In the News Freedom of Speech

[slim63]

Sensitive subject this!!

I feel AB is sort of right in that it seems to be a mix of the manner in which this chap followed up plus (to a lesser degree) the sensitivity of the subject matter.

I guess some of what is happening is a product or the modern ability to comment or espouse viewpoints and try to exert influence without taking responsibility.

This is perhaps encouraged by the apparent anonymity provided by the internet. Of course that is not true as the internet does not in reality provide any anonymity if those looking for you are either the authorities or have deep pockets.


In years gone by the method of passing public comment which could be seen by many was the "letter to the Times". These were signed with a name and some degree of acceptable control exercised by the publication. In many cases it was actually probably easy to identify the writer. The Rev Arbuthnot from The Vicarage, Little Snodbury wasn't exactly anonymous. Certainly letters to local papers were more likely to lead to identification.

Anyone using that method to influence really can't complain if they get a reply by the same method.



These days anyone can call themselves anything and pass comment on line in an attempt to influence others or create an outcome they would like.



I wonder how anyone on here would feel if a forumite (now there's a modern word that meant nothing forty years ago!) sent a letter to their home address rather than commenting on a thread. If Derek suddenly found his postman overwhelmed with sacks of letters advising him on available car choices. Would he value the contribution or worry perhaps that some who advised him his choice of vehicle indicated being in league with the devil, so deserving of eternal damnation and might attempt to help that on its way?



In the case of this women it seems she was so concerned that apparently she moved house.



This chap wrote directly and does not appear to have tried to hide who he was or his address. In that sense I guess he was being open and honest, but why not simply and only reply in the form of the original comment? It would still be seen and understood. Maybe he was indeed doing so out of some sense of "honour" or perhaps it was intended to somehow show that anonymity did not exist. The second option does strike me as possibly a little spooky.

Or perhaps he tried to respond in that way but for some reason was unable to?



I guess there is a right of sorts to freedom of expression but I can't help thinking that it exists only when doing so "in person". Doing so in person counters the right with an immediate responsibility for the comment - excercising it incorrectly could well lead to a sore nose!! Trying to exercise a right to speech remotely means also being remote from the consequences and can mean that any "right" being used irresponsibly.



So it becomes clear (in my opinion) that "rights" go hand in hand with "responsibility" and should not be exercised in isolation/anonymity.



Unfortunately we have a modern generation (but not just them!) who appear to be growing up with that sense of balance missing.



We now have a society developing where it's easy to exercise influence and comment anonymously.



However, that's not actually true. Those who believe that to be the case are being naive in the extreme. I mentioned earlier that both the authorities and those with deep pockets find the internet no barrier to following through, indeed in many ways it makes it easier.



Anyone running/hosting/moderating a forum such as this will be very much aware of this and its consequences. Those consequences come with responsibilities on steroids which can only be discharged by immediately and quickly pointing the finger!!



I think I'd best stop there!!

Interesting points especially about anonymity.
I do agree its a bit strange to take the trouble to track someone down just to send a letter but maybe that was his point ? eg this is me, this is my opinion and I am not hiding behind a screen, maybe he thought he would get a civil response (he is 85 you know)
Maybe he thought he was helping
Maybe he has someone with a disability in his family and is speaking from experience

We will probably never know the answers to these questions and many more

 

[Cougar377]

Could I just ask what pronoun you like to be referred by?

"You can call me Al....."

 

[Cougar377]

He made a silly mistake by seeking out this women by letter and has drawn a
reaction that he is unable to defend.
The police have cautioned him not for
his comments, but for showing prejudice
against a disabled body of people.
He has egged himself and should have
kept his mouth shut.

What prejudice did he show...?

 

[Squag1]

Sir Andrew Beaker, Seaford, for example.

Good night!!!

 

[Cougar377]

No. Letters in The Times are identified by name and a general indication of residence.

Sir Andrew Beaker, Seaford, for example.

Other than Pow-Lo the fact that he has tracked her down seems to be going over heads. Not saying he did that with sinister intent, indeed I suspect he didn’t, just extreme naivety although I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for him in that respect.

Most folk's addresses can be easily found, they're virtually always in the public domain somewhere. Would you have been happier if he'd emailed, him as clearly you're as spooked by the fact that he sent a letter as she was.

Jeez .....when did sending a polite and civilised letter become such an almighty affront...? Society is so quick to make concessions and allowances for the percieved sensitivities of the snowflake generation, but no-one seems prepared to extend similar concessions to an 85 year old man, who was brought up with....I would argue....far better moral values and standards.

 

[Squag1]

And beating up an 85 year old probably gets probation

 

[andyBeaker]

"You can call me Al....."

Sir, Mr, m’Lord or Cynthia are all acceptable

 

[ogr1]

What prejudice did he show...?

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

 

[derek kelly]

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

How? All he did was offer genuine reasons why people may feel ill equipped to deal with a child with Downs syndrome.
My Mother had four sons, the second one was severely mentally handicapped, my mother was advised to abort the third & fourth (me) from my point of view I am grateful she ignored the advice, she died aged 53 due to severe alcoholism after a very shit life, I wonder what her decision would have been if she had been able to see her future, the problem from my childhood was Colin always had to come first & I was often left to my own devices which more often than not got me into trouble, thank God I was talked into taking up boxing, it gave me an outlet for my anger & a release for my pent up energy, I sometimes wonder if my childhood was the reason for my disinterest at school & never achieving my full potential, do I have regrets about my childhood? No, it was not in my control, do I blame my Mother? No but I do hold my Father majorly to blame through his absence.

 

[andyBeaker]

Most folk's addresses can be easily found, they're virtually always in the public domain somewhere. Would you have been happier if he'd emailed, him as clearly you're as spooked by the fact that he sent a letter as she was.

Jeez .....when did sending a polite and civilised letter become such an almighty affront...? Society is so quick to make concessions and allowances for the percieved sensitivities of the snowflake generation, but no-one seems prepared to extend similar concessions to an 85 year old man, who was brought up with....I would argue....far better moral values and standards.

It hasn’t spooked me (why would it?) but I can totally understand why it might have spooked the receiver.

 

[slim63]

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

And your proof of this is where?

Or is it a preconceived opinion based on ...............................
well I am sure you see my point

 

[slim63]

It hasn’t spooked me (why would it?) but I can totally understand why it might have spooked the receiver.

Well i have your address


Are you spooked yet?

 

[Cougar377]

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Regarding the aforementioned 85 year old gentleman....you seem to be suffering from a bit of that yourself.

 

[andyBeaker]

Well i have your address


Are you spooked yet?

Very

 

[Cougar377]

Sensitive subject this!!

I feel AB is sort of right in that it seems to be a mix of the manner in which this chap followed up plus (to a lesser degree) the sensitivity of the subject matter.

I guess some of what is happening is a product or the modern ability to comment or espouse viewpoints and try to exert influence without taking responsibility.

This is perhaps encouraged by the apparent anonymity provided by the internet. Of course that is not true as the internet does not in reality provide any anonymity if those looking for you are either the authorities or have deep pockets.


In years gone by the method of passing public comment which could be seen by many was the "letter to the Times". These were signed with a name and some degree of acceptable control exercised by the publication. In many cases it was actually probably easy to identify the writer. The Rev Arbuthnot from The Vicarage, Little Snodbury wasn't exactly anonymous. Certainly letters to local papers were more likely to lead to identification.

Anyone using that method to influence really can't complain if they get a reply by the same method.



These days anyone can call themselves anything and pass comment on line in an attempt to influence others or create an outcome they would like.



I wonder how anyone on here would feel if a forumite (now there's a modern word that meant nothing forty years ago!) sent a letter to their home address rather than commenting on a thread. If Derek suddenly found his postman overwhelmed with sacks of letters advising him on available car choices. Would he value the contribution or worry perhaps that some who advised him his choice of vehicle indicated being in league with the devil, so deserving of eternal damnation and might attempt to help that on its way?



In the case of this women it seems she was so concerned that apparently she moved house.



This chap wrote directly and does not appear to have tried to hide who he was or his address. In that sense I guess he was being open and honest, but why not simply and only reply in the form of the original comment? It would still be seen and understood. Maybe he was indeed doing so out of some sense of "honour" or perhaps it was intended to somehow show that anonymity did not exist. The second option does strike me as possibly a little spooky.

Or perhaps he tried to respond in that way but for some reason was unable to?



I guess there is a right of sorts to freedom of expression but I can't help thinking that it exists only when doing so "in person". Doing so in person counters the right with an immediate responsibility for the comment - excercising it incorrectly could well lead to a sore nose!! Trying to exercise a right to speech remotely means also being remote from the consequences and can mean that any "right" being used irresponsibly.



So it becomes clear (in my opinion) that "rights" go hand in hand with "responsibility" and should not be exercised in isolation/anonymity.



Unfortunately we have a modern generation (but not just them!) who appear to be growing up with that sense of balance missing.



We now have a society developing where it's easy to exercise influence and comment anonymously.



However, that's not actually true. Those who believe that to be the case are being naive in the extreme. I mentioned earlier that both the authorities and those with deep pockets find the internet no barrier to following through, indeed in many ways it makes it easier.



Anyone running/hosting/moderating a forum such as this will be very much aware of this and its consequences. Those consequences come with responsibilities on steroids which can only be discharged by immediately and quickly pointing the finger!!



I think I'd best stop there!!

Almost took up a whole page to yourself there, D'n'D...! Is this a forum record...?

P.S. Excellent points made.

 

[ogr1]

Cougar, there seems to me to be a gang mentality going on here...
You posted the original content & already had preconcieved ideas as to who'm was in the right.
It was, i thought, open for debate? Obviously not.
You have praised each other, but totally tossed off my side of this topic.
Much like the oap has with his virtuouse words of self appeasing wisdom...not.
The silly old duffer deserved his caution imo.
I am not defending either party for their actions, but i am defending the rights
of any child to be given a chance in this world...Disabled or not.
He definately had no say in any of it.
He should have been snuffed out with Dinosaurs long ago.

 

[Cougar377]

Cougar, there seems to me to be a gang mentality going on here...
You posted the original content & already had preconcieved ideas as to who'm was in the right.
It was, i thought, open for debate? Obviously not.
You have praised each other, but totally tossed off my side of this topic.
Much like the oap has with his virtuouse words of self appeasing wisdom...not.
The silly old duffer deserved his caution imo.
I am not defending either party for their actions, but i am defending the rights
of any child to be given a chance in this world...Disabled or not.
He definately had no say in any of it.
He should have been snuffed out with Dinosaurs long ago.

Ogr1, I don't know about anyone else on here but I'm not ganging up on you, mate, and I would hate to think that anyone else is. What I'm doing is exercising my right to have an opinion on the matter and as you've already deduced, I'm entirely sympathetic to the old boy and appalled at what happened to him for expressing his opinion (setting aside the matter of the method by which he expressed it).
You may think that everyone else on here who has come down more in favour of the old man's right to his opinion rather than defending the woman's right to complain is ganging up on you, but I don't think that's the case. What you should consider is that they are in fact expressing their opinion and that perhaps the majority don't totally agree with your opinion. We all have that right on here to express an opinion and disagree with others who don't share it.

I take note of your opinions and I respect them, but I fundamentally disagree with them.

As regards the subject of Down's Syndrome children.....clearly you have a greater empathy for such matters than I do and I can only applaud you for that. It is an emotive subject and perhaps that has clouded and skewed the debate somewhat. But my reason for posting this thread is NOT the subject matter, it's the principle of free speech. I would ask you, therefore, to please keep that in mind.

It's not really a matter of which one of the two people concerned is "right" so much as it is a matter of what is wrong.... and for me, what is seriously wrong is that he expressed a perfectly legitimate opinion in a polite and reasonable fashion to someone who escalated their response way beyond what was reasonable and in doing so brought about a situation whereby an innocent man now has a police record.

Setting aside the subject matter, the end result for this man is not right on any level. Should we really be accepting of a society where expressing a legitimate opinion instigates the kind of response that even Orwell would be shocked at...?

 

[andyBeaker]

Ogr1, I don't know about anyone else on here but I'm not ganging up on you, mate, and I would hate to think that anyone else is. What I'm doing is exercising my right to have an opinion on the matter and as you've already deduced, I'm entirely sympathetic to the old boy and appalled at what happened to him for expressing his opinion (setting aside the matter of the method by which he expressed it).
You may think that everyone else on here who has come down more in favour of the old man's right to his opinion rather than defending the woman's right to complain is ganging up on you, but I don't think that's the case. What you should consider is that they are in fact expressing their opinion and that perhaps the majority don't totally agree with your opinion. We all have that right on here to express an opinion and disagree with others who don't share it.

I take note of your opinions and I respect them, but I fundamentally disagree with them.

As regards the subject of Down's Syndrome children.....clearly you have a greater empathy for such matters than I do and I can only applaud you for that. It is an emotive subject and perhaps that has clouded and skewed the debate somewhat. But my reason for posting this thread is NOT the subject matter, it's the principle of free speech. I would ask you, therefore, to please keep that in mind.

It's not really a matter of which one of the two people concerned is "right" so much as it is a matter of what is wrong.... and for me, what is seriously wrong is that he expressed a perfectly legitimate opinion in a polite and reasonable fashion to someone who escalated their response way beyond what was reasonable and in doing so brought about a situation whereby an innocent man now has a police record.

Setting aside the subject matter, the end result for this man is not right on any level. Should we really be accepting of a society where expressing a legitimate opinion instigates the kind of response that even Orwell would be shocked at...?

You are ignoring the issue of him tracking her down.

As ever it is not black and white, not helped by my if nobody else's total distrust of The Daily Mail

 

[Cougar377]

You are ignoring the issue of him tracking her down.

As ever it is not black and white, not helped by my if nobody else's total distrust of The Daily Mail

Stop trying to twist the narrative. You're phrasing is trying to imply that he is some sort of stalker and you know that's bollocks.
And even the Daily Mail is capable of reporting the truth.

Come back with something more constructive than that.

 

[ogr1]

Ogr1, I don't know about anyone else on here but I'm not ganging up on you, mate, and I would hate to think that anyone else is. What I'm doing is exercising my right to have an opinion on the matter and as you've already deduced, I'm entirely sympathetic to the old boy and appalled at what happened to him for expressing his opinion (setting aside the matter of the method by which he expressed it).
You may think that everyone else on here who has come down more in favour of the old man's right to his opinion rather than defending the woman's right to complain is ganging up on you, but I don't think that's the case. What you should consider is that they are in fact expressing their opinion and that perhaps the majority don't totally agree with your opinion. We all have that right on here to express an opinion and disagree with others who don't share it.

I take note of your opinions and I respect them, but I fundamentally disagree with them.

As regards the subject of Down's Syndrome children.....clearly you have a greater empathy for such matters than I do and I can only applaud you for that. It is an emotive subject and perhaps that has clouded and skewed the debate somewhat. But my reason for posting this thread is NOT the subject matter, it's the principle of free speech. I would ask you, therefore, to please keep that in mind.

It's not really a matter of which one of the two people concerned is "right" so much as it is a matter of what is wrong.... and for me, what is seriously wrong is that he expressed a perfectly legitimate opinion in a polite and reasonable fashion to someone who escalated their response way beyond what was reasonable and in doing so brought about a situation whereby an innocent man now has a police record.

Setting aside the subject matter, the end result for this man is not right on any level. Should we really be accepting of a society where expressing a legitimate opinion instigates the kind of response that even Orwell would be shocked at...?

Yep, I get what you're saying totally.
And other peeps input.
We agree to disagree. Let's not beat ourselves up anymore...It's tiresome.
We are both better than that.
So, seeing as it's a draw and I clearly won.
Let's have a truce and I forgive you.