A spine-chilling article about the Online Harms Bill that the UK’s technocrat government want to use to stifle our freedom of speech yet further.
“Marc Glendening: The Online Safety Bill – and the terrifying consequences of making ‘likely psychological harm’ a criminal offence”
In Britain! Of all the countries on earth!
I know, read the whole thing though it’s even worse than it looks. Quote:
The Commission even recommended making private conversations potentially prosecutable, something the SNP has now enacted.
Even some members of the Labour Party are uneasy though I’ve heard, so they may not get away with it, or perhaps it will get watered down somehow. Other Labour MPs are very enthusiastic as is mentioned in the article:
a Labour MP: “We must not fetishise ‘debate’ as though debate is itself an innocuous, neutral act. The very act of debate… is an effective rollback of assumed equality and a foot in the door for doubt and hatred.”
It’s hard to believe it but we really do have MPs this stupid nowadays, the age of the Idiocracy is upon us.
They frame it as a “safety” bill - because of course it’s for your “safety”! It’s unbelievable that anyone cannot see through this, but everyone should have recognized the “hate speech” Trojan horse for what it was, too.
Wrong, the bill needs to be rejected altogether:
Impossible to prove:
Knowingly false communications and more will also be restricted.
It all depends on who’s making the call on what’s “false” and what’s “true”, which as we all know, is in complete opposition to reality for leftists.
The terrible bill had its second hearing in the Commons a couple of days ago:
ChaunceyTinker, You beat me to it, I was just about to post that news via Daily Sceptic.
What do you think the chances are that it will pass?
I need to listen to the debates on it (which I dread doing actually because I know I will be tearing my hair out when I listen), but given that Starmer’s Labour just want all the authoritarianism and more I’m afraid I’m not very optimistic at the moment. Our politicians seem to get more stupid with every passing year. Still there is certainly some backbench opposition from the likes of David Davis.
I’m a bit disappointed with Toby Young actually, he seems to be campaigning for a watered down bill rather than an outright rejection. He seems to think it’s a “missed opportunity” to get tough on the social media companies, whereas it’s just encouraging them to do more of what they want to do anyway, and this type of legislation is bound to help them strangle their competition as well.
PS. Steve Baker MP probably deserves a mention as well (paywall):
Well at least they’re debating it. Don’t tear too much hair out!
I don’t always agree with Fraser Nelson, but this point is one of the key points:
It gives sweeping censorship powers by creating a new category of speech that must be censored: ‘legal but harmful’. The government will ask social media companies to do the censoring – and threaten them if they do not. The idea is for the UK to fine them up to 10 per cent of global revenue (ie: billions) if they publish ‘harmful’ content – but harmful is not really defined.
“Sleepwalking into censorship: a reply to Nadine Dorries”
Posted elsewhere on the Forum. Same thing. Hugely important. Utterly terrible.
Yes, this will be the final “boot on the face forever” if it’s actually implemented. And no surprise that Obama and Hillary are at the forefront here.
There’s also these:
Justs days after Macron’s re-election - that didn’t take long…
The “social credit” system:
Marking us for good or bad behavior. As if we were all kids in an old disciplinarian-type boarding-school.
Reward - you can live a “normal” life as long as you watch your step.
Punishments - no limit on the restrictions, the deprivations, the persecutions that their fascist law will allow them to subject you to.