Knap har Storbritannien vedtaget deres Online Safety Bill, der skal sikre brugerne imod mis-, des- og mal-information grundet i mange gode intentioner, førend den bliver svunget som et våben mod alt og alle, både personer der benytter og platforme der prioriterer ytringsfriheden. Eksemplet i tiden, eller sørgeligt, et af mange, er Russell Brand og hans show på Rumble. Kvinder har anklaget ham for krænkelser og regeringen vil derfor have Rumble til at censurere ham – ellers kan der vente bøder og endda lukning i Storbritannien.
Det er mere end ti år gamle anklager. Kvinderne er ikke selv stået frem. Det er pressen selv – den presse, som Brand har kritiseret heftigt de seneste år – der af eget initiativ har fundet frem til dem. Vis mig manden, så skal jeg vise dig forbrydelsen. Som Greenwald bemærker, så er medierne bemærkelsesværdigt og skræmmende fødselshjælpere til censur
BTW, the media was more than eager to do its part: -Casting Rumble as a right-wing conspiracy site -Warning Rumble could be forced offline in the UK -Warning that Rumble execs could be subject to arrest in Britain -Celebrating companies that pulled their ads from the platform
(…)
BTW, the media was more than eager to do its part: -Casting Rumble as a right-wing conspiracy site -Warning Rumble could be forced offline in the UK -Warning that Rumble execs could be subject to arrest in Britain -Celebrating companies that pulled their ads from the platform
“I have to say I had trouble at times discussing this without making my anger manifest… [This is the] kind of despotism and authoritarianism that we would be outraged over if we heard it coming from any country we’ve been trained not to think about as democracies before. And it’s one that should really be provoking our deepest rage because what this is about is taking the internet out of our hands and putting it in theirs. From ensuring that it can no longer be a place that… dissidents can communicate with each other and where you can hear alternative views, but instead convert it into a closed propaganda system where only they get to be heard.”
Hvordan afgør vi, hvad der er sandt og falsk, hvis ikke vi har ideernes markedsplads? Vi kan være sikre på at staten lyver, hvis den tror den kan slippe afsted med det. Som New Zealands premierminister Jacinda Arden sagde i 2020; “We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth.” Og så venter tyranniet, med de bedste intentioner, bevares
USA er inde på samme spor. Jeg har tidligere beskrevet Disinformation Governance Board med den sangglade Nina Jankowicz og hendes besynderlige søgsmål. Det gik ikke som Demokraterne og Den Dybe Stat håbede, men Sauron sover aldrig. Jonathan Turley skriver
New documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the agency could regulate speech related to “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.”
Those subjects stretch across much of the “space” used for political speech in the last few years.
‘Notably, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.
So DHS asserted the authority to target viewpoints on racial justice, Ukraine, and other political subjects, including views based on fact but viewed as misleading in context.
(…)
Recently, a court found that the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts constituted “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Those words by Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty are part of a 155-page opinion granting a temporary injunction, requested by Louisiana and Missouri, to prevent White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship.
Yet, Democrats have gone all in on censorship, blacklisting, and even red-baiting efforts. The July 4 decision came six months after I testified before Congress that the Biden administration used social media companies for “censorship by surrogate.” Despite furious attacks by congressional Democrats in that and later hearings, a court found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows systematic violation of the First Amendment by the Biden administration.
Now we have a glimpse into the chilling scope of the Homeland Security’s efforts to target opposing viewpoints. From racial justice to Covid to Ukraine, these subjects involve core political speech. Yet, the Biden Administration felt that it had the right to monitor and combat opposing views in these areas.
Now there are additional facts showing the massive scope and effort targeting opposing viewpoints. Yet, Democratic members continue to oppose further investigation into these efforts. More importantly, the Biden Administration appears to be using every means to conceal the scope of its efforts. Why? The public should know the range of subjects and claimed authority of these government programs.
This controversy goes to the very core of our constitutional values in protecting free speech. The effort to conceal these efforts and claims reflects the unease of the Biden Administration is telling the public what it has been doing secretly in its name.
Turley skrev, at også Elon Musk er faldet i unåde hos Den Dybe Stats største parti Demokraterne: “Indeed, Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton have enlisted European governments to force Twitter to censor fellow citizens. Likewise, Democratic members have pushed for a new law that could be used to crackdown specifically on right-wing groups based on their ideology”. Wall Street Journal beskrev den udvidede krigsførelse mod Musk
This week news broke that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is investigating personal benefits that Tesla might have provided Mr. Musk, as well as transactions between his businesses. The law requires that companies disclose executive benefits of more than $10,000 a year.
The Journal also recently reported that the Justice Department is probing whether Mr. Musk used Tesla resources for a mooted secret house, which the CEO says isn’t “built, under construction or planned.” It’s impossible for an outsider to know the truth, though claims that Mr. Musk has leveraged his businesses to benefit his other businesses aren’t new.
(…)
There’s also the dubious Justice complaint last month against SpaceX for allegedly discriminating against asylum claimants. DOJ says SpaceX executives repeatedly claimed in supposed error that national-security laws permit only U.S. citizens and green-card holders to work at the company.
(…)
DOJ’s actions come amid Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan’s hazing of Twitter following Mr. Musk’s takeover. The FTC has brow-beat Twitter with document demands that include identifying “all journalists” granted access to company records, including the “nature of access granted each person.”
The harassment extends to the Biden National Labor Relations Board, which has slapped Tesla with complaints related to its dress code and alleged instruction to employees not to discuss pay and working conditions. The Securities and Exchange Commission is also reportedly investigating Mr. Musk over Tesla’s self-driving claims.
According to a Bloomberg News report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scoured the environmental damage after a SpaceX rocket exploded shortly after takeoff. Seven bobwhite quail eggs and a collection of blue land crabs were found to have been charred.
Tilbage til England, for her blev en 45 årig kvinde arresteret, fordi hun bad en tavs bøn i nærheden af en abortklinik, skriver Jonathan Turley
According to reports, the West Midlands Police officer asked her “are you praying?” She responded “I might be praying in my head, but not out loud.”
That was it. She was arrested for praying “in her head” near an abortion clinic.
A recent order from September 7 made clear that praying near an abortion clinic is now a criminal act in the country. The Birmingham City Council order says that prohibited acts includes “but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling.”
(…)
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
Med andre ord, vil man fremover kunne fængsle Russell Brand for ‘nursing a semi’.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar