Jesus fuck this is on par with that talk show skit in v for vendetta with the audience clapping with shotguns to their heads. And that was an over-the-top joke.
Britain is also pretty far on the police state track, if you ask me. It makes sense that these novels are from there. How they are criminalising public protest, journalism (hi Assange!), etc. They don’t realize that “see it, say it, sorted” is creepy as hell like it was lifted straight from 1984
I just wish people would recognize “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences” is one of the most fascist things ever said.
Like, there are so many better ways to phrase the underlying thought that don’t sound like you’re about to sentence someone to the mines for insulting the state.
“Freedom of speech isn’t a guaranteed platform”
“Freedom of speech only applies to governmental censorship”
“Freedom of speech applies to more people than just you, chucklefuck”
I’m curious as to what you think about the actual meaning of those sentences, then. Do you think that there ought to be protection against consequences, regardless of what one says? Should there be any exceptions at all? What is the domain of applicability? Certain types of expression, certain types of topics, intended audience, etc?
Edit: oh and what about freedom from? Is there any situation in which a person has a right to shut someone down from “expressing themselves” to them without their consent?
Did we watch the same movie? Or read the same comic? From its wiki:
“V for Vendetta is a British graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd (with additional art by Tony Weare). Initially published between 1982 and 1985 in black and white as an ongoing serial in the British anthology Warrior, its serialization was completed in 1988–89 in a ten-issue colour limited series published by DC Comics in the United States.”
It was british in the comic…
Plot summary of movie?
“Following world war, London is a police state occupied by a fascist government, and a vigilante known only as V (Hugo Weaving) uses terrorist tactics to fight the oppressors of the world in which he now lives. …”
British in the movie.
Now, to be fair, the screenplay was written by 2 Americans who loved the comic and it was directed by an Australian. Your downvotes are coming from you jumping onto the “amerikkka bad” train without any real connection here.
Jesus fuck this is on par with that talk show skit in v for vendetta with the audience clapping with shotguns to their heads. And that was an over-the-top joke.
V for vendetta is typical “English come up with dystopian fantasy, Americans try and make it a reality” fare, like 1984.
Britain is also pretty far on the police state track, if you ask me. It makes sense that these novels are from there. How they are criminalising public protest, journalism (hi Assange!), etc. They don’t realize that “see it, say it, sorted” is creepy as hell like it was lifted straight from 1984
Oh yeah, and they’ve been at it for ages. Orwell and the others didn’t get his inspiration out of thin air.
I remember in the nineties they were calling centralized CCTV surveillance “the fifth utility”, after electricity, water, gas and telephone.
The Internet was already widely in use, but British MPs thought CCTV was more important I guess ;)
Internet was provided by telephone infrastructure, so it got lumped in with that.
I just wish people would recognize “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences” is one of the most fascist things ever said.
Like, there are so many better ways to phrase the underlying thought that don’t sound like you’re about to sentence someone to the mines for insulting the state.
“Freedom of speech isn’t a guaranteed platform”
“Freedom of speech only applies to governmental censorship”
“Freedom of speech applies to more people than just you, chucklefuck”
Etc etc
I’m curious as to what you think about the actual meaning of those sentences, then. Do you think that there ought to be protection against consequences, regardless of what one says? Should there be any exceptions at all? What is the domain of applicability? Certain types of expression, certain types of topics, intended audience, etc?
Edit: oh and what about freedom from? Is there any situation in which a person has a right to shut someone down from “expressing themselves” to them without their consent?
That one is getting close to reality too. America fell. England a crazy over the top surveillance state.
Did we watch the same movie? Or read the same comic? From its wiki:
“V for Vendetta is a British graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd (with additional art by Tony Weare). Initially published between 1982 and 1985 in black and white as an ongoing serial in the British anthology Warrior, its serialization was completed in 1988–89 in a ten-issue colour limited series published by DC Comics in the United States.”
It was british in the comic…
Plot summary of movie?
“Following world war, London is a police state occupied by a fascist government, and a vigilante known only as V (Hugo Weaving) uses terrorist tactics to fight the oppressors of the world in which he now lives. …”
British in the movie.
Now, to be fair, the screenplay was written by 2 Americans who loved the comic and it was directed by an Australian. Your downvotes are coming from you jumping onto the “amerikkka bad” train without any real connection here.
Did you actually read the guy’s comment though?
You misunderstood my comment.
Which is very embarrassing for you considering how combative you are about it.
Also, I can’t downvote. My instance doesn’t allow it.