Online content moderation is currently at the forefront of free speech and censorship debates.

Online content moderation is currently at the forefront of free speech and censorship debates. Typically, government entities rely on administrative lawsuits and fines to ensure that social media companies enforce their own standards of speech—from prohibiting child pornography to removing terrorist groups.

Two weeks ago, however, France took these efforts one step further and arrested Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov—Russian-born and a dual citizen of France and the United Arab Emirates—for his alleged failure to mitigate criminal activity on Telegram. Authorities released Durov on bail, but free speech advocates and social media platforms are on alert as the European Union pursues more aggressive forms of censorship.

Telegram, which boasts nearly 1 billion users worldwide, is the most secure social media and online messaging platform available. Established in 2013 to counter growing concern over government censorship and digital privacy, Telegram’s website boasts that it has “disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments.” With end-to-end encryption, even Telegram cannot access certain private messages between users. The platform ensures the least restrictive form of content moderation and employs an average of only 30 full-time engineers.

The importance of platforms like Telegram cannot be understated. In August alone, the United Kingdom arrested citizens for alleged “hate speech” online. Irish authorities arrested citizens for opposing higher rates of immigration and one teacher for his refusal to use a student’s “preferred pronouns.” Ahead of X hosting an interview with Donald Trump, the European Union sent a letter to Elon Musk threatening that he and his platform may be held liable for improper speech. And in the United States, Mark Zuckerberg confessed that Meta complied with pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor online content about COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election.

These are clear violations of free speech, especially in the United States. No entity or person has the right to limit speech for political gain. But not all concerns about online content are this straightforward.

Indeed, the basis of Durov’s arrest, according to French authorities, is the ongoing criminal activity on the platform. The European Union implemented the Digital Services Act in 2022, which “regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms.” French authorities claim and Telegram denies that the platform has not complied with requests to crack down on illegal activity.

For example, ISIS used Telegram to coordinate the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. Similarly, Hamas used Telegram to spread footage of its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, including content of Israelis its members maimed, murdered, and kidnapped. Broadly, Telegram hosts high rates of drug trafficking, fraudulent transactions, and material depicting child sexual abuse.

While Telegram has banned some channels in the past, the structure of the platform makes it very difficult to moderate criminal or morally abhorrent activity. For Telegram, the cost of hosting secure conversations may be the risk that some, or many, will use the platform for illicit purposes. As Durov said in a CNN interview in 2016, “You cannot make it safe against criminals and open for governments. [Telegram is] either secure or not secure.” The ongoing question is who should be held accountable.

Durov’s arrest and the ongoing investigation into Telegram matters internationally as nations such as the United States continue to debate free speech, censorship, and online regulation.

For starters, Telegram, like most social media companies, is an international platform. Legal challenges, especially related to content, are not merely restricted to one country. How French authorities handle their investigation into Telegram through Durov will have massive implications for free speech around the world. For example, if the European Union can penalize X via Elon Musk—a U.S. citizen—over free speech, then what does this mean for the content that U.S. citizens post, especially when traveling abroad?

Second, as the United States explores online content regulation, lawmakers must decide who to hold accountable and how. From proposals to reform Section 230 to the Kids Online Safety Act, lawmakers broadly agree that platforms should be held accountable for knowingly allowing or encouraging harmful content including child pornography, self-harm, or terrorism.

But what about cases, as with Telegram, where it is effectively one massive messaging platform? For many, such as Musk and U.S. intelligence documents-leaker Edward Snowden, the decision to arrest Durov amounts to a censorship and intimation campaign and a step in the wrong direction for online regulation. For others, the rampant dissemination of child pornography and harmful content makes the partial loss of unmonitored speech a worthwhile trade-off.

Pavel Durov will continue to meet with French authorities twice a week as the investigation into Telegram continues. If Durov, and Telegram by extension, is found guilty, he could face up to 10 years in prison. As governments engage in free speech and online censorship, it is essential for lawmakers and citizens alike to protect their own rights and ensure that wrongdoers—not merely those who do not parrot the official party opinion—are held in check.

https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/free-speech-accountability

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Censoring kids

I am concerned about the rise of misogyny among young boys due to the disturbing reach of Andrew Tate-like figures. I am equally concerned about body image, for both boys and girls, and I worry about cyberbullying and the impact on mental health. All real and well-publicised risks with social media. And yes, as the PM said, there is no map to direct us through the minefield.

That said, implementing an arbitrary age ban for social media, based on an assumption that all kids reach the same level of maturity once a particular birthday ticks over, is not the answer. I’ve no doubt a ban would help parents set rules, but the focus should be on educating us and our kids on how to use social media safely.

Albanese jumped on an age ban after his South Australian counterpart, Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas, last weekend said his government would force social media giants to block children under the age of 14 from their platforms or face hefty penalties. The prime minister had no choice but to take the lead. The states, including NSW, were yapping at his heels, and the Coalition had already announced a similar policy earlier in the year.

Albanese says Australia will move before the next election to a national system to force tech platforms to enforce age verification. No final age has yet been settled but is likely to be within the 13- to 16-year-old range. The announcement was vague, but was designed to show that Albanese was being decisive.

How would a social media ban actually work?

Malinauskas told ABC Sydney on Wednesday that “social media addiction among children is doing them harm. It is happening, it is real.” Joining him on air was NSW Premier Chris Minns, who described social media as a “global unregulated experiment on young people”. The pair, who formed a strong bond as opposition leaders, will host a combined two-day social media summit next month, with one day in Sydney followed by another in Adelaide.

Malinauskas has already shown his hand. Based on a report by former High Court justice Robert French, which concluded that social media giants should take “systemic responsibility”, Malinauskas has promised an age ban. Minns, too, has enthusiastically backed South Australia’s proposal, as well as Albanese’s announcement.

I want to keep my kids safe, happy and healthy. I want them to hold on to their childhoods for as long as possible. But I also accept that the digital age in which they were born is vastly different from the world I entered. Social media is not going to disappear, so rather than take the very Australian approach of slapping a ban on a problem, we should be working to educate.

Writing in The Conversation, Dr Joanne Orlando, a digital literacy researcher at Western Sydney University, said: “banning children from social media isn’t going to fix the problem of online harms faced by young people – it’s only going to put the problem on pause.” Orlando argues the best way to help young people safely navigate the digital world is by improving their social media literacy.

But that digital literacy, she says, is serious lacking, and Orlando likens it to how young people were once taught about sex. “But that has started to change,” Orlando wrote, “and now there is more of a focus on teaching young people how to have sex safely and with consent.” The same should be done with social media, she argued. Not annual cyber safety talks, which highlight the dangers of the online world, but specific classes within school.

Albanese said what parents want to hear. “The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount,” was his message. “Parents want their kids off their phones and on the footy field. So do I”.

And so do I, prime minister, but I also accept that we cannot return to the golden days when social media did not exist. The yo-yo is as good as a dodo. So instead we need to accept its ubiquity and ensure kids, and parents, know how to navigate a digital world which is here to stay.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/the-pm-is-sigma-but-his-social-media-ban-belongs-in-the-skibidi-toilet-20240910-p5k9gp.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Why King Charles won't be doing 'walkabouts' during his Australian tour

King Charles has scrapped the traditional 'walkabout' ahead of his upcoming royal visit to Australia to avoid offending Indigenous Australians.

Charles III, 75, and Queen Camilla, 77, will visit Sydney and Canberra from October 18 to 22 before the couple end their tour in Samoa on the 26th.

The 'walkabout' was first coined by the late Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip during her majesty's royal visit to Australia and New Zealand in 1970.

It refers to an informal way for members of the royal family to meet with the public.

The phrase in Indigenous culture describes a time period symbolic of change, meditation and grief when a person travels to the bush on foot.

The official itinerary indicates that the 'royal walkabout' will instead be replaced with 'an opportunity to meet the public'.

The King and the Duchess of Cornwall are still expected to interact with hundreds of well-wishers in both Australia and Samoa during their short visit.

The tour will mark the first visit by His Majesty since his ascension to the throne.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13840519/Prince-Charles-Australia-tour-walkabouts.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Australia: Labor’s promised hate speech bill will not deal with ‘hate speech’

Labor has scrubbed criminal penalties for seriously vilifying minority groups from its upcoming hate crimes bill, watering down its proposed laws just months after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed to introduce stronger measures to protect people from hate speech.

Sources familiar with Labor’s promised hate speech bill said it had been significantly weakened in the final stages of drafting and was now starkly different from Albanese’s original pledge, which he made earlier this year following months of concern about inflamed antisemitism.

A minority of demonstrators at a rally at the Opera House in October 2023 chanted anti-Semitic slogans.
A minority of demonstrators at a rally at the Opera House in October 2023 chanted anti-Semitic slogans.Credit:Lisa Maree Williams

Sources, who spoke anonymously as they were bound to confidentiality in order to be briefed, said it will not use the words “hate speech” nor introduce a serious anti-vilification law, which was a key aim of the bill. Instead, it will focus on acts and threats of violence.

Albanese promised to strengthen hate speech laws and criminalise “doxxing” in February as community tensions ran high over the war in Gaza and anti-Zionist activists published the names and details of almost 600 Jewish writers, artists and academics.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the anti-doxxing laws, which he will also introduce on Thursday, impose a maximum six-year prison sentence for maliciously using personal data, which will increase to seven years if a person or group is targeted because of their race, religion, sexuality, gender, nationality or disability.

But his office refused to provide any detail about the hate crimes bill before it was tabled in parliament. The softened legislation will disappoint those who had demanded strong action on hate speech, such as LGBTQ advocates and Jewish representatives, but should satisfy stakeholders more concerned about freedom of religion and speech, such as Christian groups.

This masthead revealed in May that Dreyfus was drafting a hate speech bill that would impose criminal penalties for serious instances of vilification based on a person’s race, sexuality, gender, disability or religion.

Walking away from that creates another political dispute for Albanese, who will be forced to clarify how he plans to get tougher on hate speech if the bill does not allay community concerns, particularly around antisemitism.

The hate speech laws were intended as a compromise to faith groups, who were dismayed after Labor ditched its election promise to introduce a civil anti-vilification law through a now-abandoned religious discrimination act. The government also spent the last fortnight tied in knots over its commitment to LGBTQ questions in the census as it tried to avoid a divisive debate.

Jewish groups have been seeking assurance from the government that new laws would address concerns about the antisemitic phrases chanted by protesters near the Sydney Opera House following Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack on Israel.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Daniel Aghion welcomed the Albanese government’s commitment back in February, saying: “We have called for an end to the impunity and we are grateful that the government has listened”.

LGBTQ groups have also been pushing for stronger protections, particularly since the government walked away from its election promise to remove a controversial part of the sex discrimination act that allows religious schools to discriminate against staff and students.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-s-promised-hate-speech-bill-will-not-deal-with-hate-speech-20240910-p5k9dp.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Attempts To Limit Bad Speech May Endanger Good Speech

It’s too soon to untangle the arrest of Pavel Durov, CEO of the encrypted-messaging service Telegram, which he co-founded. The French government has indicted him on charges of complicity in the distribution of child sex abuse images, aiding organized crime and refusing lawful orders to give information to law enforcement. There are still many questions about the extent of Durov’s role other than operating what the Atlantic’s Charlie Warzel called the “platform of choice for many activists, crypto scammers, drug dealers, terrorists, extremists, banned influencers, and conspiracy theorists.”

But it’s not too soon to talk about the implications for free speech, because we’ve already been wrestling with the problems posed by services like Telegram for many years — and will do so for many to come.

When I started writing on the internet, more than 20 years ago, my fellow bloggers and I assumed it was a free and open place where anything could happen. “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it,” we used to tell each other, a little giddy. Well into the social media era, Twitter executives proudly proclaimed that their company belonged to “the free speech wing of the free speech party.”

But as the World Wide Web entered its third decade, the internet’s scale and reach empowered some very bad actors, from trolls to white nationalists to child pornographers and drug cartels. A clamor arose to crack down on all this dangerous chatter — which brings us to Pavel Durov.

The Associated Press reports that French authorities are saying his company has “refused to share information or documents with investigators when required by law.” The possibility that loose moderation and encrypted messaging are empowering heinous crimes is a real challenge for the free-speech wing of the free-speech party: Platforms where speech is unfettered are also platforms that make it easier to say, and do, antisocial things. This has always been a problem with free speech, of course, but the internet has given the bad guys opportunities we could never before have imagined.

And so there has been a concerted push for institutions to censor, to hand over user data, to fiddle with algorithms to tilt conversations in a more prosocial direction. Defending the freedom to say dark things — in private or public — inevitably raises the question “Why would you want to help such people?” Services such as Telegram, where conversations can tip from bad speech to bad deeds, make this particularly awkward to answer.

But there is an answer, which is that this is the wrong question. We should not be asking whether anyone wants to help criminals (no!) but whether it’s worth sacrificing our own liberties to make it easier for the government to stop them. The Bill of Rights answered this with a resounding no, and that’s still the correct answer after more than 200 years.

If you allow people to say anything, you’ll see a lot of hateful filth, but you will also see robust discussions that make our democracy stronger. If you allow bloggers to speculate about anything that crosses their minds, you will find they generate a lot of nonsense — and also provide a useful check on institutions that aren’t doing their jobs properly. If you maintain spaces where people can talk away from the prying eyes of the authorities, you will make it harder for democratic governments to catch criminals and also make it harder for despotic governments to crack down on political activists.

It’s tempting to say that we’ll let only the good governments have those powers, for good purposes. That we aren’t really sacrificing an important freedom, only the kinds of freedom that no one should have. That we’re simply sanding off the wilder edges of the internet, while leaving plenty of spaces for all the right kinds of speech to flourish.

But while it might not be one short step from a Telegram crackdown to a full-blown Chinese-style surveillance state, there is an inevitable trade-off: When such powers are used, they can be abused, as even democratic governments have done when they’ve decided that some emergency — communism, terrorism, the pandemic — required us to give up some of our liberties in the name of hunting the bad people.

Inevitably, we regret those concessions. Coincidentally, shortly after Durov was arrested, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a letter in response to a U.S. House committee inquiry, regretfully admitting that the Biden White House had pressured Meta to censor disinformation during the pandemic, and that Meta had done so in some cases, though Zuckerberg takes full responsibility for those decisions. Undoubtedly, those officials thought they were helping people, but ultimately Facebook, owned by Meta, ended up also throttling reasonable speculation about the origins of the virus, along with an absolutely true story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, right ahead of an election.

Small cost, I’m sure many of my readers will say, especially if they voted for Joe Biden. But then consider how Donald Trump might use such powers — and then consider what even worse governments might do with expansive powers over Telegram’s user base. Which is why we keep deciding anew to tie officials’ hands: not because we’re afraid of what they’ll do to the criminals but because we’re afraid of what might eventually be done to us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/29/telegram-pavel-durov-free-speech/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Another blog down

Google have deleted my "Education Watch" blog.  No idea why.  It was all pretty mainstream conservative stuff.

It was most likely Google's AI that deleted it so  I have requested a review of the decision and that might get the blog back up

To read the sort of posts on it see my backups of it e.g. here:

http://jonjayray.com/edaug24.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

UN agency staff told not to say 'Englishman' or 'man's best friend' in latest crackdown on gendered language

A United Nations agency has been branded 'Orwellian' after it told staff not to use the term 'Englishman' in the latest crackdown on 'gendered' language.

The Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organisation – which protects trademarks and patents globally – has also vetoed masculine terms including 'forefathers' and 'brother­hood of man'.

Even 'man's best friend' has been blacklisted – with 'a faithful dog' to be used instead. And 'birth attendant' is suggested as an alternative to 'midwife'.

The move comes after the British Red Cross was accused of having been 'hijacked by political extremists' after clamping down on phrases such as 'ladies and gentlemen' and 'maiden name'.

According to the 'Guidelines on inclusive language' published by the UN agency – known as WIPO – using 'masculine-specific' terms risks giving the impression that 'women are not represented in certain groups or do not possess certain skills'.

Among the terms staff should not use are Englishman – with 'English person' or 'English national' given as alternatives.

'Man in the street' should be replaced by 'ordinary citizen' or 'typical person', while the word 'sportsmanlike' is to be avoided in favour of 'fair' or 'sporting'.

Caveman or cavewoman are both frowned upon, with the guide suggesting 'cave dweller' or 'prehistoric people', while 'humanity' is preferred to 'the brotherhood of man'.

A separate list of gender-neutral terms for occupations advises replacing 'lumberjack' with 'wood chopper' or 'logger' and waiter/waitress with 'wait staff' or, 'server'.

Another on the list is 'midwife', with the suggested alternative given as 'birth attendant' – although the guide does concede that midwife 'may still be the preferable term, depending on the context'.

Last night Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, said: 'This is precisely what George Orwell warned us about.

'Banning certain words and phrases to advance a dogmatic political ideology is a hallmark of totalitarianism.'

Last month the Daily Mail revealed how staff at the British Red Cross were being told that 'people who are not women' can get pregnant and have periods.

Meanwhile NHS trusts have instructed employees to use gender-neutral language, with midwives told to refer to 'mothers or birthing parents', and 'chestmilk' as an alternative to breastmilk.

Signed off by WIPO director general Daren Tang, the guidelines are 'not prescriptive and common sense and clarity of text should always prevail'.

WIPO said the document was 'designed to be a straightforward awareness-raising exercise for our colleagues on how to use

language that resonates with the widest possible audience, which may include avoiding terms that are linked to one specific gender when other neutral, more-inclusive words are available.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13824739/un-agency-staff-englishman-gendered-language.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Conservative YouTube Accounts Terminated Over Fear of Russian Influence

YouTube terminated the accounts of a conservative influencer and her media company Thursday evening, one day after the Justice Department indicated the company was tied to a Russian scheme to influence the 2024 election.

The accounts for Tenet Media and Lauren Chen were removed one day after Attorney General Merrick Garland held a press conference announcing an indictment of two Russians in an alleged scheme to influence the 2024 election. A note on Tenet Media’s channel states that it “violated our Community Guidelines” and Chen’s personal account on the Google-owned video site was listed as “not available” Friday morning.

The Justice Department claimed that individuals tied to Russian media outlet RT provided $10 million to promote accounts at a U.S.-based media outlet that had only 16 million views across 2,000 videos. The Justice Department did not name Tenet, but multiple news outlets have confirmed it was the company named in the indictment.

Tenet Media’s talent includes podcasters Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and Lauren Southern, according to its website. The personal YouTube pages for Rubin, Johnson, Pool, and Southern were still available Friday.

The DOJ’s assertions in the indictment have been viewed skeptically by some conservatives, who noted the claims that Russia colluded with former President Donald Trump during his successful 2016 campaign for the White House. The Steele Dossier, which was used to further allegations of collusion, was later discredited.

YouTube confirmed its action in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Following an indictment from the US Department of Justice and after careful review, we are terminating the Tenet Media channel and four channels operated by its owner Lauren Chen as part of our ongoing efforts to combat coordinated influence operations,” a spokesperson for YouTube told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Chen and Tenet Media did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/06/youtube-takes-down-conservative-podcast-network-tied-to-doj-russia-indictment/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

In this free speech fight, Musk’s X has marked the right position

When it comes to free expression, Elon Musk tends to talk the talk more ably than he walks the walk. In his latest public tussle on the subject, however, he’s managing to do both. The billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is correct when he says a Brazilian jurist’s move to unilaterally prohibit X, which he owns, from operating in the country is an assault on internet speech around the world.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has been on a quest to clean up online disinformation for years, having ordered platforms to remove reams of posts that he has declared threatening to democracy. The effort garnered praise from left of center commentators during the latter stages of right-wing populist Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s term, as the then-incumbent and his supporters threatened not to accept the results if they lost the 2022 election. And, indeed, yanking down lies with the potential to distort the vote or inspire violence may be the responsible thing for platforms such as X to do in certain limited circumstances. But it is beyond irresponsible for the government to make such calls. The story in Brazil has shown why.

Mr. Moraes’s takedown campaign might have been effective in combating right-wing conspiracy theories, but at a substantial cost to free expression — with mandates for removals and even arrest warrants often issued under seal and with scant reasoning to support them. The recent move against X is both more of the same and just plain more: After X ignored the court’s orders to block more than 140 accounts, the justice warned he would arrest its legal representative in Brazil. That prompted Mr. Musk to remove X’s team from the country. That lack of a physical presence, in turn, led Mr. Moraes to instruct that X be blocked for all 220 million Brazilians — who, he said, could face fines of almost $9,000 a day if they tried to circumvent the restriction.

If this sounds authoritarian, it is. Whatever the threat to democracy that the accounts Mr. Moraes wanted gone might have posed, the threat from one government official limiting the speech of 220 million people is greater. Taken together with Mr. Moraes’s choice to freeze the assets of internet-provider Starlink, a separate company of Mr. Musk’s, this move aligns Brazil not with the free world but with the likes of China and Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/04/elon-musk-x-brazil-judge-speech/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

I'm American - this is the common phrase Australians use that's 'highly offensive' to us

An expat living in Australia has revealed the one common phrase that Aussies should never use when speaking to an American: 'oldies'.

Ellie Drabik said that the everyday, 'innocent' phrase used by many Aussies would cause extreme offense in the US.

'My Americans, brace yourself for this, because this would never fly in America,' she said in a video.

'People literally call elderly people "oldies"... they talk about them and say those are the oldies or that's where the oldies go.'

Ellie added that the popular term, which would 'send you to jail for bad manners in America', didn't seem to be offensive among Aussies.

'In America saying you're old or an oldie would send people through the roof, like it would absolutely not fly, it would be completely not okay,' she added.

Ellie admitted that despite how insulting the expression would be in her home country, it was still her favourite local abbreviation.

Aussies reacting to the video defended the popular term and insisted that it was the best way to refer to older Australians and was meant to be a sign of affection.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13779411/Im-American-common-phrase-Australians-use-thats-highly-offensive-us.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Author Stephen King stunned to learn Florida's banned 23 of his books

It sounds like the law was over-interpreted

Horror master Stephen King was shocked to learn that 23 of his books have been banned in Florida - as his publisher joins a massive lawsuit against the state.

'What the f**k?' the famous author posted on X in response to learning the news.

Hundreds of books have been removed from schools as a result of the Florida law known as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill.

Some of King's novels that have reportedly been taken off the shelves include Carrie, It, The Gunslinger, The Running Man and The Long Walk.

King's publisher, Simon & Schuster, along with five other major publishers launched a lawsuit challenging the Florida law last week.

The other publishers to sign on are Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, and Sourcebooks.

Others who have joined the suit include bestselling authors Julia Alvarez, Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas, as well as the Authors Guild, two students and two parents.

The list of banned books includes classics such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, according to the publishers.

'As publishers dedicated to protecting freedom of expression and the right to read, the rise in book bans across the country continues to demand our collective action,' the group said in a joint statement.

'Fighting unconstitutional legislation in Florida and across the country is an urgent priority.

'We are unwavering in our support for educators, librarians, students, authors, readers - everyone deserves access to books and stories that show different perspectives and viewpoints.'

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the 'Don't Say Gay' bill in 2022, limiting access to materials containing 'sexual conduct' in classrooms.

Florida's legislature passed an expanded version of the law in May 2023, restricting in-classroom instruction of gender identity and sexual orientation for all public school grad -levels.

Additionally, the law also makes it easier for parents to remove books that they feel are inappropriate from school bookshelves.

Any person can challenge a book for any reason within their county. Once a challenge is levied, the book in question must be pulled from the shelves during the review process, which could take weeks or months.

PEN America tracked 3,135 bans across 11 school districts in Florida from July 1, 2021 to December 23, 2023.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13805523/stephen-king-author-florida-banned-books.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Awkward moment footy commentator uses extremely 'politically incorrect' language to describe a white female player

Footy fans are torn over a seemingly casual comment made during an AFLW match, with some calling it the ultimate compliment and others calling for the commentator to be sacked.

The incident occured during the opening round of the AFLW with Essendon taking on Fremantle on Saturday.

The commentary team, including veteran caller Kelli Underwood and former AFLW champion Kirby Bentley, turned their conversation to Fremantle veteran Ashleigh Brazill early in the third quarter.

That was when Bentley stunned viewers by saying she thought the Fremantle star was 'black' the first time they met as teenagers - because she was so athletic.

Bentley has known Brazill for almost two decades and played a key role in luring her over to Aussie Rules from netball.

Bentley is a proud Indigenous woman who founded charity carnival the Kirby Bentley Cup aimed at improving inclusion and opportunity for Aboriginal girls.

Brazill claimed gold medals at the Netball World Cup and Commonwealth Games and has juggled both sports since she was drafted into the AFLW in 2017.

Underwood began the exchange by talking up the athleticism of Brazill.

'Thirty four years of age, Ash Brazill, this is her 33rd career AFLW game and of course she was All Australian back in 2019 - and she's still got that speed,' she said.

That was when Bentley revealed that she had deep ties with Brazill.

'I've known Braz since she was 16, she was a rookie when I was playing national netball with her,' she said.

'It's insane, it's great to see her out here still with the amount of intensity that we put our bodies under.'

Underwood then asked: 'As a 16-year-old, did you pick it? Or has she been a sort of late bloomer and developer to both sports?

'She was a freak athlete,' Bentley confirmed.

'Her vertical leap was second to none, I thought she was black.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/afl/article-13800625/Shocking-moment-footy-commentator-uses-extremely-politically-incorrect-language-white-female-player.html

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Google censorship

In what I say below, I may not be criticizing any live person at Google. What I talk about may be the work of their AI alone.

There is however some hope. After a couple of requests from me for a review of the ban on my "Australian Politics" blog, the ban has been lifted. So I now am postng to it again at its old blogspot site:

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com

Hooray!


Leftist dominance of political thought is nothing new. I wrote a book about it in 1974:

http://jonjayray.com/chapters.html

But recent years have seen a great upsurge in active attempts to suppress the publication of conservative thinking. Google is part of that tendency. They are no longer just a search engine. They now actively censor thought that they disapprove of, calling it "misinformation".

And they are very sensitive to negative comments about C*v*d v*cc*n*s. In their view, the v*cc*n*s save lives so any commentary that discourages uptake of them costs lives. I am not allowed to differ in any way from that opinion in what I write

So they delete such negative commentary from my blogs where it appears and have also wiped out one of my blogs completely: "The Psychologist". It published occasional negative commentary and now no longer exists on Blogspot.

I was not too perturbed by the disappearance of "The Psychologist". It was simply a collection of posts that had appeared elsehere in my blogs so no thought or information was lost by its demolition.

For anyone curious about what appeared there, all its recent content can accessed from the Wayback Machine. Use the search term:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com

The clue to using The Wayback Machine is that you have to delete the asterisk in the search results

For illustrative purposes, I have grabbed a random couple of months of it from the Wayback Machine and posted it here:

http://jonjayray.com/awe.html

It is a large file so may take a minute to load

I have also started a new blog to replace it called "Select Thought". It is beyond the control of Google so all they can do about it is to refuse all mention of it in search results. It does not mention anything to do with C*v*d, however so they may give it a pass. The link to it is:

http://jonjayray.com/select.html

I have not however stopped putting up all skeptical thought about the v*cc*n*s. I have simply confined such commentary to a new blog especially devoted to that purpose. It is here:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html

There are some wild conspiracy theories about C*v*d, particularly on Substack, but I do not reference those. I confine my attention to statistically-based studies

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

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

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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