• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

hiding behind your computer.

having an opinion like that is fine, plastering it all over the internet where you know everyone who knows them will see it is different, i.e defamation.
 
I tend to think we live with a press that excels in defamation. And uses it for far more nefarious purposes than a bunch of Swedish schoolgirls. And so if the Sun can get away with it, I think the girls, however reprehensibly, ought to be allowed to too.
 
fair point but I suppose what you can get away with comes down to wether you are the prime ministers best mate etc....I would say 'these days' but nothings changed has it.
 
adam west said:
i agree but what annoys me is when peoples bad tastes and they are in all fairness are reported and they get prosecuted or what have you. i think some girl made a joke when that woolwich thing happened, and got in shit. were a country that used to be open to all that i mean its just words from an idiot on the internet
Click to expand...

setting an example so people are too terrified to communicate and share ideas without fear of retribution. DON'T GIVE IN TO TERRORISTS!
 
Ceres said:
setting an example so people are too terrified to communicate and share ideas without fear of retribution. DON'T GIVE IN TO TERRORISTS!
Click to expand...

Too true. I'm still not over the whole Danish Mohammed cartoons
 
adam west said:
kind of an experiment by the government perhaps. i guess they wanted social media on a global scale for information and all that but the other side is people getting their somtimes idiotic ramblings out to a wide audience that gets blown out of proportion and we get perhaps less skewed info on realtime events such as in syria etc
Click to expand...

Is that first bit true or did social media rise out of the Internet DESPITE the wishes of the powers that be? Let's not forget, Vodafone backed the Egypt government (then pretended it did the opposite) and twatter and FuckBook are both heavily policed when necessary (like after riots).

If anything I reckon social media is a little out of control to what the authorities are truly comfortable with.
 
dan88 said:
Too true. I'm still not over the whole Danish Mohammed cartoons
Click to expand...

printing obviously inflammatory provocative religious slurs in a national newspaper is not 'people communicating and sharing ideas', like what happened in Turkey recently, or any other number of constructive things people can do with social media.
 
well it just about revolutionised turkey. Until they locked everyone up by monitoring their communications.
 
One Thousand Words said:
How am I ment to find the slutty girls now? :(
Click to expand...

6TXu9Rq.jpg
 
What's the equivalent words for men? I'm sure there's some get banded about just as wildly...yeah, sure there is....
 
Ceres said:
printing obviously inflammatory provocative religious slurs in a national newspaper is not 'people communicating and sharing ideas', like what happened in Turkey recently, or any other number of constructive things people can do with social media.
Click to expand...

Nope, bring honest I hadn't really read Adams comment, nor the thread. However my point being country's such as the uk, the us, and undoubtedly many others banned them for fear of a backlash. They were blackmailed in other words. Free speech > terrorism.
 
Freedom of speech is one thing. Using the Internet as an avenue for bullying is another. And it seems these 2 naughty schoolgirls trounced all over that line of virtuousness.

Though, I feel the fines are exorbitant for a couple of schoolgirls who didnt know any better.Im sure a slap on the wrist and a lesson on cyber bullying would have done the trick.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top