Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
he's having a fucking laugh isn't he?
i'm sure the next time there's a nut on the loose and the Sun start publishing potentially inflamatory articles about the fugative's small cock, dave will step in. wait...no...isn't the sun...it's owned by...oh....oh never mind.
I heard it this morning on PMQs. The MP for Moat's constituency said it was disrespectful to his victims and D-Cam didn't disagree. I think he said he'd look into it or something equally non-committal.
on the news I just hear on 6music they gave a very strong impression that head pledged to confront Facebook on the issue
Which he obviously won't, but he didn't say he wouldn't so I suppose that could give the story legs.
how foolish can you be?
if facebook started banning offensive groups, it would start a domino effect of banning many groups destroying freedom of speech. Cameron will probably look at this for the next 2 weeks ignoring the face that hes about to fuck the country over
It's mostly 90 minutes of people asking the most banal questions imaginable
Speaking during Prime Minister's Question Time, Mr Cameron said: "It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story.
"I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man.
"There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community.
"There should be no sympathy for him."
That's compassionate Conservatism. Right there. Wonder if his views extend to Derrick Bird as well... who also seemed to experience a similar small, localised wave of sympathy (flowers, funeral attendance etc.) after killing 6 times as many people.
not least because of the hypocrisy of the Tories civil liberties agenda until someone uses free speech to make "anti-police statements" or express sympathy with someone they don't think should be sympathised with.
and then being told what to feel and think by david cameron!!!
and the fact that the whole thing smacks of Major's gaffe about condemning more and understanding less and all the failings that go with that and having a humane criminal justice system.
grah popularism and lack of thought at its very worst.
Blair did this too didn't he?
Didn't he say something like 'It's OBSCENE for people to think that British Forces in the Middle East had any bearing on the UK being targeted on 7/7'
anyway, latest 6music bulletin says that Cameron will make an OFFICIAL approach to Facebook about the Raoul Moat sympathy group
to believe he's some sort of moral compass and condemn people for their thoughts and feelings but it's not just the blue team - all of them that get into No10 just take it like being House Captain at Eton or something and expect everyone to rah rah rah along with them
...to censor people's sympathy. Telling people what they can and can't feel sympathy with.
As much as his actions were horrendous, I can sympathise to a certain extent with anyone who has a complete psychotic breakdown of the sort which Mr. Moat appears to have suffered from. He may have been a nasty piece of work, but at the end of the day he was a man who cracked...
I wouldn't put a page up on facebook about it, sure, but... you can't tell people who to feel sympathy for and who not. Totally irresponsible of Cameron this.
Just saying it's not only a Tory thing - it seems more endemic of being given authority - though I'll admit the Tories are famous for it
And it is these kinds of values that are entrenched within conservativism. Conservatism not being a trait, any more, which is politically exclusive to the Tories.
some nobody told what to say/ask to make Dave look cool and funny.
However, in any situations ilke this, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. You could just inmagine the headlines today if he had declined to comdemn the 'tributes' (which many people see as glorification of murder) and the "outrage" you'd see from the families and friends of the victims. Of course, the best thing to say in these situations is very little, and to allude to the fact that we should all try to put ourselves into the shoes of people that we are quick to condemn.
As an aside, what a thoroughly decent chap the policemen seems to be (the one who got shot in the face.)
The 'minimal reply, let it all die down' tactic is probably wisest and most sensible for Dave, considering the party he represents. Fair enough.
But if this story grows legs, then Mr Clegg is probably the man who needs to have the stones to stand up for what would supposedly be the beliefs of his party.
Would that happen? No idea, but we haven't gotten very far into the reign of the coalition government before some glaring differences between the two parties have been thrown up. This one will probably be gone by this time next week, but I've no doubt that bigger wedges will crop up, and it'll be interesting to see how they handle them.
I would imagine Clegg isn't too thrilled by what he said but, at the end of the day, you'd hope he wouldn't take Big Dave down over a what is essentially a lot of hot air over a fucking facebook page...
As said, hypocrisy of free-speech, fascism, non-understanding yadada.
rights of the victims and their families to not be caused further distress after such a serious crime has gotta outweigh the rights of idiots free speech to post rubbish on facebook. I really don't see how it could cause an erosion of free speech in other areas
how can you not see a problem with this?
somethings are not allowed, hate crime etc, I kinda think this should fall in with that because it is harmful to the victims. I don't see how it could creep into other areas because the justification is only there when such serious crimes have been committed
because of the victims an their families?
Why should victims and their families be allowed to set the boundaries of discourse for the world's events?
Also, there are other problems with this
1) A PM should not be telling people how to think
2) A PM should be wise enough to appreciate that certain things are beyond his control
3) A PM should be wise enough to play down a potentially ugly situation and leave it in the hands of the proper authorities
4) A PM should be wise enough to realise that his is only giving the Facebook page MORE publicity
5) A PM should be wise enough to realise that if he demands Facebook remove the page and they say 'No' he ends up looking like a total fucking tool.
there are other things too, such as his relationship with his coalition partners and with that proportion of the electorate that may feel even the tiniest bit of sympathy for Raoul Moat
it's a monumental cock up
If he SUCCEEDS in getting Facebook to remove the page then that opens the door for even worse things
in the grand scheme of things. Most see this as a minor issue, and the great majority of the population would agree that Facebook pages celebrating the 'heroism' of Moat is fairly grotesque given the crimes he committed.
I think Cameron holds the cards here. Facebook are between a rock and a hard place. Remove the page and set a precedent for future instances? Or maintain the page in poor taste against popular opinion?
was supposed to place above mine?
how about you answer some of the points I raised and tell me why they're inconsequential
re: your other comments in this thread, also note that I criticised Tony Blair for a similarly unguarded 'thought police' style declaration over 7/7
and I'll reiterate in case you didn't get it earlier (as it would seem) that this thread is NOT about Raoul Moat, it is about a political response to what is a Police matter
but presumable he invoked 7/7 to justify his foreign policy which is completely different uncomparable situation to this
2)What I mean is that unless the website in question is breaking any law there is no organ that has jurisdiction over it, least of all the office of Prime Minister ... which leads to ...
3)If the website in question IS breaking the law then it is a police matter
5) Radio 4 reported this morning that Number 10 contacted Facebook and asked them to take the page down, therefore per 2) and 3) overstepping its jurisdiction AND potentially opening up the Government for embarrassment/ to get further embroiled in what is quite frankly a trivial matter
As I've said below;
Cameron's exact quote was "There should be no sympathy for him."
which is fine if those are his private thoughts
but he is in a position of office that ought to be able to draw the line between private thought and public statement
Finally, your comment about the 'Daily Mail idiots' is pertinent because if, as is suggested in this case, removing morally dubious comments from the internet is going to be something undertaken by this Government - well the idea is simply absurd.
isn't that clear?
I haven't overreacted, my point is that Cameron has overreacted
"WHy should he draw the line between private view and public statement? " because his position of office demands it
He could easily massively condemn the idiots while at the same time defending their right to idiocy
also "There should be no sympathy for him." - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that his victims might feel sympathy for him, that that sympathy might help them better get over the crimes perpetrated against them (as was a feature of getting bombing victims to sit and talk to IRA members during the ..err.. 'troubles') - who the fuck is David Cameron (or any politician) to put themselves in the way of that complex emotional relationship?
But you've thrown up something interesting
Do you think the role of a Prime Minister is to serve the people or to lead the people?
to make it important. Pretty sure he just said it once.
'I'm gonna follow this up' ie there's more to come in this story (potentially)
instead of 'It's dreadful but it's not my position to intervene and there's more important things to fix' ie end of discussion
that's the crux
but I'm not convinced it's beyond his purview to contact Facebook.
but squaring up to an American company/massive website over something like this is pretty thoughtless and incompetent
or maybe he wants to string it out an get in amongst the trending topics
"squaring up" - ???
"thoughtless and incompetent" - ???
He's scoring points with certain people here, there's no doubt about it. Given how some people will undoubtedly feel about ken clarke's AH HATE PRISON declarations this is hardly surprising. He knows what he's doing. There's been no notable media furore about it today - broadsheet or tabloid. Because it's just not a big deal at all. I'm surprised so many people have a strong opinion about this.
I cant imagine any situation where someone has killed someone and shot the face off someone else should be celebrated, so if that is the boundary of discourse I am comfortable with that, any other aspect is fine, debate peoples innocence, talk about political factors that leads to things,all fine. But acknowledging someone did these crimes and celebrating them for it is wrong. You'd think facebook would have a policy for this kind of thing anyway and wouldnt need to be asked.
of controversy appears to be 'hold our hands up and abdicate responsibility for anything'.
in London the organisation of the victims and their families petitioned for the painting to be banned and generally caused a lot of bother for the same reasons as this whole Raoul Moat thing
if the Facebook page isn't breaking any laws then it can't be touched, simple as, really
id have sided with the gallery, because like I said actively celebrating is where i'd draw the line
the final say on this, I mean he was Moaty's mate like, know wha I mean, fog on the tyne n all tha.
cos I can't see what you're on about
point me to a quote
this thread is about a Political cock up in response to what he did
is that his mourning shouldn't be remotley recognized anyway for what he's done. Where's the 30,000+ people mourning the people he shot? It's just plain insnae. Yes, of course, everyone entitilted to their opinion, but how the FUCK can we live in a country where THAT opinion can even seem morally optionable?
i suppose pandering to reactionary morons has done well for them so far
if it annoys the kind of people who would set up or join this facebook group and also annoy the kind of people who moan about aforementioned pond life having their freedom of speech taken away then I'm probably all for it. Probably.
Predominantly the comments seem to be anti Moat or gibberish from fake profiles. My favourite comment being "Ecstasy is good".
Profound words there from 'Daniel 'Griz' Harries'.
you'd know all about ridiculous hyperbole...
"You've really embarassed yourself"
"That's why 6 Music should be shut down. "
"Does anybody need helping up?"
Come off it. This is all ridiculous hyperbole because Anschul/Charlie Brooker/"A lot of people in this thread [who] seem to have fallen over eachother to prove how right on they are" said it.
but I get the feeling much of the discussion about freedom of speech in this thread is misleading. Freedom of speech has various qualifications, including the 'harm principle' (which this page could legitimiately be argued to contravene) and is something quite different to freedom of thought (ie people are NOT being told they can't symapthise with Moat, rather that publically doing sois crass and insensitive).
I think personally I'd elect to leave it up to avoid some dodgy ground, but that people are right to criticise it.
and to take that to the stage where Number 10 contacts Facebook and requests them to take the page down - not politically expedient
is that I think the line 'there should be no sympathy for him' is a fine one to employ publically, too. I think it's reasonably clear that's a party line, rather than a political edict we're all meant to follow.
I'm not sure what it is Cameron could reasonably be expected to do under these circumstances and I'm very confident that a PM of any political persuasion would act in a similar way. For me, it's key that Number 10 have requested the page be removed, rather than demand so.
I think labelling Cameron's actions here as an affront to freedom of speech/expression/thought is hyperbolic, and this certainly isn't the precipice to a slippery slope. That precipice maay well exist, but not here.
for instance if Cameron had followed the line 'There should be no sympathy for him.' with some kind of indication that the thoughts and feelings of the general public are beyond his remit and that he has no power to intervene and in any case, as ugly as these sentiments are, we live in a society where people are free to express themselves how they see fit - however reprehensible that might be - then he would have done a sterling job.
but he followed it up with contacting the website and asking them to take down the page, which both indicates a desire for censorship (however small) and creates a politically tricky situation (a rather foolish one)
All the way through this thread I have not once said anything like I'm outraged at his actions - I'm not. I just think they're dodgy and foolish, and hint at something quite disagreeable in his own opinions of himself as a leader.
You've always seemed an amiable and reasonable chap, so I don't imagine you're merely pursuing an anti-Cameron election here. I'm hardly Dave's biggest fan myself.
But yes, it seems we fundamentally disagree politically here. I'm not sure it's practical or possible for Cameron to have handled the questions with the caveats you've suggested and still retained any sincerity (which is vital in these emotionally-charged circumstances), and I also don't see that a desire for small, very selective censorship (although I disagree that is necessarily what Cameron wants here) is at odds with a broader support for free speech. In fact, I'd say the various clauses in freedom of speech, both legally and intellectually, readily allow for such selections on occassion.
there was an incident in Sweden where a cartoonist and newspaper published a satire of the Prophet Mohammed ... you can imagine the reaction
and Swedish Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt simply refused to intervene, repeatedly emphasising that it was not the job of the Prime Minister to censor what is in the public domain, that he had his private thoughts on the matter but they had no right to be stated through his Public Office
oh well, horses for courses
Perhaps a better way, but definitely a different way.
My uncle lives in Stockholm. Maybe I'll go visit him and do something controversial.
Alex Cole: 'i bet if an immigrant did what he did they'd bloody get benefits not shot. bloody bastards. r.i.p raoul'
you couldn't make this stuff up. absolute gold.
These people live among us. That frightens me a little bit.
If it wasn't a Tory saying this then many of you wouldn't give two shits. I'm not a Tory, so please bare that in mind.
Freedom of speech arguments are a bit ridiculous - racism isn't tolerated. Is that an erosion of free speech?
technically, Cameron shouldn't have to get involved, because apparently numerous comments on the page are encouraging violence towards police, which comes under Facebook's incitement to violence rules, and thus anyone who reports the page should get the job done
Regardless of what anyone in the UK thinks, be they the PM or some high street voxpop, facebook is an American site, presumably with american servers (or at least, non-UK ones), so there's next to nothing that facebook are obliged to do.
The UK could stoke up the national firewall and block the page, China style. But that simply isn't going to happen. Or is it? Australia seem to be blazing a trail on that front in their rush to catch up with China and play internet nanny, so why not the UK?
Ultimately this isn't a facebook issue (although they may act 'out of courtesy'). It is most definitely a fundamental free speech/hate speech/censorship issue. To put a facebook group like this behind a UK firewall would be to use a JCB to crack a rotten walnut.
Not that I would know. Of course.
I do think it needs to be moderated, although I disagree that the page should be removed.
Well I'm pretty surprised about that. I thought the whole point of the "report" button was to prevent racist etc stuff.
I don't know the ins and outs (clearly) but from what I can see it just isn't monitored very well?!
just to see what would happen more than anything else. i checked a couple of hours later, page was gone.
and they can choose to apply them or not. And if they don't, and something needs investigating, it will be done by the US or UK police. The UK police can make requests, but the enforcement from the UK will ultimately have to come in the form of a China-atyle firewall block because it's a US site that we have no direct control over. Facebook may well, of course, decide to act more forcefully with regard to this group than they do with other incendiary groups. If they do, it'll be because for PR reasons, not because of UK legality.
I've made one comment about firewalls and the police and the US government, in order to put this whole thing in context and point out how far we are from anything actually happening.
"None of this is going to happen."
How incredibly perceptive. I've agreed that this point is likely to be the case, elsewhere in the thread.
is that there's been absolutely no call made by anyone (a few nutjobs on the internet/street aside) for that to be done. It's slightly insane you'd see things in such drastic terms.
Number 10 has requested (requested being the key word) that a page which many find insensitive, crass and deeply upsetting be removed. Is it one person's right to refuse somebody the opportunity to express themselves? No, a few exceptions aside. Is it one person's right to request that another person exercises restraint and consideration when expressing their opinion on a highly sensitive issue? Certainly.
This may well develop into a debate on the fundamentals of free speech, but until the government does or says something much more drastic than they have (which is unlikely for all the reasons people have stated), it's really, really not. It's about people wanting to but the boot into Cameron for something trivial, when really they should take him to task on education, housing, healthcare etc.
but as I posted above;
well the point is that Cameron took the path of
he would be branded "insensitive Tory! You wouldn't get that blase attitude from a caring leftie!".
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
I would like to stress again, I consider myself a-political.
that's just what you want to believe
It would be the same if it were any Prime Minister of any party
On that basis, posting in here and saying 'if he did that he would be branded "insensitive Tory! You wouldn't get that blase attitude from a caring leftie!".' means you're not really /that/ apoloitical.
I was just pointing out the parameters of what can be done IF it blows up and becomes a bigger issue than it is. And I've agreed that Dave hasn't really done anything particularly inflammatory or contrary to what you'd reasonably expect him to do as PM and leader of the Tory party.
Whatever happened to that gary glitter one?
there is really two major issues here:
the freedom of speech/thought one which has been gone over extensively, but I will briefly reiterate:
The head of a national government should not be putting pressure on a website to remove content because he finds it distasteful. If he believes there is a legal ground for removing content, then this should be dealt with through legal channels. Sure, he may wish to make a private complaint, but to make these comments very much as Prime Minister, in Prime Minister's Questions is problematic.
Nor should the Prime Minister be telling people how to think or feel. Why shouldn't people feel sympathy for Moat, particularly his friends and family, when more and more news is coming out every day that Moat was let down by a whole raft of institutions when he was clearly a very very troubled man. There is nothing admirable in what he is done, but to be told I should see him solely as a hardened criminal and not as a tragedy in his own right, I find offensive. To recognise that doing bad things is sometimes more than just being "callous" is something that Cameron should be striving to do more himself if he is a Christian like he claims.
The other issue though is what it means for the government's potentially progressive prison policy if Cameron is spouting this sort of thing about criminals. If the leader of the party isn't willing to have some sort of sympathy or understanding for criminals, then it doesn't bode well for what could be very positive reforms in the prison system as far as rehabilitation, reintergration and opportunities for prisoners goes (and before anyone says - well Moat should have spent his life in prison after this - these sort of policies include giving people life chances even if the spend their whole lives in prison as well as trying to reintegrate them into society).
""There should be sympathy for his victims and the havoc he wreaked in that community.
"There should be no sympathy for him.""
are much closer together in meaning than "may" id to either.
Must: implies that an outcome is a requirement
Should: implies that an outcome is encouraged or desirable
May: implies that an outcome is an option, but entirely optional
Exactly how low do you wanna drag this debate?
and feelings though, not his own. he's saying if you feel sympathy then you're wrong.
tbh though, i think it's a mountain out of a molehill too - way more important things going on.
it sets a worrying precedent that the Prime Minister at least publicly seems to be at odds with the moral imperative and reasoning behind Clarke's proposed prison reforms? If this is what he's like about a troubled man who was failed by probation and prison counselling services, what's his attitude going to be like towards a more unequivocally "callous" criminal, since denying criminals sympathy seems to also point in the direction of harsher punishment rather than the proposed ideas for more opportunities for education, rehabilitation, counselling and so on. If callous people don't deserve our sympathy does that also include any sort of sympathetic or holistic treatment in prison?
Obviously he hasn't said that and all this remains to be seen, but I find his attitude concerning in that respect.
'eton tory is soulless right wing reactionary'
this is not a surprise. i don't understand how everyone keeps being surprised that the tory party is implementing the policies and ideologies that the tory party has always stood for. the nhs was a surprise in that they can actually get away with it, with almost no dissent, but not that they'd have wanted to do it in the first place. i thought everyone knew these things? similarly, Ken Clarke's prison reforms, though i only have the most basic awareness, seem if anything geared towards cutting costs. i'm sure that's far more the motivating factor than any compassion. compassion, sympathy, empathy of any sort - these are alien concepts to the party who are now are government. people who are inclined towards their ideology and policies lack these traits. it's in their genes (it really is, there's so much increasing evidence that people's political leanings are massively influenced by genetics).
short version: why did you think he wouldn't be a cunt?
the thing that I find so cheering about Ken Clarke's prison reforms is he has been a SERIOUS advocate of prison reform for his whole career and his attitude towards it is quite different from lots of his party. if he isn't interfered with too much and budgets aren't cut, it could be one of the few positive things this government does (along with repeal of laws restricting civil liberties)
"i don't feel sympathy for him"
the fact that he is saying this as leader of the country in his weekly showcase for being leader of the country means that he is basically establishing a moral standard that people "should" conform to, not that they "can" conform to "if they want to". Add that to the fact he is putting pressure on facebook...
In your hurry to disagree at all costs, you've really missed the entire semantic point of that "should". The issue is not that he is forcing anyone to feel anything; the issue is that he is telling people how they "should" feel. And it's clear that lots of people find being lectured on morality by a politician is inappropriate and distaseful.
and of the freedom of people to make their own moral decisions.
decrying a prime minister's interference with freedom of speech is not the same as suggesting we are walking into a police state. that's a stupid thing to think and i obviously didn't say it. you can be angry at freedom of speech issues on their own terms.
the only basis people have for any argument Cameron is undermining freedom of speech?
Have these people ever used words in actual conversations and contexts before?
the Prime Minister's office doing this is more than a concerned individual complaining, it is tantamount to political pressure since with all this "should" malarkey AND contacting facebook he is appointing himself as a sort of guardian of the nation's morality. if there is something that violates laws against hate crime then a complaint should be made to the police, it's not the Prime Minister's job to put pressure on websites to remove legal but distasteful material because he finds it distasteful and thinks that the British public "should" find it distasteful.
and telling people what that is, isn't the same as telling people who they should feel sympathy for and why?
also, because that didn't happen yesterday and this is a news issue?
It really, really is.
Appointed himself as some sort of guardian of the nation's morality? But submitting a complaint against a Facebook page that many members of his government had, on the advice of their constituents, objected to as insensitive and crass? What political pressure can the British PM apply to an independent and US-based organisation that is already open to complaints regarding some of it's user-generated content?
I can almost accept the argument some have made that Cameron has acted foolishly, but only because he should have had the foresight to realise that people would wet the bed about him asking (ASKING, not demanding) that a webpage that had upset a great deal of people (ie, an entirely normal request).
I can't get caught up with you in a discussion about his use of the word 'should', because it would be ridiculous. If you've ever had a conversation with another person, you'll know just how easy it is to innocuously use a certain word when perhaps another, more specific word would have seen you better survive a needless dissection. Whether or not he should have said anything, it's clearly an opinion and not an edict.
that given the question he was asked and the pressure he was put under, I thought Cameron's words and actions came across largely as conciliatory, and not nearly as aggressive or loaded as other people seem to think.
I would wager more people in the country would prefer to see this sort of thing taken down than have it remain, and therefore surely he's not a champion of anything other than majority consensus. Which would gel well with democratic thinking in general.
except in this: it's about enshrining the right of people who have minority, unorthodox or oppositional views to express them without the majority telling them that they can't.
when people say: "they should be shut up because it's the will of the majority" that's precisely when freedom of speech is being attacked.
to repeat Voltaire's horrifically overquoted but still extremely useful bon-mots: "I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it." And though maybe I wouldn't *die*, the freedom to say ANYTHING, even if it is distasteful is the cornerstone of democratic thinking. The majority silencing others doesn't gel with "democratic thinking in general" ever. Which is precisely why it was chosen at the First Amendment in the American constitution
and seemingly willfully, to back up your own argument.
What I said regarding Cameron acting under pressure from his government and their constituents was a direct response to your accusation he had 'appointed' himself as a moral guardian. NOT that he hadn't broken one of tbe tenets of freedom of speech.
The fact that he hasn't made any real attack against that concept is evidenced through entirely different means.
i accept that maybe a few people here, myself included have got too incensed at Cameron's approach of Facebook, but I still think it is inappropriate for a national government to put pressure on a website to remove content because the leader of that government and some of its members think it is distasteful. And obviously any company is going to pay more attention to a complaint lodged by a head of government than they are to Outraged, of Tunbridge Wells or whatever. What's more, it seems that the complaint was lodged through the Prime Minister's Office, and when it comes to issues of morality and freedom of speech I find the Prime Minister's mandate to speak on behalf of the whole nation frustrating and anger inducing when there are clearly compelling reasons to hold different opinions about Moat and about the need to allow open dialogue about even more "trivial" things like this on the internet. I don't think it's an appropriate or sensible way to act, even though he might have a certain "right" to do it.
As for the issue of "should": we are quick to pull up any politician for an inopportune choice of words, and the business of politics is inseparably bound up with choices of language. This was said not as a throwaway comment that he hadn't thought about, but during Prime Minister's Questions which is a massively stage managed and choreographed performance piece. This isn't the same as a pulling someone up for something they said in conversation: it's about pulling a politician up for something they said that they knew was being broadcast on national television and subject to lots of media scrutiny. I have no doubt whatsoever that that word "should" was chosen deliberately and feel completely justified in saying that it smacks of paternalism and moral guardianship.
so I still think it amounts to misdirection.
You keep using the word 'pressure'. I think I'd be inclined to agree with you if I felt Cameron was using his position to exert real, tangible pressure on Facebook. The crux of this, for me, is that it's reasonably clear he's not exerted political pressure. He's made a request that the page be removed, and has given a reasoned explanation for that request.
I'm also not necessarily saying the word 'should' wasn't chosen deliberately. I'm saying that words are duplicitous little beings that can't (or shouldn't ... ) always be taken to mean their dictionary definiton. Many a time will someone use the word 'should' when they aren't really ordering them to do something or think a certain way. I certainly didn't get the impression that Cameron was ordering, or even encouraging, me to think a certain way.
but the prime minister actively trying, through his office, to interfere with freedom of expression on a very heavily trafficked website is problematic. i don't think it would be acceptable if the Prime Minister pressured a newspaper to retract an article that he thought that people should find morally contemptible: he would not succeed but it would rightly be received with outrage. I don't see why it should be any different if it's one of the most heavily used websites in the world being pressured instead.
I didn't follow the story very closely, but I guess the Mail printed something about politicians meddling with the freedom of the press? Outrage, and for once, justified outrage.
Which isn't to say that somebody writing an homophobic article, or calling Raoul Moat a legend are doing the right thing, but in a democratic society they have a right to say that and the government shouldn't be telling them they can or they can't.
the PM on the other hand has every right to persuade Facebook round to his "way of thinking" or tell them what he thinks best - even just by suggesting that for PR reasons they shut it down.
If I wanted to I could buy up some tv airtime and show obscenties and the most offensive things imaginable (after the watershed of course). Yeah I would be stopped in my tracks. Private companies and even PUBLIC organisations don't have the duty to facilitate this unbridled "freedom of speech."
There would be NO persecution in this case, or infringements of rights, even if the group is deleted. It's as simple as that.
but Facebook do seem to be at pains to stress their reluctance to censor; that Cameron is exerting pressure on a company that prides itself on (or even has part of its business model built on) facilitating freedom of speech, in his office as Prime Minister still has implications for where and when people can and should be able to express themselves freely even if that isn't rested on a legal principle.
We're not having a conversation about what David Cameron and Facebook are allowed to do within the law, are we?
"exerting pressure on a company that prides itself on (or even has part of its business model built on) facilitating freedom of speech" - in sofaras they don't like bothering to interfere with users and content (I guess apart from when they're effectively selling your details to advertisers). There aren't too many sanctions DC can put on them realistically. They still have complete choice in the matter.
To repeat myself: people are not being stopped from expressing themselves here.
You're like a dog chasing his tail.
We'd be saying the same if it were a Labour PM. And if it were a LibDem PM (stop laughing at the back) we'd probably be harsher, cos this is prime LibDem territory, as has already been pointed ^there.
according to the cast iron assurances of the Radio 2 news bulletin I just heard.
sol campbell wants facebook...
but is the prime minister allowed/supposed to call someone a 'callous murderer' when they haven't been convicted of murder?
Had he lived he would have been charged with and tried for murder. He may have tried to plead a partial defence to murder and so technically not have been a "murderer" in a strictly legal sense, but it's just a what-if like so many other things.
There's no doubt it was him - they had confessions and witnessness. If there was some doubt about it being him who killed those people then yeah, it would be really silly and potentially defamtory for Cameron to say that.
weird bump lol
nm about slander then.
Never have I seen such an ignorance of youth culture than this.
It's fucking outragious. People aren't supporting Moat, he's a fucking MEME. That's all. I am disappoint.
All your base are belong to Gazz'a chicken.
It's a "funny" thing to do. Is it a bit sick / in bad taste? Yes, but that's the facts. It's not fucking suuport. Dickheads.