advertisement


Should allegations of racism against the Royal family....

Nero said:
I'm not sure I entirely agree. What was odd was Moron's reaction. He states his views, whether you like them or not, but walks off when someone challenges them. That's the problem with him and his ilk. They have the privilege of a platform, and abuse the power that affords, without any pushback. Trump is/was the same.

OK, and Johnson.
Click to expand...
My feelings regarding freedom of speech were not really aimed at Morgan & could probably have been a poor choice of example even though i do feel he held an opinion claiming he didn't believe what was said based on several examples he & others have since made about the claims on the show by Markle & Harry, it was after all, their personal opinion on the Royal family & media in general from their personal unsubstantiated claims about both which seem to have been accepted by the general public, mine was more aimed at an individuals choice to hold an opinion without being silenced by the masses. Social media in general seems to be heading this way & i find it quite dangerous.
 
droodzilla said:
Also Morgan's outburst was specifically about Meghan Markle's claim that she had contemplated suicide. He called her a liar. Doesn't sit well when GMB had been promoting mental health charities that week.
Click to expand...
Of all the things he could have picked to criticise Meghan for, that was probably the stupidest choice.
 
Ragaman said:
My feelings regarding freedom of speech were not really aimed at Morgan & could probably have been a poor choice of example even though i do feel he held an opinion claiming he didn't believe what was said based on several examples he & others have since made about the claims on the show by Markle & Harry, it was after all, their personal opinion on the Royal family & media in general from their personal unsubstantiated claims about both which seem to have been accepted by the general public, mine was more aimed at an individuals choice to hold an opinion without being silenced by the masses. Social media in general seems to be heading this way & i find it quite dangerous.
Click to expand...
I, for one, am thrilled that the people are excercising THEIR freedom of speech to deny multi-million dollar megaphones to the likes of Tucker Morgan. This is what I wrote on the subject awhile ago:

Everyone can write what they want and as offensively as they want....on the internet, in their own blog. Or on the street, subject to decency laws.

Publishers, however, are under no obligation to put up their money to give other people (with whom they deeply disagree, for example) an expensive platform to spread their views. There is ZERO "freedom of speech" issue when an offensive asshole gets booted from a moderately respected platform - witness unseemly behavior of your Piers Morgan, hollering about "dying on a hill of free speech," when finally dismissed for an obviously unhealthy public revenge obsession with Markle.

I have long maintained that public charlatans that make money by spreading hate among the stupid should absolutely be cancelable by communities who object to their destructive act. They are akin to a pornography show that demands to be given public accommodations in the name of "free speech." In both cases communities have every right to protect themselves from these "performers." They have a narrow right to make a public nuisance of themselves on the street, subject to decency laws, but paying for them to have a megaphone is a serious mistake.

As much as possible, these poisonous "performers" should be walled off in their own broadcast segment, so they have limited ability to spread their "art" to fresh marks.
 
Last edited:
The final straw for Morgan was, he told one of his bosses to "F Off" in the meeting post the walkout. ITV had to immediately edit several videos to remove him from them, this wasn't a stunt, it wasn't planned, Morgan simply overstepped the mark and was removed immediately.
 
FireMoon said:
The final straw for Morgan was, he told one of his bosses to "F Off" in the meeting post the walkout. ITV had to immediately edit several videos to remove him from them, this wasn't a stunt, it wasn't planned, Morgan simply overstepped the mark and was removed immediately.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I’m interested in the timing here. I’d not be surprised to learn Morgan is off to UKTV. This way he gets more publicity, for longer, than if he just announces the move and it gets reported.
 
It keeps occurring to me that this royal mini saga has had the function of allowing HRH Prince Andrew’s armpits to dry out.
 
Cheese said:
What do they have to do with the Meghan affair ?
Click to expand...
Nothing, but I was simply implying that when challenged, they also walk away instead of engaging with the opposing view. I think social media lends itself to that. They find enough support amongst the likes to feel they don't have to.

It's a depressing trend in government and elsewhere
 
DimitryZ said:
I, for one, am thrilled that the people are excercising THEIR freedom of speech to deny multi-million dollar megaphones to the likes of Tucker Morgan. This is what I wrote on the subject awhile ago:

Everyone can write what they want and as offensively as they want....on the internet, in their own blog. Or on the street, subject to decency laws.

Publishers, however, are under no obligation to put up their money to give other people (with whom they deeply disagree, for example) an expensive platform to spread their views. There is ZERO "freedom of speech" issue when an offensive asshole gets booted from a moderately respected platform - witness unseemly behavior of your Piers Morgan, hollering about "dying on a hill of free speech," when finally dismissed for an obviously unhealthy public revenge obsession with Markle.

I have long maintained that public charlatans that make money by spreading hate among the stupid should absolutely be cancelable by communities who object to their destructive act. They are akin to a pornography show that demands to be given public accommodations in the name of "free speech." In both cases communities have every right to protect themselves from these "performers." They have a narrow right to make a public nuisance of themselves on the street, subject to decency laws, but paying for them to have a megaphone is a serious mistake.

As much as possible, these poisonous "performers" should be walled off in their own broadcast segment, so they have limited ability to spread their "art" to fresh marks.
Click to expand...
I stand by the fact that in Morgan's case, in some instances, not all (mental health claims cannot be proven so he should have left this well alone) but he had valid evidence to substantiate his claims in other instances. There were plenty of examples of this on the show & has since been proven elsewhere. As a single example, Markle claims her baby was refused monarchy status based on a personal grudge against her by the royal family when in reality her baby had no right to monarchy status. I am all for silencing hate & violence from speech but when claims can be backed up it deserves to be aired & debated, not shut down because of who is making the claims.
 
Ragaman said:
I stand by the fact that in Morgan's case, in some instances, not all (mental health claims cannot be proven so he should have left this well alone) but he had valid evidence to substantiate his claims in other instances. There were plenty of examples of this on the show & has since been proven elsewhere. As a single example, Markle claims her baby was refused monarchy status based on a personal grudge against her by the royal family when in reality her baby had no right to monarchy status. I am all for silencing hate & violence from speech but when claims can be backed up it deserves to be aired & debated, not shut down because of who is making the claims.
Click to expand...
Piers Morgan opinions have been well aired and debated, so it is not an issue of free speech or being silenced. Piers Morgan used his TV show to voice his opinions to millions, the only problem came when Morgan’s opinions were challenged by an opposing opinion and Morgan decided to walk off set in a huff and in so doing refusing to do the job he was being paid to do.

Morgan wasn’t silenced, he was sacked for very publicly refusing to do his job. His opinions are out there an up for debate. His opinion that Meghan was telling lies is not substantiated. His opinion that she was has been made very loudly and very publicly, not suppressed
 
ks.234 said:
Piers Morgan opinions have been well aired and debated, so it is not an issue of free speech or being silenced. Piers Morgan used his TV show to voice his opinions to millions, the only problem came when Morgan’s opinions were challenged by an opposing opinion and Morgan decided to walk off set in a huff and in so doing refusing to do the job he was being paid to do.

Morgan wasn’t silenced, he was sacked for very publicly refusing to do his job. His opinions are out there an up for debate. His opinion that Meghan was telling lies is not substantiated. His opinion that she was has been made very loudly and very publicly, not suppressed
Click to expand...
In all likelihood, he got exactly what he wanted to garner extra support for when he starts his new program - I reckon there's a 90% chance this is correct.
 
It was a flounce pure and simple. If your racist uncle gets up from the Christmas dinner table after his niece has a go at him, he hasn’t been cancelled: he’s flounced.

Lord of the flounce. Patron saint of racist uncles. He’s done himself no harm here, there’s obviously an audience for these kinds of theatrics.
 
Colin Barron said:
You are assuming that Meghan has no insider dirt on Andrew that she will mention in the next Sussex road show.
Click to expand...
If there is dirt on Andrew in relation to his alleged abuse of young women, as a matter of principle it needs to be on the outside, not the inside.
 
Seanm said:
It was a flounce pure and simple. If your racist uncle gets up from the Christmas dinner table after his niece has a go at him, he hasn’t been cancelled: he’s flounced.

Lord of the flounce. Patron saint of racist uncles. He’s done himself no harm here, there’s obviously an audience for these kinds of theatrics.
Click to expand...
He knows his audience and he will be a hard act to follow. A new job is no doubt lined up and what an exit; it has saved his new employer a fortune with this free publicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top