Looks like Plusnet has entered politics ...

After a campaign by left-wing activists Plusnet has decided to stop advertising in the Sun.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/02/uk-isp-...

The canard is that the Sun is morally unacceptable, in a way that the Guardian which pumps out vile identity politics hatred - is not. As part of democracy we give papers free reign to publish under the law and let the public decide with their wallet which they prefer. If we don't like a paper we don't buy it, but we do not try to hinder the spread of legal information - that is an attempt interfere with freedom of speech. Today the Sun is targeted, tomorrow some other voice they don't like ... it never ends.

The reality is all media comes with bias and all are guilty of something as far as somebody somewhere is concerned.

If Plusnet had made this decision off their own bat I would not be hugely bothered but the reality is they are now acting as a political proxy for the views of left-wing activists and undermining the free press in that context. If Plusnet are effectively playing politics I'll vote with my wallet - for another provider.

Edited by Spud2003 (Fri 10-Feb-17 22:04:35)

I wonder if the ads appear in the hard-copy newspaper, or are just random AdSense insertions in the online one? Which no doubt Plusnet can stop and say they have done.

As for the twitterati, such as Fibreman, no doubt he is an extremely rational person with well thought out opinions cogently put.

O maybe he isn't.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 10-Feb-17 23:54:13)

OMG!

If people are free to choose which paper they buy, then surely advertisers are free to choose where they place their adverts. Presumably they actually place them where they think that they are likely to get the greatest take up.

There are posts addressing those issues in the ISPreview thread ...

It's a pressure group, targeting right-leaning papers ... this is from the Wikipedia entry where Stop Funding Hate attempt to dance on the head of a pin -

Writing for the Press Gazette, Dominic Ponsford criticised Stop Funding Hate and its campaigners for encouraging people to influence the content of newspapers they don't read themselves, and raised concerns about advertisers influencing the content of newspapers.[14] In a response to Ponsford's article, Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff argued that Ponsford did not consider the "total vacuum of responsibility within the journalism world when it comes to how our content is going to affect our audience".[15] In Spiked, Naomi Firsht described the campaign as "entirely about censorship", arguing that consumers should simply not buy newspapers if they disagree with their content.[16] Stop Funding Hate responded to criticisms of censorship by saying that they "fully support freedom of choice & are not calling for any publication to be removed from sale".[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Funding_Hate

The only two reasons this behaviour can be supported is if somebody is so naive they make Forrest Gump look streetwise, or they actually don't support freedom of ideas and speech - and there are many of those intolerant types about, sadly.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

If we don't like a paper we don't buy it, but we do not try to hinder the spread of legal information - that is an attempt interfere with freedom of speech.

Only if it's the government doing it.

People do so like to bandy 'freedom of speech' around yet so many people don't properly understand it. FoS is about the legal rights of citizens to spread information. People trying to prevent newspapers publishing stories is not a Freedom of Speech matter. It is a civil matter. As a member of a free society I have as much right to try and stop newspapers publishing as they do to publish.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

The only two reasons this behaviour can be supported is if somebody is so naive they make Forrest Gump look streetwise, or they actually don't support freedom of ideas and speech - and there are many of those intolerant types about, sadly.

Freedom of speech is a purely a covenant between citizens and the government. Please point out where the government is getting involved here because I don't see it.

What private individuals and private institutions do has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That's just citizens 'mucking about'.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Freedom of speech is a purely a covenant between citizens and the government. Please point out where the government is getting involved here because I don't see it.

The definitions of 'Freedom of speech' that I have found include the right to express one's opinions without restraint, or societal sanction. I.e. it is not just governments that can deny the freedom.

We lost that right when Twitter was created.

If freedom of speech is purely about rights governments give - where do governments get the philosophical framework they enshrine in legislation? From thin air? The ideas clearly existed before legislation.

Freedom of speech is about governments and/or society - the law is not the be all and end all, otherwise laws implemented by totalitarian regimes limiting press freedom would still fall under "freedom to speak" by your government defined definition.


But if we follow your line of reasoning - governments set the legal boundaries for free speech, not you, or Stop Funding Hate. A general definition of free speech is -

'Free speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

This basic notion is embodied in the Human Rights Act(even though that references the state).


You may feel you have the right to stop newspapers spreading ideas - even though the law is happy with it - but you would probably not be happy about someone having your ideas silenced.


If you were able to vote on what current newspapers should be allowed to publish - would you use that vote? If you would then you're clearly uncomfortable with legal and differing opinions in society, and if you wouldn't then you would agree the press should be free to publish within the law - without intimidation.

As a member of a free society I have as much right to try and stop newspapers publishing as they do to publish.

Trying to "stop newspapers publishing" is exactly the kind of society nobody should want, any more than burning a book. Free societies prefer to discuss ideas, rather than attempting to stop discussion.

Nobody is attempting to take your voice away, but you are supporting other views being silenced.

Edited by Spud2003 (Mon 13-Feb-17 06:21:44)