Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: The value of Free Speech

  1. #1

    Default The value of Free Speech

    There is a worrying article in today's Times, in which they are proposing that algorithms on the web are used to take down posts which deny the efficacy of vaccination. This seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge, and that the next targets will be "cholesterol and statin deniers" those who oppose a "high carb low fat diet" and possibly eventually those who enjoy meat and believe it to be health giving in a way that a vegan diet is not.

    I am concerned about the erosion of free speech. We have all been watching the Jordan Peterson debacle in the media where he is declared to be the "darling of the alt-right" and damned for it by people who have not read his works or watched his youtube presentations.

    A few weeks ago there was an assault on Zoe, Asseem Malhotra and Malcolm Kendrick accusing them of being "deniers" and comparing them with Dr Wakefield the man who led the campaign against MMR vaccines and whose research has been dismissed as containing falsified results. I do not know enough about Dr Wakefield's research or whether he had any evidence in support of his assertions. I do, however, believe that this is a planned attack on the rights of free speech and that we should all be worried, very worried indeed!!

    Today the web platforms take down vaccine related material, tomorrow they take down anti-statin material, next week they prevent forums like this or the keto-dudes from existing?
    Gilli - DLTBGYD but more importantly KCHO

  2. #2
    Super Member Mamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Village in rural Lancashire
    Posts
    12,357

    Default

    Well said Gilli. It’s a mine field.

  3. #3

    Default

    And how does free speech stand up against racial hatred and vilification Gilli? I really have a problem with that - do you allow that sort of free speech? How far do you go with the "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it" (or words to that effect!)
    Sue - the first "no thank you" is the easiest

  4. #4

    Default

    There are laws which deal with incitement to commit a criminal offence. Anything which falls short of that must surely be allowed to be said. It is almost certainly offensive and definitely discourteous to say some things which might be better left unsaid but each of us should be allowed to decide how far along the spectrum we want to go. The pain of saying the unforgiveable will therefore land on the shoulders of the speaker (writer) at whom right-thinking people will look askance.

    It was the unwillingness to name the racial identity of the grooming gangs responsible for the rape of teenage girls in Rotheram, Oxford, Newcastle, Aylsbury, Peterborough, Keighley and Bristol which enabled the perpetrators to operate under the radar through the 1990s and well into this century.

    I go the whole way Sue. I stand for the rights of freedom of speech and free debate and yes freedom to be offensive if you want to be. People who are gratuitously offensive will be called out on it by others.
    Gilli - DLTBGYD but more importantly KCHO

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks for your answer Gilli. My head knows that it is essential that we defend free speech but my heart breaks for those who are bullied or vilified - often anonymously on social media.
    Sue - the first "no thank you" is the easiest

  6. #6
    Super Member Mamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Village in rural Lancashire
    Posts
    12,357

    Default

    Social media has a lot to answer for. Maybe it’s the anonymity of being able to have a user name instead of a full name and address. Maybe people would be more careful about what they say if the world knew where they lived.

  7. #7

    Default

    I really share your concerns Gilli, I think that there is a real debate to be had about freedom of speech here. It is complicated and can see 2nd alto's point too. Where do we stand on FB not stamping down on people like Tommy Robinson although in the end they did.

    I am pro vaccine but don't think people should be stopped from discussing it online

  8. #8

    Default

    I agree. My personal policy is to not say anything online that I would not say to a person's face and to never regard someone disagreeing with my opinion as a personal attack on me. There is no doubt that people do take advantage of the anonymity to say things which they would not say in the pub or post office where they are known.
    Gilli - DLTBGYD but more importantly KCHO

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoffi coffi View Post
    I really share your concerns Gilli, I think that there is a real debate to be had about freedom of speech here. It is complicated and can see 2nd alto's point too. Where do we stand on FB not stamping down on people like Tommy Robinson although in the end they did.

    I am pro vaccine but don't think people should be stopped from discussing it online
    I never saw anything Tommy Robinson posted on facebook, but I am not particularly active on fb. If his postings were vile, which they may have been, surely it is better for him to show himself in his true colours and be identified as an extremist (or as an unpleasant man whose company you would not wish to spend time in) on the basis of what he says or posts rather than on the basis of what others say about him.
    Gilli - DLTBGYD but more importantly KCHO

  10. #10

    Default


    But one of the reasons for the recent outrage against prominent cholesterol deniers is that it is rather than being based on actual science it is pseudoscientific denialism.

    However, those who study the science and try to explain what common sense and recent science are actually showing, should have the right to explain their understanding of that recent science, even it if does enable the general public to see how they are being conned by the pharmaceutical and medical industries.

    We have an immune system that is based on The interplay between vitamin D and viral infections – Jan 2019 our natural ability to respond to infection and increase production of natural anti-microbial peptides and beta-defensins.


    But if we block the melvalonate pathway that leads to the production of Ubiquinoles (CoQ10 family) and then limit the production of cholesterol and cholesterol related metaboites 7 dehydrocholesterol and subsequently cholecalciferol (vitamin d3) we then totally disrupt the ability for the natural feedback loops to function as they evolved.

    This fairly recent paper looks in detail at what actually happens when you block a natural regulatory pathway by which the natural production of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines is switched on or switched off as required.

    It's explained in greater detail here
    The cholesterol biosynthesis pathway regulates IL-10 expression in human Th1 cells

    It should be simply common sense there will be adverse consequences if you prevent the body acting in a way that it evolved to function best.
    While it is good to see that the ADA are finally beginning to recognise people like Bernstein' who have been promoting natural control of Diabetes through diet (carbohydrate restriction) it's sad that the work of Dr. Joseph R. Kraft – Exposing the true Extent of Diabetes, was only brought to the public's attention just before his death.
    Last edited by TedHutchinson; 27th March 2019 at 11:23 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO