bizarre stuff I’ve seen, I haven’t seen any of what you mentioned. I thought such was only available on the dark web? I think what the OP is objecting to is that sites such as this will be affected by these new regulations. It specifically says they will be going after disinformation, now who defines what that is? Oh yeah the government body in charge of enforcing the new rules. Hmm..


here are links to the threads on ATS, its where I found out about them first, no dark web needed

Chicago Police: 4 in custody after man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live

Elderly man killed live over Facebook. Manhunt Ongoing in Cleveland

12yr old Commits Suicide and Streams it Live on Facebook

Man kills baby on Facebook Live then takes his own life



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

All the corporations that buy the government that controls our actions by proxy. I"m not going to make a list for you of which companies put the most money into control of government because that would be an act of futility. They all do don't they?

We are obviously not going to go anywhere with this conversation as I have laid out my simple understanding of the relationship of citizen, government and corporations with you and you seem to reject it out of hand.

You keep saying that corporations are run by people just like you and me, well, could we not say exactly the same thing about politicians? That they are people just like you and me? To me they are not. There is a certain effect on most people when they gain power over other people and this in some regards is called psychopathy. Be it the power in the political and governmental realm or the power of those who run the corporations. These folk are not like you and me. That is assuming that we accept the bond you stress we hold in common.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn




legal or desirable?


You cant mandate feelings, dont you ever get tired of carrying the water for your beloved UK after all the blatantly police state action they take?



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Tartuffe



Well, yes, human rights are for humans, even the ones you don't like.


So you think the 'rights' of murderers, rapists and paedophiles outweigh the 'rights' of their victims or their right to respect and just common decency?

You think the 'rights' of murderers, rapists and nonces outweighs the damage to society viewing these criminals commit these acts does?

There are lots of people 'I don't like' and I'd never advocate suppressing their 'rights' for that reason alone.



No. As I said, human rights are for humans. Human rights also apply to criminals and “nonces”. That’s a hard pill to swallow, I agree, but one that is necessary.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Tartuffe

All the corporations that buy the government that controls our actions by proxy. I"m not going to make a list for you of which companies put the most money into control of government because that would be an act of futility. They all do don't they?

We are obviously not going to go anywhere with this conversation as I have laid out my simple understanding of the relationship of citizen, government and corporations with you and you seem to reject it out of hand.

You keep saying that corporations are run by people just like you and me, well, could we not say exactly the same thing about politicians? That they are people just like you and me? To me they are not. There is a certain effect on most people when they gain power over other people and this in some regards is called psychopathy. Be it the power in the political and governmental realm or the power of those who run the corporations. These folk are not like you and me. That is assuming that we accept the bond you stress we hold in common.


I think it’s the other way around. You reject out of hand the fundamental difference between the private and public sectors, the government and the governed.

The government has the power to jail you, censor you, regulate your private affairs. But you contend that it is the corporations who rule us. So which corporation, for example, has anything near that sort of power over you or I?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Tartuffe

Of course it does. How else can you stop youngsters accessing this stuff? There can be no earthly reason for condoning these sites' existence.



Maybe better parenting would be more appropriate.


Perhaps you might like to tell that to this poor girl's father?

Guardian: Molly Russell


You're the one pretending that instagram contributed to her suicide more than her parents.


Pretending? You blame her parents? May I ask why?

There is an inquest into Molly's death so that will bring out the truth.

In the meantime do you think it right that corporations like Instagram allow children access to these sites? Do they have no responsibility?

You keep banging on about totalitarianism. We have laws that stop people doing bad things and our films have been censored for many years. That is not totalitarianism. Should these corporations just be allowed to regulate themselves? When it is clear that they have wholly failed to do so and children are exposed to harm and danger, even death?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   
This, from the land of the free:

Fulham FC Fan in California Sues Over Racist No Plate



A Fulham FC fan living in California is suing a state agency after he was banned from having the letters COYW on a personalised car number plate, as they feared the slogan "Come on you whites" had racist connotations.


And Yanks lecture us on freedom of expression, etc?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: seagull

so you have no argument then lol
You know full well my point is about censorship as a concept, it originally started when I said I don't care if it becomes illegal to view real rapes and murders, the member wishes for that right.
The member,and you then contradict yourselves by supporting censorship of child porn as I also support.

You can't have half censorship, either you support government intervention where appropriate or you don't.


Quote me to where I said I wish for the right to view real rapes and murders. You cannot. Because not only do you not have an argument, you have to lie.



You stated earlier in this thread that you have spent a lot of time watching videos (I guess on youtube?) where ISIS are killing other people. You also made the point of saying how deeply into them you had got.

So, seeing as you seemingly have spent a lot of time watching videos that graphically depict real murder, and seeing as you responded - to me - that for youtube to remove them was censorship, which you have made it clear you are against, then QED you wish for the right to watch real murders.

It's not really that difficult.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe

So which corporation, for example, has anything near that sort of power over you or I?


AnyCountry.gov.inc/plc/ltd.anywhere?

'They' are all in it together and the citizen/consumer is just 'their' pleb for the cause (to make power hungry bastards rich)
edit on 10/4/2019 by teapot because: ed



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

I never liked the way 'Government' handles control over the internet. We all foresaw this coming, how is it going to look 5-10 years from now? They slowly implement small changes over time to sugar-coat the Authoritarian take-over.

I am reluctant to using a VPN because it can be extremely slow at times but because I've always felt as if everything I do is being watched, I am edging closer to using Tor as my primary browser.

I don't mind that they remove Terrorists and Pedophiles from the internet and the world because that is unacceptable and having it removed will save lives.

Sooner or later though they're going to end up removing things that shouldn't have been removed, imagine if they removed 'Britain First'



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

hahaha


Online platforms can be a tool for abuse and bullying, and they can be used to undermine our democratic values and debate.


they can also support democracy and encourage open debate not stifled by government legislation !

Absolutely shocking behaviour from our government

burn the #in lot down !



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: UpIsNowDown

I've been following the battle against ISIS for years now, and have watched perhaps too many of their warcrimes perpetrated against innocents. Many of these were acts of torture and genocide. They film it all, put it on the internet, and I've seen some of it. It's horrific. The imagery haunts my dreams. I've seen evil. I just as easily could have avoided it. What I do not want is the government taking that choice away.

Yet, like myself, you support censorship of child porn, but object to your govt taking your choice away from viewing adults being tortured or murdered.
You badly contradict yourself yet you seem to lack the intelligence to recognise it.

If you support censorship of child porn then by default you support some censorship in certain circumstances. There is no halfway house with the principle of govt censorship, either you agree some is appropriate, or there should be no censorship at all.

You constantly state that you oppose ALL censorship so one can only conclude that you oppose censorship of child porn as well.
I hoped for an interesting debate about the whole concept of censorship but you appear to be lacking intellectually.
If you state you oppose ALL censorship but support censorship of indecent images of children then you clearly contradict yourself.

"Yeh I oppose ALL censorship, except child porn, but torture and murder of adults shouldn't be censored"
LMFAO!!! You haven't a clue about what a reasoned debate looks like...go on, why is child porn censorship okay with you but torture and murder of innocent adults should not be censored?

I don't expect an answer, just making the clear point that you are not in fact against ALL censorship...you should have thought about it before making such a silly claim...that is of course assuming that like myself you support censorship of child porn?
edit on 10-4-2019 by SerenTheUniverse because: Stupid auto correct spelling lol



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Tartuffe

Of course it does. How else can you stop youngsters accessing this stuff? There can be no earthly reason for condoning these sites' existence.



Maybe better parenting would be more appropriate.


Perhaps you might like to tell that to this poor girl's father?

Guardian: Molly Russell


You're the one pretending that instagram contributed to her suicide more than her parents.


Pretending? You blame her parents? May I ask why?

There is an inquest into Molly's death so that will bring out the truth.

In the meantime do you think it right that corporations like Instagram allow children access to these sites? Do they have no responsibility?

You keep banging on about totalitarianism. We have laws that stop people doing bad things and our films have been censored for many years. That is not totalitarianism. Should these corporations just be allowed to regulate themselves? When it is clear that they have wholly failed to do so and children are exposed to harm and danger, even death?



What harms and dangers have hurt you on the internet?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Tartuffe

But you contend that it is the corporations who rule us. So which corporation, for example, has anything near that sort of power over you or I?


If, and as, our government has been bought off and taken control of by corporate money,,,,,,,your answer is simply this. Corporate money IS the power that rules us through their governmental leverage.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
This, from the land of the free:

Fulham FC Fan in California Sues Over Racist No Plate



A Fulham FC fan living in California is suing a state agency after he was banned from having the letters COYW on a personalised car number plate, as they feared the slogan "Come on you whites" had racist connotations.


And Yanks lecture us on freedom of expression, etc?


Yep. The first amendment will see that he wins. Meanwhile, you have no way out of your self-imposed chains.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Tartuffe

But you contend that it is the corporations who rule us. So which corporation, for example, has anything near that sort of power over you or I?


If, and as, our government has been bought off and taken control of by corporate money,,,,,,,your answer is simply this. Corporate money IS the power that rules us through their governmental leverage.



So, in the end, it is the government who rules you.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: SerenTheUniverse
a reply to: seagull

so you have no argument then lol
You know full well my point is about censorship as a concept, it originally started when I said I don't care if it becomes illegal to view real rapes and murders, the member wishes for that right.
The member,and you then contradict yourselves by supporting censorship of child porn as I also support.

You can't have half censorship, either you support government intervention where appropriate or you don't.


Quote me to where I said I wish for the right to view real rapes and murders. You cannot. Because not only do you not have an argument, you have to lie.



You stated earlier in this thread that you have spent a lot of time watching videos (I guess on youtube?) where ISIS are killing other people. You also made the point of saying how deeply into them you had got.

So, seeing as you seemingly have spent a lot of time watching videos that graphically depict real murder, and seeing as you responded - to me - that for youtube to remove them was censorship, which you have made it clear you are against, then QED you wish for the right to watch real murders.

It's not really that difficult.


Yes, I followed the fight against ISIS and happened to see death and murder. You’re trying to say the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish Freedom Fighters are filming snuff films, when in fact they filming reality.

Here is no right to watch real murders.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaghettiHero
a reply to: Tartuffe

I never liked the way 'Government' handles control over the internet. We all foresaw this coming, how is it going to look 5-10 years from now? They slowly implement small changes over time to sugar-coat the Authoritarian take-over.

I am reluctant to using a VPN because it can be extremely slow at times but because I've always felt as if everything I do is being watched, I am edging closer to using Tor as my primary browser.

I don't mind that they remove Terrorists and Pedophiles from the internet and the world because that is unacceptable and having it removed will save lives.

Sooner or later though they're going to end up removing things that shouldn't have been removed, imagine if they removed 'Britain First'







It’s inevitable. In the paper they say online harassment of public figures is a problem. It looks like criticizing the powerful will be a thing of the past.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join