Press Gazette calls on journalists to boycott Evans Cycles over Daily Mail boycott

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

But nobody is obliged to listen to them or to give them a platform. If they want a platform, let them provide their own, but don't expect me to listen to them.

I agree.  And of course, any business is free to decide who they do and do not advertise with, whatever the reason.  What does not sit comfortably with me here is that a corporation has stated that their thinking is based on a desire to see certain elements of the free press close down, and not because the Mail vilifies cyclists and Evans are a cycling retailer, but becase they don't like its politics.  The Sun/Mail/Express are rags, but if this is successful, my worry is that it doesn't stop there.

But the free press can't play nice, and are incapable of self-policing. Nice idea, but in reality it's Dacres, Murdochs, MacKenzies and Rebekkkahhhhs to the fore.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

But nobody is obliged to listen to them or to give them a platform. If they want a platform, let them provide their own, but don't expect me to listen to them.

I agree.  And of course, any business is free to decide who they do and do not advertise with, whatever the reason.  What does not sit comfortably with me here is that a corporation has stated that their thinking is based on a desire to see certain elements of the free press close down, and not because the Mail vilifies cyclists and Evans are a cycling retailer, but becase they don't like its politics.  The Sun/Mail/Express are rags, but if this is successful, my worry is that it doesn't stop there.

But the free press can't play nice, and are incapable of self-policing. Nice idea, but in reality it's Dacres, Murdochs, MacKenzies and Rebekkkahhhhs to the fore.

if the authorities define 'nice' and expect the press to play nice, then the press isn't free.

the constant threat from the authorities is 'if you don't police yourselves, we will do it for you'. That's not freedom, and I support anyone who shows the authorities the finger on this one, even when I despise their views and everything they stand for, as I despise Dacre and his ilk.

that doesn't mean they're free to print lies and to behave any way they like in pursuit of a story. They are bound by the same restrictions as the rest of us who live in a society.

The fundamental principles, in my view, are best expressed in the French declaration of the rights of Man, namely that "freedom consists in being able to do everything that does not harm others, and that the exercise of your natural rights has no other limits than those which assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits may be determined only by the law.".

Plenty of room for disagreement about what constitutues harm, but within a very clear boundary of equal freedom and rights.

These fine words didn't stop the French government from having a long and shameful history of press censorship.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

But nobody is obliged to listen to them or to give them a platform. If they want a platform, let them provide their own, but don't expect me to listen to them.

I agree.  And of course, any business is free to decide who they do and do not advertise with, whatever the reason.  What does not sit comfortably with me here is that a corporation has stated that their thinking is based on a desire to see certain elements of the free press close down, and not because the Mail vilifies cyclists and Evans are a cycling retailer, but becase they don't like its politics.  The Sun/Mail/Express are rags, but if this is successful, my worry is that it doesn't stop there.

But the free press can't play nice, and are incapable of self-policing. Nice idea, but in reality it's Dacres, Murdochs, MacKenzies and Rebekkkahhhhs to the fore.

if the authorities define 'nice' and expect the press to play nice, then the press isn't free.

the constant threat from the authorities is 'if you don't police yourselves, we will do it for you'. That's not freedom, and I support anyone who shows the authorities the finger on this one, even when I despise their views and everything they stand for, as I despise Dacre and his ilk.

that doesn't mean they're free to print lies and to behave any way they like in pursuit of a story. They are bound by the same restrictions as the rest of us who live in a society.

The fundamental principles, in my view, are best expressed in the French declaration of the rights of Man, namely that "freedom consists in being able to do everything that does not harm others, and that the exercise of your natural rights has no other limits than those which assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits may be determined only by the law.".

Plenty of room for disagreement about what constitutues harm, but within a very clear boundary of equal freedom and rights.

These fine words didn't stop the French government from having a long and shameful history of press censorship.

But with freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, if the press can't be responsible for peoducing hate speech they are responsible for any restrictions placed on them.  The fact that these redtops produce vile falsehoods and do everything they can to prevent rebuttals which is the opposite of free speech. In this case Evans have the right to stop advertising with these redtops and Dominic Ponsford has the right not to buy Evan's products, it's called freedom of choice.

Gus T wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

But nobody is obliged to listen to them or to give them a platform. If they want a platform, let them provide their own, but don't expect me to listen to them.

I agree.  And of course, any business is free to decide who they do and do not advertise with, whatever the reason.  What does not sit comfortably with me here is that a corporation has stated that their thinking is based on a desire to see certain elements of the free press close down, and not because the Mail vilifies cyclists and Evans are a cycling retailer, but becase they don't like its politics.  The Sun/Mail/Express are rags, but if this is successful, my worry is that it doesn't stop there.

But the free press can't play nice, and are incapable of self-policing. Nice idea, but in reality it's Dacres, Murdochs, MacKenzies and Rebekkkahhhhs to the fore.

if the authorities define 'nice' and expect the press to play nice, then the press isn't free.

the constant threat from the authorities is 'if you don't police yourselves, we will do it for you'. That's not freedom, and I support anyone who shows the authorities the finger on this one, even when I despise their views and everything they stand for, as I despise Dacre and his ilk.

that doesn't mean they're free to print lies and to behave any way they like in pursuit of a story. They are bound by the same restrictions as the rest of us who live in a society.

The fundamental principles, in my view, are best expressed in the French declaration of the rights of Man, namely that "freedom consists in being able to do everything that does not harm others, and that the exercise of your natural rights has no other limits than those which assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits may be determined only by the law.".

Plenty of room for disagreement about what constitutues harm, but within a very clear boundary of equal freedom and rights.

These fine words didn't stop the French government from having a long and shameful history of press censorship.

But with freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, if the press can't be responsible for peoducing hate speech they are responsible for any restrictions placed on them.  The fact that these redtops produce vile falsehoods and do everything they can to prevent rebuttals which is the opposite of free speech. In this case Evans have the right to stop advertising with these redtops and Dominic Ponsford has the right not to buy Evan's products, it's called freedom of choice.

freedom is not contingent on some set of nebulous responsibilities that some nebulous set of people determine for the rest of us. If you don't like what people say, argue with them and come up with something to convince others that you are right and they are wrong. If they're producing vile falsehoods, correct them. If you can rebut them, do so.

If you genuinely believe in freedom and oppose hate speech, let's hear some arguments, because if all you've got is 'close them down!' Then you're no better than the other demagogues, tin-pot dictators and corporate fascists.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Gus T wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

But nobody is obliged to listen to them or to give them a platform. If they want a platform, let them provide their own, but don't expect me to listen to them.

I agree.  And of course, any business is free to decide who they do and do not advertise with, whatever the reason.  What does not sit comfortably with me here is that a corporation has stated that their thinking is based on a desire to see certain elements of the free press close down, and not because the Mail vilifies cyclists and Evans are a cycling retailer, but becase they don't like its politics.  The Sun/Mail/Express are rags, but if this is successful, my worry is that it doesn't stop there.

But the free press can't play nice, and are incapable of self-policing. Nice idea, but in reality it's Dacres, Murdochs, MacKenzies and Rebekkkahhhhs to the fore.

if the authorities define 'nice' and expect the press to play nice, then the press isn't free.

the constant threat from the authorities is 'if you don't police yourselves, we will do it for you'. That's not freedom, and I support anyone who shows the authorities the finger on this one, even when I despise their views and everything they stand for, as I despise Dacre and his ilk.

that doesn't mean they're free to print lies and to behave any way they like in pursuit of a story. They are bound by the same restrictions as the rest of us who live in a society.

The fundamental principles, in my view, are best expressed in the French declaration of the rights of Man, namely that "freedom consists in being able to do everything that does not harm others, and that the exercise of your natural rights has no other limits than those which assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits may be determined only by the law.".

Plenty of room for disagreement about what constitutues harm, but within a very clear boundary of equal freedom and rights.

These fine words didn't stop the French government from having a long and shameful history of press censorship.

But with freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, if the press can't be responsible for peoducing hate speech they are responsible for any restrictions placed on them.  The fact that these redtops produce vile falsehoods and do everything they can to prevent rebuttals which is the opposite of free speech. In this case Evans have the right to stop advertising with these redtops and Dominic Ponsford has the right not to buy Evan's products, it's called freedom of choice.

freedom is not contingent on some set of nebulous responsibilities that some nebulous set of people determine for the rest of us. If you don't like what people say, argue with them and come up with something to convince others that you are right and they are wrong. If they're producing vile falsehoods, correct them. If you can rebut them, do so.

If you genuinely believe in freedom and oppose hate speech, let's hear some arguments, because if all you've got is 'close them down!' Then you're no better than the other demagogues, tin-pot dictators and corporate fascists.

it seems very clear that the activities of the mail and sun do not fall within the definition given above but instead actively campaign to deprive, "other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights."

the only counter-argument, which in my mind does not stand up, is that they may not directly derive others of those rights, however it does seem to me that inciting others and campaigning for institutions to cross those boundaries is a breach of the spirit if not the letter of that declaration.

srchar wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

Only by knuckledragging scum who are happy to support racism if not racist themselves.

Just a brain-dead ad-hom attack. No-platforming is stupid. Let the far-right speak. Let people see how ridiculous the rhetoric of the EDL, BNP, Britain First et al is. No-platforming these people allows them a dubious claim to legitimacy - "they daren't let us speak the truth!"  You only have to glance at a far-right Twitter account to realise that these people actually gain strength and claim the moral high ground precisely because they're having their accounts deleted.

I don't know if you noticed that we became the most tolerant country on the face of the planet before "Hate Speech" was even a thing.  Bigoted attitudes have been challenged and intellectual arguments won against those who didn't want women to have the vote, people who thought homosexuality was a crime, landlords who wouldn't rent properties to black people, to give just three examples, in the last hundred years.  Winning The Argument is important - it is the best way to defeat backwards attitudes. Not no-platforming. Not simply labelling people "racist" because they disagree with an organisation's approach.

Just because we let them speak doesn't mean we have to fund them.
[Sarcasm] as obviously cyclists are all one homogenous body [/sarcasm]

srchar wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

Only by knuckledragging scum who are happy to support racism if not racist themselves.

Just a brain-dead ad-hom attack. No-platforming is stupid. Let the far-right speak. Let people see how ridiculous the rhetoric of the EDL, BNP, Britain First et al is. No-platforming these people allows them a dubious claim to legitimacy - "they daren't let us speak the truth!"  You only have to glance at a far-right Twitter account to realise that these people actually gain strength and claim the moral high ground precisely because they're having their accounts deleted.

I don't know if you noticed that we became the most tolerant country on the face of the planet before "Hate Speech" was even a thing.  Bigoted attitudes have been challenged and intellectual arguments won against those who didn't want women to have the vote, people who thought homosexuality was a crime, landlords who wouldn't rent properties to black people, to give just three examples, in the last hundred years.  Winning The Argument is important - it is the best way to defeat backwards attitudes. Not no-platforming. Not simply labelling people "racist" because they disagree with an organisation's approach.

Does that also apply to paedophiles? Are you also keen to let child abusers have their say on a public platform to describe what they like to do to children? Thought not, that would be going to far wouldn't it, but remember however abhorant paedophiles may be they didn't murder 6 million jews in death camps.

Dropped wrote:

srchar wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

Only by knuckledragging scum who are happy to support racism if not racist themselves.

Just a brain-dead ad-hom attack. No-platforming is stupid. Let the far-right speak. Let people see how ridiculous the rhetoric of the EDL, BNP, Britain First et al is. No-platforming these people allows them a dubious claim to legitimacy - "they daren't let us speak the truth!"  You only have to glance at a far-right Twitter account to realise that these people actually gain strength and claim the moral high ground precisely because they're having their accounts deleted.

I don't know if you noticed that we became the most tolerant country on the face of the planet before "Hate Speech" was even a thing.  Bigoted attitudes have been challenged and intellectual arguments won against those who didn't want women to have the vote, people who thought homosexuality was a crime, landlords who wouldn't rent properties to black people, to give just three examples, in the last hundred years.  Winning The Argument is important - it is the best way to defeat backwards attitudes. Not no-platforming. Not simply labelling people "racist" because they disagree with an organisation's approach.

Does that also apply to paedophiles? Are you also keen to let child abusers have their say on a public platform to describe what they like to do to children? Thought not, that would be going to far wouldn't it, but remember however abhorant paedophiles may be they didn't murder 6 million jews in death camps.

Pedos are the lowest form of life. That includes dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Pol and Idi. 

I'd rather befriend a killer than pedo, end of story.  

Dropped wrote:

Does that also apply to paedophiles? Are you also keen to let child abusers have their say on a public platform to describe what they like to do to children? Thought not, that would be going to far wouldn't it, but remember however abhorant paedophiles may be they didn't murder 6 million jews in death camps.

I'm not sure what your point is, but you seem to be trying to decide who's the worst out of paedos and the third reich, based on the death toll of the Holocaust.  Or that paedos aren't that bad and I am inconsistent in thinking that they shouldn't be allowed a platform, but Katie Hopkins or whoever should.  Either way, congratulations on such inspired lunacy.

Paedophilia is illegal.  Publishing it is against the law.  Xenophobia isn't illegal, which is why there's an argument to be won in the first place.

userfriendly wrote:

srchar wrote:

road.cc wrote:

the decision by Evans to blacklist the three outlets from its online advertising  was warmly welcomed on social media this week by many past and present customers.

It was also mocked in equal measure by your very own readers in the comments on the original article.

Only by knuckledragging scum who are happy to support racism if not racist themselves.

What's worse than an insulting fool?  A rabid insulting fool.

RTB wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

srchar wrote:

road.cc wrote:

the decision by Evans to blacklist the three outlets from its online advertising  was warmly welcomed on social media this week by many past and present customers.

It was also mocked in equal measure by your very own readers in the comments on the original article.

Only by knuckledragging scum who are happy to support racism if not racist themselves.

 

What's worse than an insulting fool?  A rabid insulting fool.

A description that would certainly fit a couple of those defending the Mail. And, indeed, many of those writing for it. Was that your intended point?

pjm60 wrote:

pointless drama about nothing

... is precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932. But I forgot, Brits are a cut above the rest, aren't they? Can't happen to them. Also precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932.

userfriendly wrote:

pjm60 wrote:

pointless drama about nothing

... is precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932. But I forgot, Brits are a cut above the rest, aren't they? Can't happen to them. Also precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932.

Godwinned in under an hour.

turboprannet wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

pjm60 wrote:

pointless drama about nothing

... is precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932. But I forgot, Brits are a cut above the rest, aren't they? Can't happen to them. Also precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932.

Godwinned in under an hour.

Ok lets refer to important stuff from now and on that really changed the lives of billions for generations to come, like crocs and shuttered shades.

cyclisto wrote:

turboprannet wrote:

userfriendly wrote:

pjm60 wrote:

pointless drama about nothing

... is precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932. But I forgot, Brits are a cut above the rest, aren't they? Can't happen to them. Also precisely what millions of Germans said in 1932.

Godwinned in under an hour.

Ok lets refer to important stuff from now and on that really changed the lives of billions for generations to come, like crocs and shuttered shades.

Or, y'know, just, like, stuff that's actually relevant to the article...

darrenleroy wrote:

The problem with StopFundingHate is that it uses the term 'Hate' when it means 'Something We Don't Agree With'.

The problem with your comment is that it's drivel.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

darrenleroy wrote:

The problem with StopFundingHate is that it uses the term 'Hate' when it means 'Something We Don't Agree With'.

The problem with your comment is that it's drivel.

The problem with your comment is that it's subjective.

Much in the same way the concept of 'hate' is. Do you understand that?

srchar wrote:

road.cc wrote:

the decision by Evans to blacklist the three outlets from its online advertising  was warmly welcomed on social media this week by many past and present customers.

It was also mocked in equal measure by your very own readers in the comments on the original article.

Only by those keen to defend the far right.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

srchar wrote:

road.cc wrote:

the decision by Evans to blacklist the three outlets from its online advertising  was warmly welcomed on social media this week by many past and present customers.

It was also mocked in equal measure by your very own readers in the comments on the original article.

Only by those keen to defend the far right.

You really are quite black and white. Nazi or moral superior is all you seem to be seeing.

Bloody Marxists!

turboprannet wrote:

I know where he can put his "hi vis top" for starters.

...and his inner tube...