I think the most interesting - and worrying - thing here is that you have stated several times that you never read the thread and yet you have also said several times that you are glad it was removed. It does not matter what the thread actually said (although it is fascinating that in its absence, several people have assumed it said something it didn't). I didn't like the thread but what I do and do not like is not relevant and, no, your position and mine are not the same; I actually read the thread.
Further, I have NEVER advocated free speech with no boundaries. The debate is about where those boundaries are drawn. I have many times stated that there are laws setting limits to free speech and I would never advocate breaking those laws. However, if something is not breaking the law (and Phil has, by his silence in response to my earlier point agreed that no law was broken here) then you are on very dangerous territory if you start banning things because you don't like them. These are the roots of totalitarianism. For example, some people find the music of Wagner distasteful; some find the paintings of Dali distasteful; some find the Daily Mail distasteful; the Chinese find Facebook distasteful - where do you draw the line?
And a final word to those who want this discussion to stop because they find the topic in the original thread one not suitable for discussion here: I agree with your unease and disgust in relation to that topic but this thread is not about that - it is about whether things (anything) should or should not be banned in a free society. We could continue to debate that without any further reference to the original thread.
This and you are getting very tiresome, so I shall now have one last go at trying to explain to you what actually happened. This is the sequence:
A member stated that he did not find anything offensive in the thread.
Based on the reports of the thread that I'd read I replied:
'Not overtly offensive? Accusing a grieving couple, without any evidence whatsoever, of being responsible for the death of their six-year-old child isn't offensive? I missed the thread but I'm almost glad I did as my reaction to the idiots in question would no doubt have got me banned forever.'
Now as this was a debate on free speech, it is actually irrelevant as to whether the claims by Phil and others are true. I could have posted a purely hypothetical question using the same terms and most people would have been able to work that out.
The poster to whom I replied didn't choose to challenge my view but, some time later, you came along and said this about me:
'You missed the thread but you are sure of your opinion of it - well done. In fact, the thread contained NO accusations against the parents (up to the last post I was able to access). What it contained were several anti-police comments. But, despite your nonsensical views about something you didn't see, I will not be asking for your post to be removed.'
Now on several occasions I have told you that I based my opinion on statements by other people who had read the thread, including Phil, who wrote, and I'll put it in bold because, up to now, it's as though you deny its existence.
Phil wrote:
I understand your position on free speech, however I can not even start to understand how you can even connect this deletion with free speech. A family tragically lost their young Daughter and an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.
Have you understood it? He said: A family tragically lost their young Daughter and
an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.
I have explained and explained how I came to form a view but it's like talking to brick wall. You squirm and obfuscate and refuse to accept the reality of the situation and continually deride me for having the gall to form an opinion based on the statements of others, including the owner of the site.
So I will finish by asking you a some simple questions.
1.Have you never formed an opinion based on facts told to you by a third party?
2. Did Phil lie when he said: ...an article was published on this website that incorrectly implied that they had murdered their beloved child.
3. Was it wrong of me to take his statement as true, or should I have immediately suspected that he was lying?
4. Is it possible that, in between your last viewing of the thread and it being removed, that a post or posts could have been submitted and missed by you?
As far as I am concerned there is only one reason why you accused me of posting nonsense and having the temerity to comment on a thread that I actually hadn't read, and it's because of an antipathy to me from previous spats, and that antipathy caused you to hit the keyboard without putting your brain in gear. Now, as has already been said, you're moving the goal posts yet again.
Any chance of a straight answer to my questions?
What I meant was that it was the media that cynically headlined the word murder, when the actual content of the article was much more measured. Seems to happen a lot these days!
