31–40 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean when you say you don't believe it's a "slippery slope"? That the proper boundaries are obvious to everyone? I think the reason this is okay is that notifying a school or employer of your behavior is not the same as persecution.
I see no problem with giving someone a heads up that they've employed an asshole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it "none of the BBC's business" when you send hate mail to the BBC? Haven't you made it their business?
That magic spell again: Hate mail. All parties are invited to remember, one guy's considered opinion is another guy's hate speech. And then, ever so often, the wind changes, the tables are turned, those in the wrong are now in the right, and those in the right are now everybody's laughing stock.
Who defines the standards? In this case, the BBC.
BBC may want to rethink that. Either it is illegal and then the police and courts are the place or it is legal and then it is none of their business. What they are threatening is when they perceive their TOS are violated that they use personal information and interfere in other relationships. This exposes the BBC to liability e.g. if the person is fired they may ask the BBC to pay up. See also: https://en.wikipedia.o…
Why is it "none of the BBC's business" when you send hate mail to the BBC? Haven't you made it their business?
Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult.
The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech".
I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.
"in breach of any applicable laws" is not quite the same as "problematic", even under the modern sense of "a problem" or "something we don't like".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That magic spell again: Hate mail. All parties are invited to remember, one guy's considered opinion is another guy's hate speech. And then, ever so often, the wind changes, the tables are turned, those in the wrong are now in the right, and those in the right are now everybody's laughing stock.
The boundaries are fuzzy and subject to change. That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Who defines the standards? In this case, the BBC.
Wow, that's confusing. I know that I know very little about U.K. law, so I would appreciate if someone there could answer: - Do employers typically have law-enforcement duties? - Is there a legal presumption of innocence---until proven otherwise---as there is in the U.S.? - Besides TV Licenses, is the BBC a judicial entity? I'm just trying to understand why the BBC may notify a non-law-enforcement agency about a poss…
Ahh UK State Media. I swiftly cancelled my Licence after the Scottish Indy Ref. I say let the licence fee collapse.
So it becomes funded by the UK tax system? They are already contemplating scrapping the fee and increasing taxes to pay for BBC.