The Laurence Fox ruling is a disaster for freedom of speech

So you can be punished for making a rhetorical flourish now? You can be dragged to court, branded a defamer and slapped with a bill for tens of thousands of pounds for using rhetoric to make a point? For engaging in bombast, deploying a sly style of speech to get one over on your critics? That’s the takeaway from the Laurence Fox libel trial. Mr Fox, the actor turned social-media renegade, has lost his libel trial against three public figures whom he baited online by mischievously referring to them as ‘paedophiles’. This should horrify everyone who gives even the slightest damn about freedom of expression.

It was a curious trial. It all kicked off in October 2020 when Fox slammed Sainsbury’s for supporting Black History Month. Sainsbury’s tweeted that anyone who has a problem with our ‘diverse society’ is ‘welcome to shop elsewhere’. Fox said this amounted to ‘promoting racial segregation’. In response, Simon Blake, a former trustee of the LGBT charity Stonewall, Colin Seymour, a drag artist, and Nicola Thorp, a journalist, branded Fox a racist. The most stinging accusation came from Ms Thorp. ‘Any company giving future employment to Laurence Fox, or providing him with a platform, does so with the complete knowledge that he is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist’, she said. Oof.

Fox was irritated, as well he might be: it was not at all clear what was ‘racist’ about his Sainsbury’s tweet. So he went for his critics. ‘Pretty rich coming from a paedophile’, he said, in response to Blake’s tweet about his ‘racism’. ‘Says the paedophile’, he said in response to Seymour’s tweet.

Then there was his response to Thorp’s tweet. ‘Any company giving future employment to Nicola Thorpe [sic] or providing her with a platform does so with the complete knowledge that she is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a paedophile’, it said. Fox’s mimicry of the exact wording Ms Thorp had used to damn him as a racist made it crystal clear what he was up to here: he was turning their words back on them. He was returning rude fire. He was saying, ‘If you can falsely accuse me of being a racist, I can falsely accuse you of being a paedophile’.

It was a rhetorical game. A verbal stunt. A drawing of linguistic daggers. It was not a serious allegation of sexual malfeasance – it was a performative upping of the mud-slinging stakes. The intention was not to make people believe that these three individuals are paedophiles – Fox and everybody else knows that they are not – but to make it clear that he is not a racist. And he sought to achieve this through essentially saying: ‘I am about as racist as you are paedophilic.’ Which is to say, ‘Not at all’. Not one person of good faith or sound mind will have read Fox’s tweets and thought, ‘Wow, those people are paedos?’, and it is a grave insult to the intellectual capacities of the masses to suggest otherwise.

And yet, the High Court has found against Fox. Taking literalism to dizzying new heights, the judge criticised him for failing to show that his allegations were true – yes, because they weren’t! I know judges are out of touch, but surely they’ve heard of rhetoric and humour. The saying of things not because they’re true but because they are silly or surreal. Fox’s claims were ‘baseless’, the judge said. Again, we know. That was the point. ‘Calling me a racist is as baseless as someone calling you a paedophile’ – that was his case boiled down. The baselessness of his allegations were baked into the very allegations themselves.

We’d all figured that out already. Because we have brains. We know the difference between a rhetorical device and a grave accusation. The courts, however, seem to think it is beyond the ken of us simple-minded folk to distinguish between silly speech and sincere speech. At an earlier stage of the Fox libel clash, the Court of Appeal ‘did not accept that the ordinary reasonable reader would obviously understand Fox’s complex rhetorical point that he was no more a racist than they were paedophiles’, as one legal observer summarised it. Is anyone else feeling insulted? I’m fairly ordinary, and I like to think I’m reasonable, and I instantly understood what Fox was doing. It wasn’t rocket science.

‘The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort’, decreed the High Court. And that’s the problem. That the defence of rhetoric is not permissible under our libel laws is dreadful. Hyperbole is key to the to and fro of public discussion. As is mockery, scorn, piss-taking. The literalism of our libel system is an enemy of free speech. What will happen now if someone calls a New Labour apparatchik a ‘murderer’ for their role in the Iraq War? Should we drag them to court, given New Labour individuals never actually murdered anyone? What if I accuse some leftie of ‘getting into bed with Hamas’ even though they’ve never actually shagged a terrorist? That’s baseless too, literally speaking.

Unlike the stiffs who run society, many of us understand that literalism is not the only road to truth. Colour and argument and linguistic embellishment also help us get to the heart of a matter. We should take inspiration from the US, where the First Amendment permits ‘extravagant exaggeration employed for rhetorical effect’. Such ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and ‘imaginative expression’ has ‘added much to the discourse of our nation’, the Supreme Court once ruled. Until the people of Britain can make a defence of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ in court, we will lag in liberty behind our American cousins.

There’s another chilling component to the Fox trial. Fox countersued Blake, Seymour and Thorp for calling him a racist. And on this matter, the court said it does ‘not regard the particular imputations against Mr Fox… as defamatory’. The court refused to make a ‘determination’ as to whether the accusation that Fox is racist is ‘substantially true’. That is not a question that can be ‘resolve[d] within the framework of this litigation’, the ruling weirdly says. What does this mean? Why can the High Court decree that it is defamatory to refer to three non-paedophiles as paedophiles, but it cannot decide if it’s defamatory to refer to a non-racist as racist? Do our libel laws only protect certain people against certain accusations? Seems iffy to me.

It looks to some of us as though this ruling implicitly upholds the right to call people racist. Or at least, the courts will not treat an unprovable accusation of racism as seriously as they will an unproveable accusation of paedophilia. And so one of the deadliest weapons in the moral armoury of the elites – the accusation of racism – remains intact. That accusation is very often more than a rhetorical flourish. It is a tool of expulsion from polite society, a potentially career-ending damnation. And yet it seems untouched by the Fox court ruling, whereas everyone else’s right of rhetorical dissent against such accusations has been pummelled. This ruling trounces the people’s liberty to speak out of turn, and therefore benefits no one but the powerful.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/30/the-laurence-fox-ruling-is-a-disaster-for-freedom-of-speech/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Davos war against free speech intensifies

If you sit around the kitchen table with the average Australian and ask what their biggest concerns are, they are likely to answer: mortgages, inflation, unaffordable housing, rising energy costs, or the decline in their kids’ education outcomes. That is because the average Australian does not breathe the rarefied air of Davos, Switzerland, where last week the private jets were plentiful, the caviar was generous, and champagne was flowing freely where the World Economic Forum was in town for its annual gabfest…

According to these self-appointed elites, the greatest global risk we face is not the cost of living. It’s not the alarming spate of new wars that have erupted in the last few years. It’s not even the usual bogeyman, climate change. No, number one of the top 10 risks on the WEF’s Global Risk Report 2024 is ‘misinformation and disinformation’.

EU President Ursula von der Leyen, who addressed the WEF conference, certainly agreed: ‘Like in all democracies, our freedom comes with risks,’ she said.

‘There will always be those who try to exploit our openness, both from inside and out. There will always be attempts to put us off track. For example, with disinformation and misinformation.’

And just like the American soldier in Vietnam who claimed ‘we had to destroy the village to save it’, or Democrats in the United States protecting democracy by seeking to imprison their key political opponent in Donald Trump –  von der Leyen’s solution to protecting democracy from misinformation is government-imposed censorship. She then proudly spruiked Europe’s Digital Services Act which seeks to control what the big tech companies ‘promote and propagate’.

Even before the edicts from Davos were announced, our government in Canberra was already on the case.

Last year, the government released draft internet censorship legislation that would give a government agency – the Australian Communications and Media Authority – the power to punish social media platforms if they failed to censor ‘disinformation and misinformation’ to the satisfaction of the government. There could scarcely be a more egregious breach of freedom of speech than a government agency deciding what is true and false and censoring unfavoured opinions, and it’s happening across the world.

The newly imagined threat of for business, cultural elites, and the political left (a tautology nowadays) is ‘disinformation and misinformation’. This is strange, given it was the political left that championed free speech during the civil rights movements of the 1960s, and who railed against George W. Bush’s draconian Patriot Act in the early 2000s.

Understanding why elites and the left have embraced censorship is not difficult. The ideas the modern left is selling simply do not hold up well to scrutiny. If your ideas are bad, censorship will always be more attractive than open debate.

None of the ideas pushed by the Davos brigade, like action on climate change, ‘stakeholder capitalism’, ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing, promoting racial ‘equity’ (that is equality of outcomes), and transgender theory age well when exposed to sunlight. Wind farms and solar panels sound great, but the reality of clearing forests and farmland to install them is less appealing. Electric vehicles that make zero emissions may sound desirable, but any scrutiny of how they are made, charged, and disposed of quickly takes the gloss off their environmental credentials.

‘Equity’ is a great feel-good buzzword, but in reality it means dividing society into different groups, labelling them as victims or villains based on the actions of their ancestors, and providing preferential treatment to some groups based on their DNA and skin colour. It’s a hard sell convincing people that the solution to past racism is to treat different races differently today. Australians rejected the idea comprehensively at last year’s Voice to Parliament referendum. It is much easier to denounce critics as racist and ban them from the internet.

Activists for gender theory have elevated this to an art form. Social media companies will ban anyone who ‘misgenders’ someone, with the predictable result being the immediate silencing of debate around this divisive and controversial issue. The reality is that the popular causes of the modern left often sound nice when you do not look too hard or pry too deeply, but when exposed to open debate, support for them diminishes. That is why these causes are pushed on kids at school where no debate is allowed, and why there is such a concerted effort to demonise the critics of the left as sceptics, racists, bigots, or liars. The social media censors will do the rest.

Of course, many of those who gathered in Davos will not admit this is the reason they are so pro-censorship. The reason given for the WEF ranking disinformation and misinformation as the number one global threat was because it is, they claim, the root cause of so many other problems, such as international conflict and lack of action on climate change, because it undermines confidence in our institutions.

‘This is not a time for conflict or polarisation,’ said Ursula von der Leyen, ‘but a time to build trust.’ And we all know nothing builds trust in government quite like censoring what we can say and deciding what viewpoints we are allowed to hear.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/the-davos-war-against-free-speech-intensifies/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Bookshop owner sorry for ‘just white kids, no wheelchair, rainbow or Indigenous’ comments

Catering to the majority is wrong, apparently

A Melbourne bookstore owner who complained that there were not enough books with “just white kids on the cover” has apologised.

Susanne Horman, owner of the Robinsons Bookshop, railed against the “woke agenda” in publishing last month in a series of posts on X, which have attracted widespread criticism after being shared by the Instagram account coffeebooksandmagic on Sunday.

Ms Horman, who purchased the business in 2007, has since deleted her X account amid the widespread backlash.

“What’s missing from our bookshelves in store? Positive male lead characters of any age, any traditional nuclear white family stories, kids picture books with just white kids on the cover, and no wheelchair, rainbow or Indigenous art, non-Indigenous Australian history #weneedbetterstories,” she wrote in one X post on December 9.

The next day she added, “Books we don’t need — hate against white Australians, socialist agenda, equity over equality, diversity and inclusion (READ AS anti-white exclusion), left-wing govt propaganda. Basically the woke agenda that divides people. Not stocking any of these in 2024.”

She concluded in a follow-up on December 20, “So I am advocating for a substantial shift in the focus of Australian publishers to be in line with public opinion and requests for books and for what is GOOD! We aren’t going to stock books that intend to cause harm and make Australians hate each other.”

Sharing the comments, Emily Rainsford of coffeebooksandmagic wrote that she was “not one for willy nilly ‘cancelling’ but the comments … are so wildly out of pocket that I have no problem suggesting a widespread boycott would be appropriate”.

“She has not only said she wants more white people on covers and in books, but goes further to say that she won’t be stocking anything that … well, what, exactly? Isn’t about white people? And then somehow manages to claim that she’s fighting division,” she wrote.

“This kind of mentality has no place in the modern landscape and I truly hope it will eventually die out with the generation that’s as archaic as her website.”

Ms Horman has since issued a public apology to staff and “anyone who was offended by the comments” which she claimed were taken out of context, The Age reports.

“We clearly state, so there is no misunderstanding, that we fully support and encourage stories from diverse voices, minorities and we are most definitely stocking these important topics and the authors that write them,” Ms Horman told the newspaper.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/books-magazines/books/robinsons-bookshop-owner-sorry-for-just-white-kids-no-wheelchair-rainbow-or-indigenous-comments/news-story/c9fd19fa72334514c7d870e60fcc3e3b

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Britain isn’t a free country

Take, for example, the story of a singer called Louise Distras who was arrested by police and questioned about comments she made on GB News about ‘trans-right extremists’. According to the Mail story, officers appeared at her door and proceeded to take her fingerprints and DNA.   She said she had not committed any crimes and was later told no action would be taken against her.

Or the six former police officers convicted of sending offensive Boomer memes in a private WhatsApp group called ‘Old Boys Beer Meet’, private messages deemed to be too outrageous for the fragile public to see for themselves.

They were lucky to escape jail. Last year another British citizen was sentenced to 20 weeks in prison for sending offensive jokes in a WhatsApp chat with friends.

Or consider the case of police in Edinburgh turning up at the home of a parent who had complained to the school about a teacher ‘being allowed to impose her gender ideology on a classroom of little kids’.

Or the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned.

Or how about the Conservative MP found guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence and fined £600 because he told an activist to ‘Go back to Bahrain.’

Or the case of Newcastle United banning a fan for more than two seasons for tweeting that trans ideology was harmful. Perhaps that is the club’s business – after all, the Saudi Arabian-owned Premier League outfit are allowed to take a sincere stance on progressive politics – except that she was also interviewed by police.

Or the woman who was interrogated by police after photographing a sticker on a trans pride poster, after which the police logged a non-crime hate.

Or the Conservative councillor arrested for an alleged hate crime after re-tweeting a video criticising how the police treated a Christian street preacher.

Then there was the case of the teenager arrested over saying a policewoman looked like her ‘lesbian nana’.

Then there is the question of ‘silent prayer’, with police investigating Christians praying near abortion buffer zones, including a Catholic priest. This issue is admittedly less clear-cut than people being arrested for online comments, since there is the argument that it causes potential harm to women in a vulnerable state; nevertheless, it essentially means the authorities reading people’s thoughts.

Some of the individuals caught up by these illiberal laws are very unsympathetic or idiotic. There was a Northern Ireland man jailed for three months for posting a ‘grossly offensive’ animated image of a murder victim which he somehow hoped would ‘lighten the mood.’ Or the man convicted after posting a grotesque mock-up video of the Grenfell Tower; a horrible and bizarre thing to do, but worth a conviction? So no, Britain is not a free country, and it’s worth pondering why this isn’t of greater concern.

To show how disproportionate these punishments are, the six retired police officers received similar sentences to a teacher caught with 11,500 indecent images; last year’s four-month jail sentence for a man mocking George Floyd in a private WhatsApp chat came just a fortnight after two individuals were spared jail for putting a complete stranger in a coma. As I have attempted to show with my British crime thread, violent offenders routinely receive very short sentences, or escape jail altogether.

In fact, if you walk around the centre of almost any British city you will see petty crime unpunished in a way that contrasts with the strict laws around speech. Around the corner from the Home Office in Westminster you may even see people taking hard drugs openly in daylight. This is anarcho-tyranny in action.

Much of this is down to section 127 of Communications Act (2003), which creates very harsh restrictions on freedom of speech. The liberal Economist recently lamented of this law that: ‘For a government that portrays itself as the protector of free speech, this is a sorry affair. Conservative ministers may despair at “cancel culture” or the excesses of censorious students. Yet when it comes to something much more fundamental—restricting the ability of the state to jail someone for speaking out of turn—the government is happy to maintain a deeply illiberal status quo.’

It is also an illiberal status quo that tends to punish only certain opinions. Aside from the Glasgow man convicted of tweeting about Captain Tom, the vast majority of these cases seem to involve people who have offended progressive norms, or who are seen as being enemies of the progressive alliance. While middle-aged women who question the prevailing beliefs over gender are visited by police, and football fans are arrested for the smallest offence, extremist imams who preach jihad seem to get a relatively easy ride.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/britain-isnt-a-free-country/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*********************************************

Don't Shun Controversial Ideas and People. Debate Them.

By John Stossel

The New York Times put Charles Murray on the cover of its Sunday magazine, calling him "The Most Dangerous Conservative."

That was after he co-wrote the book The Bell Curve, which argued that different ethnic groups have, on average, different IQs. As Murray puts it in my new video this week, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ than whites. However, whites are not at the top. East Asians, on average, have a higher IQ than whites. Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs."

Other researchers agree.

An article in ScienceDirect journal puts it this way: "East Asians and their descendants average an IQ of about 106, Europeans and their descendants about 100, and Africans and their descendants about 85."

But many people don't believe it. Many don't even want such topics discussed.

Last time Murray tried speaking to college students, a mob shouted him down.

"They're angry at you because you're perpetuating racism," I tell Murray.

"These kids," he replies, "never read a word of anything I'd ever written."

That's probably true. It's more likely that they just read slander against him from smear sites like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They call Murray a "white nationalist" and claim he says, "White men…are intellectually, psychologically, and morally superior."

"I've never said anything remotely like that!" says Murray.

"Do you believe that blacks are intellectually inferior?" I ask.

"If you give mental tests to a representative sample of whites and a representative sample of blacks," he says, "there will be about a one standard deviation difference. To then translate that into people being inferior and superior is idiotic."

He goes on to say that there are other differences between racial groups.

"I don't think there's been a white winner of the 100-yard dash in the Olympics for a zillion years."

Actually, 20 years. A white woman won 20 years ago; a white man hasn't won for 40 years.

It's probably because some black people have more fast-twitch muscles fibers, says Murray.

I don't see why saying that is controversial. It's just obvious that there are differences between groups.

But Murray has been canceled.

It's too bad.

Everything should be talked about. People who don't agree with Charles Murray should debate him, not shun him.

He is good at revealing unpopular truths.

He once had a job working for the government, evaluating social programs. He discovered that the "war on poverty" was not lifting people out of poverty. In fact, programs like welfare perpetuated poverty.

He wrote a book about that titled Losing Ground.

It soon became a bestseller, and influenced presidents from both parties. Welfare "reformers" Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton cited Murray's work. Clinton said, "Murray has done the country a service."

Then Murray wrote In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government—a book that changed my thinking.

He describes his time as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand. He watched Thai government "experts" create what they said would be a "model community." They gave the village a fishpond, a rice cooperative, a health clinic. But this aid diminished community activities.

"They weren't as happy as they used to be," says Murray. "I saw what government looks like from Bangkok and how it looks to the villager. It's the same in the United States."

The United States has spent $25 trillion (so far) on our war on poverty. But the poverty rate has stayed about the same. Instead of eliminating poverty, the war created a new "underclass"—fatherless kids who give birth to other fatherless kids—generations of families who become dependent on government handouts.

Yet the programs keep growing.

"Aren't you upset?" I ask Murray.

"I'm deeply depressed," he says. "We have watched, in our own lifetime, our hopes and dreams turned to smoldering ruins."

Then he smiles and says, "The good news is that old people are habitually too pessimistic."

Charles Murray, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has interesting ideas. They deserve to be heard, not shouted down.

https://reason.com/2024/01/24/dont-shun-controversial-ideas-and-people-debate-them/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Key Question as Big Tech Heads to the Supreme Court Over Censorship

If you were barred from the road you take to work, would you care? Thankfully, those who pave our roads aren’t picking and choosing who uses them, but the same cannot be said of Big Tech.

Social media’s expansion into our everyday lives has succeeded in replacing asphalt for algorithm, yet social media platforms are regularly blocking people’s access to the information superhighway by blocking what people can post as well as others’ access to those posts. Every year that our public conversations and debates become more digital, protecting speech online becomes more important.

Under the misleading guise of “content moderation,” social media platforms have engineered a pattern of biased censorship against conservatives. There are obvious examples like Facebook removing satirical Babylon Bee posts or Twitter locking the New York Post’s account for breaking the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Just as perilous are the more hidden manipulations between the users and content, where algorithms and human moderators can shadow ban “undesirable” persons and statements, suppressing others from viewing the content without notifying the authors. Last year’s “Twitter Files” release provided damning evidence of the platform using “visibility filtering” (the company’s code for shadow banning) to punish popular but institutionally disfavored accounts like Libs of TikTok.

Regardless of its form, Big Tech’s prolonged addiction to censorship reveals a market failure. In other industries, the remedy would be competition. If barred from one road on the way to work, why not take another? Due to network effects and myriad anti-competitive practices, a small number of successful social media companies today function as oligopolies, able to work together to throttle your access to all viable roads at their discretion. Twitter bypassed the censorship problem because an eccentric billionaire mortgaged himself for his beliefs. We should not expect more calvary like Elon Musk in the Silicon Valley.

Thankfully, Texas and Florida had their eyes wide open. These states passed first-of-their-kind laws to establish their citizens’ right to speak online over Big Tech’s right to censor. Texas focused directly on preventing social media bans over political viewpoints. Florida required platforms to publish their censorship rules and to give their users proper notice of changes to those policies, while also giving political candidates immunity from censorship during their campaigns.

Unsurprisingly, Big Tech, represented by industry associations like NetChoice, sued these states to protect their unregulated oligopoly over the digital public square. This yearslong fight is coming to a head with oral arguments scheduled for next month at the Supreme Court. Although NetChoice raised numerous complaints, the court limited the case to only two questions:

Perhaps the most important assumption in these questions that could decide this case is, whose speech is whose on social media? When Grandma posts on Facebook, does the statement belong to her as the author or to the website as a publisher whose algorithm inserted it into your feed? NetChoice argues that Grandma’s story belongs to Facebook and, therefore, Facebook receives First Amendment rights for choosing to feature or censor her comments through its editorial discretion.

The Heritage Foundation partnered with the Scott Rasmussen National Survey to survey 1,000 American adults, asking them this very question: “Who is primarily responsible for the content of posts on social media sites?”

Sixty-six percent, representing a majority of men, women, the young, the elderly, conservatives, and liberals attributed ownership to “the people who post the content.” Only 27% agreed with NetChoice that posts are actually the platforms speaking to you, with 8% of respondents being uncertain. Public opinion is clear: Grandma speaks for Grandma.

However, even if the vast majority of Americans are incorrect and social media websites can claim your speech as their own to protect their right to censor, these companies are hypocrites every time they invoke what is called Section 230 to protect themselves. This is a 1996 statute meant to shield nascent online platforms from the liabilities of being a publisher. For example, if something illegal was posted on Myspace, the website was protected because it was not Myspace’s speech.

Yet today, Big Tech is telling us that they deserve to have it both ways—that posts on social media are simultaneously the platforms’ (to benefit from First Amendment protections) and not the platforms’ (to benefit from Section 230 protections).

If no other institution, logic, or physical law of the universe has this sort of bold inconsistency, I am skeptical of Big Tech’s entitlement to it. Only last year, Google was in the Supreme Court arguing that YouTube’s targeted recommendations to users were not editorial speech and, therefore, merited Section 230 protections, contradicting this year’s NetChoice legal arguments.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on this case was loud and clear: “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

Big Tech is wrong on the facts and expects Americans to trust them to behave as they engage in doublespeak. Let’s bring them to court.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/12/key-legal-question-big-tech-censorship-social-media-platforms-own-your-posts-you

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: Students can make provocative remarks if they do not break law, watchdog says

University staff and students can make provocative statements on subjects such as Israel and Gaza as long as they do not break laws on incitement or harassment, under proposals by the government’s campus free speech tsar.

Arif Ahmed, the newly appointed director for academic freedom of speech at the Office for Students (OfS), said universities and colleges in England that infringed the rights to expression of individuals would face fines under the new complaints process.

Ahmed said he would not pronounce whether students or staff voicing support for a “global intifada” against Israel, or the use of slogans such as “from the river to the sea”, would be protected by the new rules before their introduction in August.

“I’d be reluctant to say any particular phrase is always going to be acceptable or always not, because with many of these things it’s going to be depend on a variety of factors. I’m definitely not going to say: oh you can always say something or you can never say something, for that reason,” Ahmed said.

“There’s always going to be the line between what the law permits and what the law doesn’t permit. Speech that amounts to illegal harassment, stirring up racial hatred, inciting violence, stirring up religious hatred – none of that would be protected.”

The limits of free speech and antisemitism on campus have become controversial in the US after a congressional hearing in which the leaders of three elite universities appeared to equivocate over how to deal with statements supporting genocide against Jews.

Elizabeth Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, resigned shortly after last week’s hearing, in which she said it was “a context-dependent decision” on whether supporting genocide was bullying or harassment.

Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, apologised for her remarks at the hearing but also faced calls to resign.

Asked about the US examples, Ahmed said: “I can’t really get into individual cases. I will say, however, that speech that incites violence, speech that amounts to illegal harassment, speech that stirs up racial hatred, that will not be protected under any circumstances. And the reason that I can say that is because that fits into existing legal constraints.”

Students, staff and others will be able to lodge a complaint with the OfS if they feel penalised by a university or student union for exercising their right to free speech. The provisions will cover visiting speakers whose invitations are cancelled.

Ahmed said it was important that students and academics “be allowed to hear and discuss a whole range of views, including ones that they might find controversial or offensive, or distasteful or shocking”.

He said: “All we’re concerned with is the protection of legal speech. That is, if your expression or view is within the law then it falls within the scope of our protections. If it’s not then it doesn’t.”

The OfS has issued a consultation on applying its rules to student unions, which face regulation on free speech issues for the first time. One of the OfS’s first tasks will be to draw up a list of student unions in England that it will oversee, as well as issuing guidance on their duties under the law and monitoring their compliance including the creation of codes of conduct.

A spokesperson for NUS Charity, which supports student unions, said: “Student unions understand they have an important role to play in maintaining campus cohesion, and that includes facilitating debates in a supportive, collegiate and equitable environment.

“There is potential for these responsibilities to conflict and a delicate balance must be struck between them. We look forward to responding to the consultation and continuing to work with the OfS and other sector partners to ascertain exactly where that balance may lie, and to further promote freedom of expression.”

Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said it would “carefully consider” the OfS’s proposals. “It is crucial that the OfS and the sector as a whole works together to ensure that everyone on campus feels able to share their lawful views and opinions,” a UUK spokesperson said.

It has emerged that universities lobbied the government over a proposed amendment to the higher education free speech bill that aimed to reveal the sources of overseas donations above £50,000.

An investigation by the OpenDemocracy news site found that the University of Cambridge was among those that lobbied against the proposal last year, telling the government it would “have a hugely damaging impact” on donations.

Since 2017, Russell Group universities have received anonymous donations worth £281m, including those from overseas, the investigation found.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/dec/14/students-can-make-provocative-remarks-if-they-do-not-break-law-watchdog-says

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Jordan Peterson will not shut up

Jordan Peterson upsets academia. Their determination to ‘shut him up’ has little to do with arguments about free speech and everything to do with the fragility of left-wing dogma.

It’s the reason his detractors picket university talks and mumble nonsense along the lines of, ‘I’m in favour of free speech but not speech that causes “harm”…’ In this Utopia of moderated dialogue, ‘harm’ is deliberately left open to interpretation.

To the climate zealot, ‘harm’ could be a few quips comparing wind turbines to bird-murdering machetes. If your religion falls under the thousand genders of fluid identity, a lecture in biology may resemble a crucible of violence.

Peterson’s frequent criticism of climate ideology, transgender politics, and the Canadian government has been ruthless. Deservedly so. This doesn’t sit well with social media policies related to his standing as a clinical psychologist where his comments have attracted a number of complaints.

Throughout subsequent legal proceedings, Peterson has maintained the argument that his social media commentary exists separate from his profession, but it was decided that his profession is regulated and contains obligations and rules governed by a regulatory body that ‘may limit freedom of expression’. According the CBC, ‘The college’s ethics code requires members to use respectful language and not engage in “unjust discrimination”.’

Peterson is not the sort of person you can throw a censorial spear at and hope he’ll stay on the ground, bleeding out in a puddle of self-pity. He is a battle-hardened social commentator who has run out of patience. Importantly for the future of this conversation, he is also shielded by the armour of independent wealth.

When I think of Peterson, I remember his 2016 speech held on the grounds of the University of Toronto. He appeared furious at the behaviour of students cosplaying Maoist-style censorship. These teenagers were supportive of Bill C-16 which effectively compels the citizens of Canada to uphold the scientifically illiterate politics of gendered pronouns.

To be clear, we live in a world where political leaders instruct us to ‘trust the science’ and then reserve the right to redefine science to suit feelings in defiance of reality. Or put more simply, ‘trust the dogma’.

‘Free speech is the mechanism by which we keep our society functioning,’ bellowed Peterson, at the rally. ‘The consequence of free speech is the ability to speak so people can put their finger on problems, articulate what those problems are, solve them, and come to a consensus! And we risk losing that!’

Peterson went on, rising in volume and fury as the students appeared to beg the government to silence freedom of expression. They are examples of history’s useless idiots cheering on the iron fist in the mistaken hope it will only smash their ideological opposition.

The line that caught me was this:

‘I know where that leads. I’ve studied totalitarianism for four decades and I know how that starts.’

It was the battle cry of someone acquainted with history. He had a devastated look in his eyes. Exasperation. Peterson was someone tired of the wheel cycling human idiocy back on itself, caked in the muck of failed sadistic empires.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/jordan-peterson-you-have-won-the-battle-minions-of-the-deep-state-but-not-the-war/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

British Civil servants urged to ‘suppress’ Douglas Murray in counterterrorist lecture

Murray is an immigration critic

For all the talk of a Tory ‘war on woke Whitehall’, more examples just keep cropping up. In an article for Fathom Journal, Anna Stanley, a former civil servant, this week painted a vivid picture about the kind of counter-terrorist training which is being given to her colleagues. Stanley writes that she recently attended a Kings College London (KCL) course called ‘Issues in Countering Terrorism’.

It was, in her words, a ‘deeply, existentially depressing experience.’ Examples were reportedly cited on how such educational institutions are delivering what Stanley called ‘politically biased, anti-government training, amounting to indoctrination’. According to her the ‘overriding emphasis’ of the KCL course was that ‘Islamist extremism is exaggerated’ with right-wing extremism being given disproportionate weight. This, of course, is in direct conflict with the findings of William Shawcross, in the latest government commissioned review of its anti-radicalisation programme, Prevent. According to Stanley:

One lecturer derogatively described Shawcross as “the type of person who would say all current counter-terrorism professionals are woke…He is of that ilk.” This of course discredited Shawcross to the course attendees. The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. “To what extent should Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray be suppressed?” he asked. “They have millions of followers. To de-platform them would cause issues.” Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, “so, society needs to find other ways to suppress them.”

Stanley also argued that ‘extremism and terrorism are misunderstood by civil servants to the point of being a national security risk.’ According to her, one of the civil servant participants have a presentation on the UK’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, Prevent, in which ‘she argued Prevent is inherently racist because it focuses on Islamist extremism.’ Attendees were subsequently shown an ISIS propaganda recruitment video filmed in Syria in which ‘the same attendee’s face lit up. Laughing and pointing at the Jihadi in the video, “He used to go to my school! I know him!” she exclaimed.’

The Home Office told Steerpike that ‘Civil servants attend a variety of training courses in order to learn. As required by the Civil Service Code, and as the public rightly expects, all civil servants must act impartially.’ When asked for a comment on the claims in the article, a King’s College London spokesman said to Mr S:

This private, invite-only course for civil servants was delivered on behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and as with all our courses, attendees were taught by eminent experts using impartial and evidence-based resources in an environment where different theories, concepts and questions are shared to prompt discussion.’

‘Impartial’ and ‘evidence-based’ – Steerpike will leave it to his readers to be the judge of that…

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/civil-servants-urged-to-suppress-douglas-murray-in-counterterrorist-lecture

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Majority of Americans Oppose Using Preferred Pronouns in Schools, Report Finds

A majority of Americans oppose the use of preferred pronouns in schools, according to a report released Tuesday by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The Becket Fund’s Religious Freedom Index findings revealed a reversal in attitudes toward leftist school pronoun policies requiring that children and school employees address each other by their preferred pronouns.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe schools should not be requiring preferred pronoun usage, the 2023 index found. That compares to Becket’s 2021 findings, in which 54% of Americans said that schools should require preferred pronoun usage.

Becket offered those surveyed two hypothetical opinions and asked them to indicate which one comes closest to their own.

The first opinion read: “Smith believes that gender identity is a controversial topic. Public schools should not be allowed to implement policies to require students and employees to use a person’s preferred gender pronouns. These policies disrespect students and employees who disagree with the school administration.”

The second opinion read: “Jones believes that gender identity is settled science. Public schools should be allowed to implement policies to require students and employees to use a person’s preferred gender pronouns. These policies ensure that all people are treated with dignity and respect.”

While 58% of respondents agreed with Smith, 43% of respondents said they agreed with Jones. In 2021, 46% of respondents said they agreed with Smith, and 54% said they agreed with Jones.

And according to Becket, the driving impetus behind the reversal came from Americans between the ages of 25 and 44, many of whom are of age to have children in school.

“The shift in attitude on school pronoun mandates is part of the overall groundswell of support for parental rights,” said Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket.

“Americans are increasingly opposed to school rules that force one-sided gender ideology onto children in the classroom and seek to cut parents out of the discussion,” he added. “That’s a welcome development for anyone who takes parental rights and the First Amendment seriously.”

Becket released its annual Religious Freedom Index on Tuesday, National Religious Freedom Day, an index that examines American attitudes on First Amendment rights.

The index surveyed 1,000 participants over the age of 18 between Sept. 28 and Oct. 5, 2023, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/16/exclusive-majority-of-americans-oppose-using-preferred-pronouns-in-schools-report-finds

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

‘GESTAPO’: Canadian Reporter Arrested for Questioning Deputy Prime Minister

Good hats but fried brains


Canadian police have arrested a reporter for asking a question.

David Menzies of Rebel News approached Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland on Monday to ask her why Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is not classified as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government.

Freeland was leaving a vigil honoring the memory of 55 Canadians who were killed in 2020 after the IRGC fired surface-to-air missiles at a plane leaving Tehran. Ontario’s Superior Court at the time ruled the attack an intentional act of terrorism. All passengers aboard the flight were killed.

“How come the IRGC is not a terrorist group?” Menzies asked the deputy PM. “Why is your government supporting Islamic nationalism?”

Two Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers grabbed Menzies and slammed him bodily against a nearby partition, saying, “Sir, you’re under arrest for assault.” Menzies offered Freeland’s bodyguards his press credentials, explaining that he was just trying to ask the deputy prime minister a question.

The guard stared at Menzies before saying, “Police. You’re under arrest for pushing her.” When Menzies asked what crime he’d committed, the officer changed his narrative and said the reporter was under arrest for “assaulting a police officer.”

Another officer then told Menzies that he was simply being too “aggressive” and “almost pushing people over.” When Menzies noted that he had the entire incident on video and could show that he hadn’t shoved anyone, the officer said, “There were a lot of shuffling feet.” Uniformed officers then pressed Menzies’ face against a wall and handcuffed him, saying, “Don’t resist.”

The reporter cried out, “I’m just doing my job.” He then turned to the camera and said, “This is what they do to journalists. … This is now a trumped-up charge of assault, folks.” He added, “This is your Canada now, folks. This is the Gestapo taking Blackface’s orders,” referring to leftist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s blackface scandal.

“A Canadian government that props up an Islamo-fascist regime, that’s OK,” Menzies quipped as he was being marched away. “But if you ask questions about that, that’s not OK. This is an absolute outrage.”

Pierre Poilievre, a member of Parliament and the leader of Canada’s Conservative Party, condemned the arrest of Menzies, writing on X, the former Twitter, “Trudeau has divided media into two groups: Those he’s bought off with bailouts, and those he censors and has arrested.”

Elon Musk, owner of X and founder of Tesla, also commented on the arrest, predicting that Trudeau and his Liberal Party “won’t make it past the next election.”

Members of the Conservative Party have announced their intention to launch a parliamentary investigation into Menzies’ arrest. Freeland’s treatment of the reporter has also been covered by mainstream news outlets such as Fox News, the National Post, the Toronto Sun, and even left-wing government broadcaster CBC.

Menzies noted, “The entire mainstream media in Canada has been bought and paid for by the Liberal government. … How can you expect somebody on the government payroll to cover the government fairly?”

The police’s treatment of Menzies is in stark contrast to their treatment of pro-Palestine protesters. For example, police brought coffee to protesters who were blocking off a bridge on Saturday. Rebel News founder, CEO, and publisher Ezra Levant vowed to take legal action against Freeland, the RCMP, and the York Regional Police for arresting Menzies.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/11/this-is-the-gestapo-conservative-canadian-journalist-arrested-for-asking-deputy-premier-a-question/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: The Online Safety Act is already stifling free speech

Joey Barton, the footballer turned manager, may be a controversial figure, but is it really the business of the sports minister, Stuart Andrew, to threaten to silence him on Twitter and Facebook? Andrew this week described Barton’s derisive remarks about female football commentators as ‘dangerous comments that open the floodgates for abuse’. He called upon Ofcom to take action under the new Online Safety Act.

The notion of free speech – including the freedom to be offensive – seems increasingly alien to ministerial minds. The Online Safety Act only came into law in October, and politicians already think it’s up to them to regulate who says what online.

For 300 years, newspapers vigorously fought off any attempt by the state to suppress freedom of expression. But the new media world of Silicon Valley has capitulated quite quickly. In an era when more people get their news from Twitter, Facebook or Instagram than from any newspaper, these companies exert huge power. The national conversation has shifted to online. It is edited and controlled by bots programmed in California by companies whose main concern is to make money from adverts. The old press barons took free speech seriously; Silicon Valley sees its power over content as a negotiating chip. It is happy to share that power with government provided that its profits aren’t threatened.

The notion of free speech seems increasingly alien
to ministerial minds

Ofcom, the media regulator, is gearing up for its new role. Two-thirds of all children, it says, are subject to ‘potential online harm’ every month – so it needs 500 specialist staff to ‘deliver the online safety regime’. What will these employees be up to? How transparent will the processes be? What kind of guidance will they give to social media giants on what is ‘safe’, and to what extent will this guidance overlap with what government ministers say about the jokes of Jimmy Carr or the tweets of Joey Barton? How would they protect the likes of Novara Media, the left-wing website whose videos were once deleted by YouTube?

What began as an attempt to address online material that was blamed for persuading teenagers to take their own lives has now evolved into a catch-all piece of legislation to suppress any material which someone, somewhere may regard as ‘legal but harmful’. When he was running for the Tory leadership, Sunak hinted that he would remove that clause. In No. 10, he decided to keep it – saying that under-18s needed to be protected from encountering ‘harmful’ content online. The definition has survived. Such an extremely wide remit constitutes a generalised attack on free speech.

Andrew made his comments about Barton when he was asked a question by the Commons committee on Culture, Media and Sport. What he should have said is: ‘Personally I think his views are obnoxious, but in my official capacity as sports minister it’s not for me to comment. It is for the police to decide whether this, or anyone else’s remarks on Twitter, constitute criminality. Many people may be offended by what gets said on social media, but quite rightly we have a very high bar for what constitutes illegality, because it is essential that the right of free speech be respected.’

When the Online Safety Bill was debated, scarcely anyone on any bench raised free speech concerns. Politicians of all hues love the idea of having power over what can be said and being able to call Silicon Valley to heel. Driven by financial interests, the tech giants obey.

The exception is Elon Musk who, after buying Twitter, found out that the website had been blacklisting the accounts of academics who had been scrutinising lockdowns. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, was one. ‘Censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures,’ he later said. ‘A generation of children were hurt.’

What the Culture, Media and Sport department should be worried about how easy it is for Silicon Valley to distort public debate. Facebook, for example, still refuses to explain to The Spectator why it labelled as ‘false information’ an article by two academics scrutinising the scientific rationale for face masks. The company doesn’t respond to emails. It’s answerable to no one. Yet it runs adverts in Westminster boasting about how adept it is at ‘working with’ governments.

The democratic tradition is that government and the press are kept separate. This is hard to observe if governments actually buy publications, as the Emiratis are now seeking to do with both the Daily Telegraph and this magazine. Lucy Frazer, the Culture Secretary, is now deciding whether to let the deal go ahead. She faces difficult questions. Is it plausible that the Emirati state would spend hundreds of millions on buying British publications and genuinely want no influence? What guarantees of editorial freedom could be credible?

The government certainly should be concerned about autocracies buying British publications, but it should also be concerned about its own drift towards autocratic censorship. The Online Safety Act, which passes the duty of censorship to publishers, is inspired by the model introduced in China. It has raised terrifyingly few concerns in parliament: it is, at times, as if Britain’s lawmakers are losing interest the the democratic principles that they should be upholding. And make no mistake: freedom of the press from government interference is a pillar of any democracy.

These are crucial times for the future of free speech. Kevin Hollinrake, the Post Office minister, complained this week of ‘trial by media’. But were it not for the media, how many scandals would fail to be brought to light? In an increasingly illiberal age, the need to protect press diversity and freedom is greater than ever.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-online-safety-act-is-already-stifling-free-speech/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Teacher’s list of 32 ‘ridiculous’ banned words in the classroom sparks debate:

Younger people’s lingo isn’t just ruffling feathers in the workplace: A teacher sparked a furious debate online after unveiling a list of 32 slang words that are forbidden in their classroom, as seen in an X post with more than 33 million views.

“The gibberish some of you choose to use is improper English,” the anonymous educator declared while announcing the vernacular blacklist, which was instated at an unnamed school.

They imposed the policy after noticing an uptick in students using terms they deemed “inappropriate for an academic setting” as well as detrimental to the learning process.

“There are many ways to articulate what you need to say without using slang,” they wrote. “Please know that using slang in an academic setting can diminish your capability to become a successful writer. More often than not the way you speak is the way you will write.”

The verboten vocabulary words included: “Bruh” (teen slang for “bro” used to address anyone), “What’s up G Wade?” (presumably the educator’s interpretation of “Wassup Gwayy,” a 2023 song by rappers Famous Sally and YB), and “bet” (Gen Z speak for “yes” or “I agree.”)

The pedagogue wrote that anyone using the canceled expressions would need to write a “short essay explaining why you chose to use these words in an academic setting to express yourselves,” per the X post.

“This is an academic institution, and you will carry yourself as scholars in my classroom,” they declared.

Many commenters accused the teacher of talking out of school, claiming that her policy was a bit overzealous.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/12/lifestyle/teachers-list-of-32-ridiculous-banned-words-in-the-classroom-sparks-debate-shes-on-a-power-trip/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Instagram Censors Conservative Organization After Hunter Biden Post

Instagram deleted the America First Policy Institute’s account Wednesday morning without any explanation.

Brooke Rollins, founder and CEO of the organization, announced on X that the account, a1policy, was banned at 8:49 a.m. The organization appealed at 9:10 a.m. only to receive another message from Instagram at 9:16 a.m. disabling the account. After publication of this story, amid an outcry from conservatives, Instagram restored the account Wednesday afternoon.

“After posting graphics highlighting the radical Left’s duplicity and egregious double standards relating to Hunter Biden’s failure to honor a congressional subpoena, this morning the America First Policy Institute’s Instagram account was suspended and deleted by the leader in Big Tech censorship, Meta,” Rollins said in a statement.

She added, “Once again, when the Left is confronted with the facts, they do everything in their power to silence and censor those with whom they disagree, including removing their opponents from the ballot.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/10/instagram-censors-conservative-organization-after-hunter-biden-post

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Covid vaccine gave me side effects that ruined my life, but Facebook keeps censoring me from telling my friends about what happened

Caroline Pover

There has been a LOT of censorship of what you can say about Covid and the government response to it.  And that is still ongoing.  My post yesterday about the words of an eminent medical man is part of what was censored.  One has to wonder what is being hidden.  Is it the reality that the vaccines and lockdowns did more harm than good overall?

So I am inclined to think that it is time I started noting some of the censorship episodes here.  See below:


A woman who says she suffered chronic health complications after taking the AstraZeneca vaccine claims to have been censored from sharing her story on Facebook.

Caroline Pover, 52, received the jab in March 2021 and within nine hours, experienced convulsions, shivering, breathing difficulties and low blood pressure.

Ms Pover, of Cirencester, Gloucestershire, says she was hospitalised when her condition escalated to 'stroke-like' symptoms, in addition to exhaustion, breathing difficulties, a racing heart and migraines.

Her story was shared in a national newspaper in March last year as she and 800 other victims struggled to claim the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS).

But after sharing the link on her Facebook feed at the start of this year, Ms Pover says the website put a warning notice on her account.

Ms Pover, herself a freelance journalist and entrepreneur, said: 'My posts about what was happening to me started having FB “notes” appearing underneath them about vaccination.

'A group page I was an admin on was shut down completely by Facebook in the summer of 2021.

'When I posted the Daily Express article, which did an excellent job of not discussing anything pro or anti... I received a warning and the post was hidden.

'It's a ridiculous situation for vaccine-injured people, who have a right to information.

'If this was an online support group relating to cancer or another type of serious condition, we'd be outraged at the thought of it being censored and we'd be very sensitive to people having to navigate a very complicated health situation.'

Ms Pover said she made her first post about vaccine side effects on March 3, 2021, shortly after receiving a Covid jab.

She said: 'In the week that followed I was posting about my health and I always thought I'd be fine the next day.

'After a few weeks, I noticed that little notes from Facebook were appearing whenever I posted anything relating to the vaccine.'

Ms Pover claims she was subsequently 'shadow banned' on Facebook and that often, her posts failed to appear in the timelines of her friends and family.

She said: 'People would tag me in posts and complain that they weren't getting any traction. I'd say to them, "don't tag me, it will just disappear if you do."'

Ms Pover says that over time, the censorship led her to develop a specific writing style that would help prevent posts from being flagged up.

She has also written a book about people receiving adverse reactions from Covid jabs, which was picked up by a publisher last year.

And she says her experiences with censorship have only made her even more determined to share her message.

Ms Pover said: 'The physical health struggles we face aren't just what happens in the minutes, hours or days immediately after injection; it's what we are still dealing with years later, as well as the impact of being censored.'

Facebook has been approached for comment.

Elsewhere on the platform, UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her sports therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.  

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

AstraZeneca said in a statement: 'Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines.

'Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems.

'From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, Vaxzevria has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.

'The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) has granted full marketing approval for Vaxzevria for the UK based on the safety profile and efficacy of the vaccine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12942189/Covid-vaccine-effects-Facebook-censoring.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

One of my blogs has been censored

Google has deleted the post that I put up on Dissecting Leftism  yesterday. It reported a very skeptical article about the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

 Never mind, however as the post is still available on my backup site:  

https://johnjayray.com/jan24.html

Just scroll down tothe post of 9th.  

The article is also still available on the site from which I took it:

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ex-who-advisormrna-covid-19-vaccines-dangerous-09b8d28e

The originating story is here:

https://www.aussie17.com/p/my-story-by-professor-gabriel-oon

There were actually two articles in my post yesterday.  The second was a  perfectly rigorous statistical analysis of seasonal influences on Covid incidence.  I can't see that Google would object to it so I have reprinted it under yesterday's date.  It is also still available on the site from which I took it:

https://www.ceres-science.com/post/new-research-finds-the-natural-seasonality-of-coronaviruses-had-more-influence-on-the-covid-19-pande

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Blue States Are Censorship States

Elon Musk is always saying interesting things, but this we found to be especially so: “$44 billion was not the cost of Twitter. It was the cost of free speech.”

Whatever eccentricities and human frailties the man has, his commitment to the cause of free speech isn’t one of them. Let’s face it: It’s become increasingly apparent that Musk didn’t buy Twitter to expand his financial fortune. Nor did he buy it just to slap a fancy X on it. He bought it because he understood that free speech is fundamental to a free and prosperous society, and he saw it slipping away. And we can be increasingly thankful for Musk’s commitment to the marketplace of ideas as we get closer to the 2024 election because, if the events of 2020 taught us anything, it’s that election season is censorship season for Big Tech and Big Government.

Evidence of this reality — that the Left will soon begin to collude to suppress your speech — can be seen in a recent and ominous development: the suspension of Chaya Raichik’s Facebook page.

Raichik’s Facebook page is better known as “Libs of TikTok,” and she was notified Saturday that it had been suspended. Lucky for Raichik, though, she also has a “Libs of TikTok” X page. She used that X page to post a screenshot of the email she’d received from the Facebook censors: “The page Libs of Tik Tok has been suspended for going against our Community Standards. You cannot visit the Page and you won’t be able to add new people to work on the Page.”

Since its inception in November 2020, Raichik’s “Libs of TikTok” franchise has become hugely influential. As independent journalist Bari Weiss notes, it now has more than 1.4 million followers, and it was suspended six times in 2022 alone — typically for a week, and typically for a violation of Facebook’s dubious “hateful conduct” policy. Which is rich, because all Raichik tends to do is repost material from, yes, liberals on TikTok.

Presiding over this suspension is a monstrous entity we might call The Censorship Industrial Complex, which is shorthand for the aforementioned alliance between Big Tech and Big Government to censor speech that they or their Democrat Party brethren find inconvenient or objectionable. It’s an alliance that’s alive and well in certain states but is butting up against resistance in certain other states.

Indeed, we can readily identify these states as either censorship states or free-speech states — or, to keep it simple, as blue states and red states. Constitutional law professor and free-speech advocate Jonathan Turley did just that, in fact, in a recent column. He writes:

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censorship on social media. Many citizens oppose such efforts to restrict their rights under the First Amendment, but are unaware of the work of their representatives to limit free speech. Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens.

The court filing that Turley mentions was made by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Simply put, it’s an amicus brief meant to persuade the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Missouri v. Biden barring the federal government from colluding with social media platforms to censor speech — an activity in clear violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Our Nate Jackson wrote about that momentous Fifth Circuit decision back in July — a 155-page throat punch of a decision authored by Judge Terry Doughty that fittingly came down on Independence Day. As Doughty wrote:

If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Think about that: “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Now think about the efforts of California AG Bonta to overturn Doughty’s decision, and think about all the other speech-suppressing states that have signed on to his effort, which is euphemistically described as a fight against “harmful content” and “misleading information” by a noble partnership between the state and social media companies.

Here we need to stress that if you trust the state to partner with Big Tech to protect you from harmful speech, you’re either a sucker or a Democrat.

Thus signing on to Bonta’s brief and thereby joining California as censorship states are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

If you look closely at the above-listed states, you might detect a pattern: Each of them is being governed by a Democrat.

Next time you think about red states and blue states, you might think about them in a new way: free-speech states and censorship states.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/103286-blue-states-are-censorship-states-2024-01-04

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

'Vaccine victims' left with life-changing injuries from the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab say they've been censored online when speaking out

I am putting this up as a free-speech issue but it is of course a medical issue too. So I thought I might mention that I got two shots of the AstraZeneca vaccine and did not get even a sore arm out of it. And I gather that most recipients were not significantly troubled by it. So the people who are complaining below may be:

1). Blaming the vaccine for some injury that had another cause. Many things may oocur in close sequence without one causing the other.

2). Affected by some rare pre-existing physical condition that interacted with the vaccine.

In both cases it is a bit much to blame the vaccine-makers for failing to see and prevent the problems concerned


People who were left with life-changing injuries after being given the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab claim they have been censored while trying to speak out on social media about their symptoms.

They believe they are vaccine victims who suffered a number of severe reactions, including a father-of-two who formed a blood clot after being given the vaccine in spring 2021 causing a permanent brain injury.

The man is in the process of suing the pharmaceutical giant at the High Court in London over the injury, while the widower of a woman who died from the jab has also brought a claim.

Now other 'victims' who claim they reacted badly to the jab who are not involved in legal proceedings have claimed sites such as Facebook have given them 'warnings' when they have tried to speak to others about their experiences.

They alleged that they are being forced to 'self censor' and speak in cryptic language to avoid having groups shut down, the Telegraph reported.

UK CV Family - a private Facebook group with over 1,000 members for those who claim they were left injured or bereaved by the Covid vaccines - has had to take steps to avoid being shut down.

The group began in November 2021 Charlet Crichton, 42, after she suffered an adverse reaction from the AstraZeneca jab after it was given to her while she was volunteering at a vaccination centre in Folkestone, Kent.

The bad reaction led Ms Crichton to become bed bound for weeks and has since been forced to give up her Sports Therapy business which she ran for 13 years.

She told the paper: 'I set up the group because I was finding people online in the UK like me. And we felt we didn't have anyone to talk to about it apart from each other.'

The Facebook group is now one of three online groups for those bereaved by the vaccine to have been granted core-participant status in the Covid Inquiry.

This means Ms Crichton, who claims she suffered from myocarditis following the jab, and other members of the group will be able to give evidence throughout the statutory process.

In the page's description it stresses that it is 'not anti-vax' and asks participants to 'refrain from posting anything that suggests otherwise'.

'We very quickly learned that we had to self censor, otherwise we'd be shut down,' she added, explaining that her own comments had previously be blocked 'to prevent misuse'.

On one occasion Ms Critchon said her account was even banned after Meta claimed it did not meet its standards, while she claims others have been shadow banned - meaning individuals posts are hidden - over their comments.

'It's very, very difficult because we want to talk about what we're going through,' she added.

On a separate occasion, YouTube tried to censor a video of lawyers giving evidence at the Covid Inquiry about the vaccines. The streaming giant said the clip was a violation of 'medical misinformation policy'.

The paper also said that footage of Stephen Bowie, a member of the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots following the jab, was also flagged with a similar warning.

Molly Kingsley, the co-founder of Us4Them, said the restrictions put in place by social media platforms were 'Orwellian' after her views by the Government's Counter Disinformation Unit were allegedly criticsed by YouTube.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12935953/victim-life-changing-injuries-jab-speaking-censored.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

UK: Bank worker wins £490,000 payout after being unfairly dismissed for using the N-word in anti-racism training

A bank manager who was unfairly sacked for seeking advice on what to do if he heard a black person using the N-word at work has won a £490,000 payout.

Father-of-two Carl Borg-Neal, 59, from Andover, Hampshire, raised the question during a Lloyds Bank race education training session on July 16, 2021, but in doing so inadvertently used the word in full himself. He apologised immediately.

It left the woman leading the exercise apparently so 'badly distressed' that she had to take a week off – a 'key reason' for the decision to dismiss Mr Borg-Neal for gross misconduct.

The former mayor and councillor blamed dyslexia and successfully claimed disability discrimination.  

This week, he was awarded almost £500,000 in damages. Added to Lloyds's legal costs and tax, the bank has a bill of nearly £1million.

The payout is the culmination of a two-year battle to clear his name after working for the bank and its affiliates for 30 years.

He told The Telegraph:  'I often wonder if I wasn't a white middle-aged male would I have had to go through everything I went through. There is no way of telling. You are bottom of everything.'

This week, he was awarded almost £500,000 in damages by an employment tribunal that said Lloyds had unfairly sacked Mr Borg-Neal.

The London Central Employment Tribunal panel said the manager was thinking of 'the use of the N-word by black people in rap lyrics or to each other when playing basketball' and did not intend to cause hurt, adding that his question was valid and without malice.

The tribunal added that the bank had discriminated against him on account of his dyslexia, which leads him to 'spurt things out before he loses his train of thought'.

The distraught 59-year-old is unemployed and although he has accepted the £500,000 granted to him, what he really wanted was his old, 'perfect', job back.

Moreover, even though he has received a payout worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, Lloyds has never apologised for treating him like a 'pariah' and alleging he was racist - which Mr Borg-Neal firmly denies.

Lloyds did not respond when asked whether they would apologise to Mr Borg-Neal by MailOnline.

At the time of the initial ruling, Lloyds Bank said: 'We have a zero-tolerance policy on... racist language and are considering appealing the judgment made.'

Today, a Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson said: 'We received the judgement in August and accept its findings.'

The tribunal's 46-page ruling said the case raised serious questions over how top establishments like Lloyds Bank handled 'very sensitive issues' in diversity training.

The panel in question took place in July 2021 and was attended over the Internet by around 100 Lloyds Bank managers.

Mr Bord-Neal asked how a situation should be approached when an ethnic minority person used a term usually perceived as offensive to their own community.

The trainer didn't understand the question, so Mr Borg-Neal said: 'The most common example being [the] use of n***** in the black community.'

People in the training session described how the training manager told Mr Borg-Neal off and threatened to expel him from the course.

Mr Borg-Neal said the manager 'went mad' and even though he tried to apologise she just kept 'shouting' at him.

The former Lloyds employee has been left deeply hurt by his sacking and the accusation of racism.

He added:  'Couldn't Lloyds have been more mature and admit their mistake and apologise publicly? They made a massive error and they won't say sorry.'

The tribunal said: 'It has hurt the claimant a great deal that he has been branded as a racist'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12933351/Bank-worker-wins-490-000-payout-unfairly-dismissed-using-N-word-anti-racism-training-session-says-middle-aged-white-men-bottom-everything.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Muslim antisemitism stirs up free speech debate

The debate over permitting antisemitic speech goes back a long way, with a general conclusion that it is best permitted.  But  Muslim speech against Israel has been so hateful that it undermines that conclusion.  There are many calls for it to be banned

Antisemitism runs deep among the Left, however, so there is little doubt that Muslim hate speech will eventually be excused on free speech grounds


A move to overhaul the law criminalising hate speech in New South Wales following clashes across Sydney amid community tensions over the Israel-Hamas war has sparked debate over the limits of freedom of speech.

The NSW premier, Chris Minns, this week ordered a review of the 2018 law that made it a crime to threaten or incite violence based on race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, because to date crimes under the laws had never been successfully prosecuted.

Minns said he did not believe the racial vilification portion of the legislation went far enough despite already being “strict”.

“You can protest, but you can’t take it so far that you’re advocating for violence or hatred on city streets,” he told ABC radio on Tuesday morning. He said there was “no point” having the laws if they were not used.

“With a state as big as ours, there are going to be ratbags and bad-faith actors and if they go too far they need to be charged,” he said.

Religious organisations, including those representing Jewish communities, have complained that the laws are useless in policing hate speech and called for an overhaul. Faith NSW’s chief executive, Murray Norman, said the government needed to lower the bar for conviction.

“There is freedom of speech in NSW and we need to protect that but we also need to make sure that people aren’t inciting others to hatred and violence,” he said. “The bar [is] set too high.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/15/free-speech-advocates-at-odds-with-faith-groups-over-nsw-hate-speech-law-overhaul

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Proton Mail Says It Will Defy Australia's Impending 'Online Safety' Law

Secure email service provider Proton Mail has added its voice to a growing number of tech companies concerned that Australia's proposed "online safety" regulation will force firms to break encryption to expose user data to governments and potentially criminal syndicates.

Proton offers end-to-end encrypted email, virtual private network (VPN), and online data and password storage services. Its slogan is "privacy by default."

The Australian proposal has already been heavily criticised by the Global Encryption Coalition, which comprises the Center for Democracy & Technology, Global Partners Digital, the Internet Freedom Foundation, the Internet Society, Mozilla, Access Now, and Digital Rights Watch.

Andy Yen, founder and CEO of Proton, told The Epoch Times: "With the current eSafety proposals, the Internet as we know it faces a very real threat. The proposed standards would force online services—no matter whether they are end-to-end encrypted or not—to access, collect, and read their users' private conversations.

"These proposals could not only break encryption, but could put businesses and citizens at risk while doing little to protect people from the online harms they are intended to address."

Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has released the draft standard, which applies to services including "email, instant messaging, short messages services (SMS), multimedia message services (MMS) and chat, as well as services that enable people to play online games with each other and dating services."

Other "apps and websites ... as well as online file storage services" will also be covered. Everything online, provided it's accessible to Australians (even if there are no visitors) is captured.

While Ms. Inman Grant insists providers will not need to breach encryption to comply with the standard, the Global Encryption Coalition says it will be impossible to do so otherwise.

Proton is the first provider to openly say it will defy the standard if it's introduced.

"Under no circumstances would we break end-to-end encryption," Mr. Yen said. "As other jurisdictions are realising, there is no such thing as technology that can scan everyone’s online activity while also providing privacy and safety.

“There is still time to safeguard end-to-end encryption in the eSafety proposals, and we urge Commissioner Inman Grant to ensure the protection of privacy for Australian citizens. Undermining cybersecurity and encryption in the name of eSafety will only lead to the opposite result, leaving everyone but criminals more at risk."

Proton AG is based in Switzerland, and says it is therefore subject only to Swiss law.

The legal and technical hurdles to enforcing cross-border regulations on entities that have no presence in the country imposing them have yet to be really tested.

While other tech companies have so far expressed disquiet with the proposals, many are moving to tighten encryption.

Telegram, which claims a user base of 200 million people, grew its market by being the first mass-market messaging service with end-to-end encryption, which is now the basis of its brand.

Meta attempted to win back market share for WhatsApp soon after it purchased it, by adding encryption, and has also pledged to work toward encryption and secure data storage across Facebook.

The company also announced the introduction of end-to-end encryption in Facebook Messenger, which is used by over a billion people. Online storage services such as iCloud and Google Cloud are also offering encrypted storage.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/exclusive-proton-mail-says-it-will-defy-australias-impending-online-safety-act-5545259

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com/ (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************