What is discussed in the house if commons is in the public interest. I really despair that you appear to be preferring you remain ignorant to what happens when those who make the laws in our land get together.. your attitude that it shouldn't be open for discussion or debate is worrying.

You might prefer to live your life in the dark to these issues but others don't, why does political discussion amongst the electorate upset you so much?

Before the the internet there were other places people went to discuss the politics of the day, it is engaging like this that inspires some to become more active politically. To shut down social media discussion would be a gross infringement on freedom of speech.

The Internet has allowed everyone, even the most stupid, the most evil, the most ridiculous people to share their opinions in a way never known before. While I uphold the right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean every fanatic, every fundamentalist, can spill every half-baked thought that enters their head.

But then, it never takes long to see who's got a point and who's ranting with blinkers on.

We don't have freedom of speech though do we ? hasn't for example Katie Hopkins been silenced on Twitter . If some people don't like what others say,they try and shut them down.

we do have freedom of speech. Hopkins is still free to put her views across. Her posts were deleted because the broke twitter guidelines, and twitter is not and never has been a platform for free speech

Free speech comes from being able to express views publicly, which she can still do not from popularity on twitter ... i think people confuse the 2 things

Thanks Bots, I see what you mean.

Freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequence

The term "freedom of speech" gets abused .

Hopkins was on twitter a very long time before her account was suspended, half the stuff I didn't know what she said as I don't follow that gargoyle .

She's nothing but full of hate , she's 100% toxic .

For e.g Calling Greta Thunberg an "autistic Wench" :facepalm: .

it's very difficult for a company like twitter to implement its guidelines. For example, if Trump were a "normal" user, they would have deleted the majority of his posts, but they took the view that where world leaders are concerned, it's better to allow them to express their views and let the public decide in the voting booth. Normal users are not subject to the ballot box and so different guidelines can apply

People should be allowed to say what they want. I'm all about freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences - people can say "I think all Tories are Nazis" or "Labour are all Commies" and I can think saying that makes them stupid.

But that is your right to say that... you are getting confused there would be no consequences from you saying those things because you are not inciting hatred of a minority group.

People should be allowed to incite hatred - it would make them a scumbag, and they'd deserve the backlash they got in return. But hatred is an emotional response, and emotions shouldn't be regulated. If it leads to violence, then the perpetrator should be punished.

Aftet reading the responses, I think maybe public leaders and any person of authority should be banned from online platforms..

For thier personal accounts. .we obviously need government Statements.