The Babylon Bee sues California for silencing satire

California’s Democrats are being sued for shutting down satire.

At the centre of the 72-page lawsuit is the right to freedom of speech for the Babylon Bee and lawyer Kelly Chang Rickert.

Representing Rickert and the Babylon Bee is Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). They said that the catalyst for the case was legislation recently adopted by Governor Gavin ‘Nuisance’ Newsom.

‘[These] laws censor freedom of speech by using vague standards to punish people for posting certain political content online,’ the ADF argued.

This includes, ‘political memes, parodies of politicians and apply around election time’.

They are designed, ADF explained, to censor speech through subjective standards like prohibiting pictures and videos ‘likely to harm’ a candidate’s ‘electoral prospects’.

California’s Democrats fast-tracked their own version of the Misinformation and Disinformation (MAD) laws in September.

Bills AB 2839 and AB 2655 were made law after an ad (of unknown origin) parodying Kamala Harris, triggered Newsom.

He criticised Elon Musk for resharing the video, and boasted:

‘Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.’

Ironically, AB 2655 was dubbed ‘Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception’.

AB 2839, sponsored by 12 Democrats, was marketed as protecting elections from deceptive media in advertisements.

Citing AI and election interference, they claimed that ‘fake images or files can skew election results’ and promote election denial conspiracies.

Therefore, in order to secure election integrity, California has decided that it must ban satirical content critical of candidates ‘for a limited time before and after elections’.

This serves to ‘prevent the use of deepfakes and disinformation meant to prevent voters from voting and deceive voters based on fraudulent content’.

A federal court has since put a halt on AB 2839, citing concerns about freedom of speech in response to an unrelated lawsuit put forward by YouTuber Christopher Kohls.

ADF described the laws as ‘forbidding political expression under the label of ‘materially deceptive content’.

Newsom’s law renders satire pointless by effectively demanding comical content come with trigger warnings.

Additionally, ‘AB 2655 converts social media platforms into California state snitches.’

Big Tech will be required to file ‘field reports’ with big government ‘about user posts, then remove or label them false’.

The Babylon Bee v Comrade California lawsuit argues, that Newsom’s MAD laws, ‘threatens the heart of public discourse’.

‘The First Amendment protects this freedom because it trusts the American people to be able to think and decide for themselves in the context of debating political candidates and issues.’

Slamming their point home, ADF said:

‘California officials don’t share that trust. They want to be the arbiters of political truth online.’

Defending satirical political content, ADF added:

‘The end [goal] of satire is often to criticise or mock an idea, event, or person for the purpose of correction and improvement.’

To this end, satire utilises wit, shock, and awe, in order to ‘provide social commentary in order to expose underlying truths’.

Satirists provide sharp relief, and brevity in an otherwise bloated, and cloudy stream of morose data, and cliched, overdone sloganeering.

Thus, ADF argued, ‘Satirists tell the truth with a smile, so that [they] will not repel people but cure them of their ignorance which is their worst fault.’

The Babylon Bee is based in Florida, however, most of its editing and video work is produced in California.

ADF’s lawsuit aims to stop the enforcement of both laws.

Although they have the veneer of defending democracy, these laws appear to exist with the sole purpose of defending Democrats.

When announcing the important lawsuit, Alliance Defending Freedom said the law is ‘humourless, authoritarian censorship of political speech and satire’.

‘The Founders didn’t give us the First Amendment so politicians like Newsom could appoint themselves fact checkers and humour police. So, we’re taking action,’ they concluded.

The Babylon Bee’s CEO, Seth Dillon, told Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, he never thought the company would ever get so big, let alone be at the epicentre of the fight to save freedom of speech.

In a separate X post, Dillon remarked, ‘It shouldn’t be necessary to defend comedy in court, but here we are.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/10/the-babylon-bee-sues-california-for-silencing-satire/

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

All my main blogs below:

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

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

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

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

English backpacker shocked to find Aussies don't like being called 'champ'

To me it is a polite usage

An English backpacker has found himself befuddled by various aspects of Aussie culture after moving Down Under, from our sense of humour to our obsession with early morning exercise. Most recently, he has put our aversion to a seemingly inoffensive word in his smartphone's spotlight, putting a video out on TikTok asking others to explain what is so offensive about it.

Speaking through hair so floppy it would put a storage disk to shame, the backpacker named Kyle said: "if you call [Australians] "champ" they're going to want to punch you in the face."

"Australians: explain it to me in the comments because I found out but I didn't exactly get the reason why and it's very interesting," he added.

Australians were quick to explain that, over here, calling someone a "champ" or "boss" is generally considered over-familiar at best, and patronising and condescending at worst.

"Champ is passive aggressive to Aussies," one social media user said, while another added: "Champ is like belittling; it’s patronising like buddy."

https://www.escape.com.au/news/english-backpacker-shocked-to-find-aussies-dont-like-being-called-champ/news-story/baadaae46b7f0ebee0fbe7f35169744a

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

All my main blogs below:

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

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

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

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Western Sydney University chief Jennifer Westacott: ‘We will not tolerate hate speech on campus’

Western Sydney University chancellor Jennifer Westacott has slammed anti-Israel campus protesters, two of whom were arrested and charged for allegedly assaulting security guards.

“Western Sydney University condemns anti-Semitism in any form, full stop,” Ms Westacott told The Australian.

“We condemn Islamophobia, hate speech, intimidation and violence in any form, full stop. I cannot be clearer than that.

“We will not tolerate these behaviours on our campuses. This is now a police matter and we are fully co-operating with the police investigation.

“The safety and wellbeing of students is our priority. Universities should be places of intellectual challenge and the contest of ideas, but they must never be places of fear or intimidation.”

Peak Jewish groups have expressed outrage at Western Sydney University protesters who claimed to name a campus building after the slain former leader of Hamas’s political wing. In a social media comment, the protesters confirmed their banner, which read “Haniyeh’s building”, was a reference to Ismail Haniyeh, the former leader of Hamas’s political wing who was assassinated this year.

The protesters have scheduled a “cops off campus” protest on Friday at the university campus, saying two of its members were “violently arrested” in a case of “racial profiling”.

“Ismail Haniyeh was the leader of Hamas, a terrorist organisation listed in Australia, just like ISIS and al-Qa’ida,” Zionist Federation of Australia chief executive Alon Cassuto said. “Imagine students glorifying bin Laden on campus a year after 9/11.

“Failures in university leadership across Australia have emboldened students to think they can get away with glorifying a genocidal terrorist leader with no consequences. Western Sydney University must come out strongly … to condemn this behaviour and send a clear message to all students that this will not be tolerated.”

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry condemned the protesters for being “some of the most ignorant and brainwashed people imaginable”.

“It has taken a year for the anti-Israel movement to drop any pretence of supporting peace and Palestinian statehood,” ECAJ co-chief executive Alex Ryvchin said. “It is now plain for all to see they’re only interested in war and Jewish destruction.

“In time they will undoubtedly turn up as Greens candidates or researchers for ‘human rights organisations’ but their proud support for a murderous anti-Semitic psychopath will follow them.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/western-sydney-university-chief-jennifer-westacott-we-will-not-tolerate-hate-speech-on-campus/news-story/5a7ffbd4becdbd69c4174e312ecdab56

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

All my main blogs below:

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

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

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

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

How Foreign Censorship Threatens American Free Speech

On the eve of a highly-anticipated live X “Spaces” conversation between Elon Musk and former president Donald Trump, the powerful European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton warned in August that authorities would be “monitoring” the conversation for “content that may incite violence, hate, and racism.”

While reminding Musk that the EU was already investigating X for alleged failures “to combat disinformation,” Breton said he and his colleagues “will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox … to protect EU citizens from serious harm.”

The European Commission distanced itself from Breton, who would eventually resign his post while facing scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers for threatening Musk and Americans’ free speech and interfering in domestic politics. But the EU probe of X, which could result in crippling fines, persists.

Although litigation, congressional oversight efforts, and reportage led by the Twitter Files have helped expose the U.S. government’s efforts to pressure social media companies to censor protected political speech, the recent rumblings from Europe underscore the escalating challenges American-based social media platforms are facing from foreign authorities – not just from repressive regimes such as China and Iran, but also from the EU, the U.K., Brazil, and other democracies.

Free speech advocates warn that foreign demands that tech companies comply with their censorious legal and regulatory standards that violate the First Amendment’s protections will hamper the ability of Americans to communicate freely in the digital public square. Facebook’s Community Standards, for example, “apply to everyone, all around the world.” Academics have termed the tendency of companies to apply the strictest local guidelines globally as the “Brussels Effect.”

Mike Benz, a former State Department cyber official and executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, argues that foreign efforts to cast populist narratives on matters such as election integrity, immigration, and public health as mis- and dis-information constitute a surreptitious “transatlantic flank attack” on American speech.

However, evidence suggests that U.S. authorities and U.S.-supported NGOs that have sought greater restrictions on speech have, at minimum, indirectly supported these foreign efforts, creating a backdoor method to suppress protected speech at home.

For instance, the White House pressured platforms to censor content pertaining to COVID-19 and election integrity. Agencies from the Justice Department to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Communications Commission have probed Musk’s enterprises during the Biden years.

Defining Illegal Content

The U.S. government has used the FBI and the State Department, among other agencies, to coordinate counter-disinformation efforts globally with other nations. The goal is said to build “a more resilient global information system, where objective facts are elevated and deceptive messages gain less traction,” in the words of  Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

As a State Department spokesman told RealClearInvestigations, “The United States is committed to advancing a rights-respecting approach to technology that mitigates potential harms while maintaining the free and open use of digital platforms.”

“We are concerned by actions to limit access to information anywhere in the world,” the spokesman added.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act is seen by champions of stringent content moderation standards and critics alike as the strongest global effort to regulate speech.

Adopted in 2022 and praised by former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the measure imposes a slew of regulatory requirements on the more than a dozen social media platforms and search engines that have at least 45 million users in the EU.

It requires these platforms to take measures to counter “illegal content online,” not only responding to user-flagged posts but those fingered by “specialised ‘trusted flaggers’” for removal, according to a European Commission Q&A.

“Illegal content,” the Commission writes, includes “illegal hate speech” and other prohibited rhetoric, pursuant to EU law or those within any of its 27 member states. Platforms also must take “risk-based action,” including undergoing independent audits to combat “disinformation or election manipulation” – with the expectation those measures should be taken in consultation with “independent experts and civil society organisations.” The Commission says these measures are aimed at mitigating “systemic issues such as … hoaxes and manipulation during pandemics, harms to vulnerable groups and other emerging societal harms” driven by “harmful” but not illegal content.

The DSA also references a Code of Practice on Disinformation, under which Big Tech companies such as Google, Meta, and Microsoft have agreed to demonetize purported disinformation pursuant to European Commission guidance.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/10/08/global_crackdown_how_foreign_censorship_threatens_american_free_speech_1063521.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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Patricia Karvelas forced to apologise after one-word blunder on her live radio show

ABC star Patricia Karvelas has been forced to apologise live on air after her guest used the word 'schizophrenic' to describe a policy.

Ms Karvelas made the apology on Wednesday morning, just hours after Anthony Albanese apologised for mocking Tourette syndrome during Question Time.

'My guest, a couple of guests ago ... used the word schizophrenic in describing policy,' she said.

'I can understand why people are offended by [it] and then I repeated it, and then I can only apologise for myself, of course, and I do apologise for that.'

Ms Karvelas hosts ABC radio national breakfast on weekday mornings.

The gaffe comes after the Prime Minister was called out for a comment he made during Question Time on Tuesday, while answering a question on whether Labor would tax owner-occupied family homes.

Facing interjections from shadow treasurer Angus Taylor who was repeatedly saying: 'Rule it out,' Mr Albanese directed his attention at the Hume MP.

'This nonsense that they carry on with ... have you got Tourette's or something?' said Mr Albanese, drawing laughter from some in the chamber.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13939317/Patricia-Karvelas-forced-apologise-one-word-blunder-live-radio-show.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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Meta is officially the global arbiter of ‘truth’ – yes, you should be afraid

Last month, the US Department of Justice charged two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT with violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The charges allege the individuals paid $14.7 million to a US right-wing social media company to create and distribute nearly 2000 social media videos across TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube that contained covert pro-Russian messaging on topics like the Ukraine war, immigration, and domestic US policies.

Following the charges, Meta announced it was imposing a long-anticipated ban on RT and another Russian media organisation, Rossiya Segodnya, across its platforms, which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, for “foreign interference activity”.

Citing a web of deception and covert influence operations, Meta made it clear the decision didn’t come from nowhere. As far back as 2017, the US government sounded the alarm on RT and forced it to formally register as a “foreign agent”.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pulled no punches in his assessment of the charges, accusing RT of being a “de facto extension of Russia’s intelligence apparatus” with “cyber operational capabilities and connections to Russian intelligence”. In international relations and diplomacy, these are fighting words.

The Kremlin’s response, via spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, was telling. “Meta is discrediting itself with these actions,” he said, adding, “Such selective actions against Russian media are unacceptable. This complicates prospects for normalising our relations with Meta.”

The subtext of Peskov’s statement was clear: in the eyes of some, Meta is not just another company making a business decision; it’s a geopolitical actor wielding partisan influence.

The RT and Rossiya Segodnya bans are another round in an already contentious debate regarding social media giants and the power they hold. On one end of the spectrum, we have those who see such actions as a necessary step in combating state-sponsored disinformation.

On the other end, free speech advocates view the ban with great alarm, seeing it as a dangerous precedent for tech giants acting as “arbiters of truth”. Elon Musk, who proclaims himself to be a free speech absolutist (whenever it’s convenient for his self-image), posted to his own platform X: “If we lose freedom of speech, it’s never coming back.”

For all the melodrama that surrounds him, Musk’s sentiment is one that resonates with users who fear that the disinformation cure might be worse than the disease.

As the Australian Human Rights Commission has pointed out, “Drawing a clear line between truth and falsehood is not always simple, and there may be legitimate differences in opinion.” In other words, one person’s disinformation might be another’s hard-hitting exposé. There has to be an objective truth, but moderating for it isn’t an easy prospect.

What makes this situation particularly thorny is the global reach of platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. When Meta makes a decision, it doesn’t just impact a handful of users or a single channel – it has consequences around the globe. Through the ban, RT alone lost more than 7.2 million followers on Facebook, and another million on Instagram.

According to the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, 80 per cent of Australians are concerned about the spread of disinformation on social media. So, the pressure to address the issue of disinformation on social media platforms is mounting, from both users and public agencies.

Social media and the internet have given a voice to millions who were once left out of the conversation. They have brought together communities across the globe and made information more accessible than ever before – something we couldn’t have imagined even a few decades ago.

What makes these platforms so powerful is their ability to cultivate open expression and tear down barriers. It’s a noble idea, and worth defending. But for every heartwarming story of long-lost school friends reunited or grassroots movements gaining traction, there is a Cambridge Analytica scandal, or disinformation spreading like wildfire. And Meta has now, in effect, become a gatekeeper of global discourse, a role it is neither suited to, nor was elected to fulfil.

The ban on RT and Rossiya Segodnya won’t be the last word when it comes to online disinformation. The challenge now is in maintaining the openness of the internet, while curbing harmful content and propaganda.

Defending Russia’s propaganda as free speech is shortsighted nonsense. But Meta’s ban raises pertinent questions about where and how we draw the line for online expression, the role of governments in policing the digital realm, and the responsibility platforms have in combating and responding to disinformation in an era when truth seems increasingly elusive.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/meta-is-officially-the-global-arbiter-of-truth-yes-you-should-be-afraid-20241006-p5kg6k.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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Amazon Retracts Ban of Dr. Paul Marik's "Cancer Care"

This evening I received an e-mail from Dr. Marik, who explained that Amazon’s ban of his book “Cancer Care” has been retracted. The e-book is again available for purchase. This great news comes almost exactly a week after I wrote about the ban in my post Amazon Excommunicates Dr. Paul Marik. I’d like to think that my protest, which was very widely shared, may have contributed to the retail Leviathan’s decision to retract the ban.

I hope that our oligarchic overlords will come to understand that—as much power and money as they possess—they won’t get away with banning books by great scholars while also pretending to be benevolent. Everyone who still has his brain will see this for what it is—namely, a brutal act of tyranny that ONLY the bad guys in history have done.

Congratulations, Dr. Marik, for your victory for free speech and for providing helpful and possibly life saving information to cancer patients. Put one in the win column for the good guys!

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/amazon-retracts-ban-of-dr-paul-mariks

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

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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

The Left’s Open Declaration of War on Free Speech

Leftists are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their antipathy for freedom of speech. It’s an obstacle to their desire for power, so it must be crushed.

An exaggeration, you say?

Just listen to what high-profile leftists have been openly saying about denying you your right to information on both sides of the political equation.

Former presidential candidate and Obama Secretary of State John Kerry has gotten the most attention recently, mainly because of how bluntly he railed against our most fundamental freedom. But former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has been just as repressive—and more detailed. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has been her usual self as she demands censorship without much specificity.

Kerry made his comments at a World Economic Forum panel on green energy on Sept. 25. A conservative comedian trying to satirize the views of the haughty ruling class could not have come up with better material.

As Kerry put it, “The dislike of and anger over social media is just growing and growing and growing, and it’s part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue,” Kerry lamented, apparently referring to abhorrence of freedom by members of his ilk.

“It’s really hard to govern today!” The problem, he said, was that the internet and social media have liberated people to choose from different sources of information, adding competition. Little over two decades ago, the country was held hostage to the views of the journalists working at three networks and a handful of national newspapers.

Kerry pines for those days. “The referees we used to have to determine what’s a fact, and what isn’t a fact, have been eviscerated to a certain degree, and people self-select, where they go for their news, or for their information, and you get into a vicious cycle,” said the man who came within 19 Electoral College votes of becoming president in 2004. “So, it’s really, really hard, much harder, to build consensus today than at any time in the 40 to 50 years I’ve been involved in this.”

He continued, “There is a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda and it’s putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to hammer it out of existence.”

Kerry’s solution?

What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change. … Democracies are very challenged right now, and have not proven that they can move fast enough, or big enough, to deal with the challenges that we are facing, and to me, this is part of what this race, this election is all about—will we break the fever in the United States?

Reich also discussed his desire to hammer persnickety sources of information out of existence with a global audience. Writing in the leading newspaper of the British Left, The Guardian, he engaged in a bit of disinformation himself by mischaracterizing the actions of the man he’d like hammered out, X owner Elon Musk.

Musk and former President Donald Trump “have both floated the idea of governing together if Trump wins a second term,” wrote Reich, whereas, in fact, as Reich admitted himself, all Musk has done is recommend that Trump have in a second term a “government efficiency commission” in which Musk “would be happy to help out.” But apparently unaware that he was committing the same crime he accused Musk to be guilty of, Reich went on with his recommendation for how officials around the world should “rein in Musk.”

The first one was for people to boycott Musk’s electric vehicle, Tesla, and his social media company, X. But Reich wants much more. “Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X,” he wrote. As for the U.S. government, it “should terminate its contracts with him, starting with Musk’s SpaceX,” wrote Reich, who published his screed weeks before the U.S. government had to come to SpaceX, hat in hand, asking it to retrieve two astronauts stranded by NASA.

Ocasio-Cortez has been far less trenchant and specific. The young representative, who’s been repeatedly dinged by left-leaning PolitiFact for spreading falsehoods, also wants to “rein in” media she considers guilty of spreading misinformation.

“We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,” she posted on social media. “It’s one thing to have different opinions, but it’s another thing entirely to just say things that are false, so that is something that we’re looking into.”

Unfortunately, these unhinged comments by American politicians don’t come in a vacuum.

There is a sustained attack on freedom of information from Brazil to our ally the United Kingdom to next door in Canada. Of course, that makes it all the more important that we speak up for freedom.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/10/05/the-lefts-open-declaration-of-war-on-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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Capitol riots not threat to democracy, Harris ‘censorship’ is: Vance

Republican J.D. Vance has dodged a question on the January 6 Capitol riots and whether the election results will be challenged again, saying the issue lies with the Democrats’ “threat of censorship”.

“I believe we actually have a threat to a threat to democracy in this country, but unfortunately it is not the threat Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to talk about, [it] is the threat of censorship,” he said.

“It is Americans casting aside life-long friendships because of disagreements over politics, it’s big technology companies silencing their fellow citizens.

“And it is Kamala Harris saying that rather than debate and persuade her fellow Americans, she’d like to censor the people who engage in misinformation.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-vice-presidential-debate-live-updates-j-d-vance-tim-walz-face-off-for-first-time-in-new-york-20241001-p5kf10.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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Irish minister drops plans for hate speech laws

The Republic of Ireland's Minister for Justice has confirmed she has dropped plans to introduce new hate speech laws.

Helen McEntee said she would still include the hate crime element in new proposed legislation.

She will introduce committee stage amendments to the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022.

The bill is currently at its third stage before Seanad Éireann, (upper house of the Irish parliament), when it is examined section by section and amendments can be made.

McEntee told Irish broadcaster RTÉ that "in order to bring forward new hate speech legislation we need a consensus".

"We don't have that at the moment," she said.

However she said she was "adamant" that hate crime legislation will be enacted.

'Tougher, harsher sentence'

She said the message would be sent that "if you attack a person, commit a crime against a person or a group of people, simply because of who they are, the colour of their skin, where they have come from that there will be a tougher sentence, a harsher sentence at the end of the day".

There has been a huge amount of debate over the bill.

It was criticised by social media platform X owner Elon Musk.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8vy235yxjo

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

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)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH  -- new site)

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)

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

Censorship at Stanford

"In seeking to impose egalitarianism, they made themselves an elite. In seeking to eliminate what they perceived as oppression, they acted far more tyrannically." — Peter Thiel and David Sacks, "The Diversity Myth"

When Peter Thiel and David Sacks wrote “The Diversity Myth” in 1995, they detailed what they experienced during their time as Stanford undergraduates: an increasingly hostile left-wing political ideology that villainized Western culture, idolized victimhood, and worshipped diversity. Thirty years later, their description of Stanford’s culture is an eerily similar description of our country’s trajectory and leadership today.

In my few years at Stanford, I witnessed pro-Hamas students camp out at White Plaza and raid the president’s office. I watched Stanford Law School’s Associate Dean of DEI fuel student protestors shouting down a federal judge. I saw a bloated administration with more than 10,000 bureaucrats and 177 DEI officials crack down on student-led fun, and I reported on Stanford’s integral role in censorship efforts during the Covid pandemic, upon much more.

But amazingly, Thiel and Sacks, the co-founder and one of the early editors of the Review, described Stanford just as ideologically troublesome—if not worse—during their time.

In one stunning story, they recall the Stanford speech code that banned “fighting words” on campus until it was ruled unconstitutional in 1995. When one student decided to push the boundaries of the speech code, proving that the speech code was not as compelling as the multiculturalists hoped, Stanford punished him through every measure of pressure, intimidation, and condemnation they could find to discredit him.

Thiel and Sacks paint a vivid picture of how Stanford fell to the ideology they called “multiculturalism,” what we now call “wokeism.” The main difference today is just how pervasive the ideology has become. The direct results of this ideology are often ludicrous and negligible, like when Stanford bans words like “American” and “brave.” But if the Covid pandemic revealed anything about this campus culture: It’s not funny anymore.

When the pandemic hit, Stanford ceded to the same ideology Thiel and Sacks identified in 1995. The University’s elitism and tyranny was on full display when it pressured and censored its faculty members who held a valid scientific belief that fell outside of their preferred narrative. When Stanford Dr. Jay Bhattacharya called for “Focused Protection” and Dr. Scott Atlas pushed against the widespread pandemic mandates, Stanford tried to silence them. They created a pressure campaign to prohibit them from speaking to the media, discredit their research, and publicly censure Dr. Atlas in the Stanford Faculty Senate. As Stanford has done for decades now, it used its power to uphold its own narrative.

This time, however, it is different. It is no longer a matter of mere “fighting words” or microaggressions; it is a matter of life and death. It turns out, many of the views and findings that Stanford censored were not only valid, but carried the potential to change the outcomes of countless human lives through a different approach to lockdowns, school closures, and protective measures. This censorious ideology has helped create a far more dangerous world than the safety it purports to champion.

It’s time that Stanford turn away from this ideology and instead focus on a different set of fundamental principles: those of individual and academic freedom that sustain our country and allowed Stanford to succeed in the first place. To all of those who have supported us in the Review for almost four decades: We will continue to stand as a remnant of hope for our broken universities.

https://stanfordreview.org/editors-note-the-fight-against-stanfords-censorship/

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

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)

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

Speak up for Free Speech

In many Western countries, governments are enacting draconian speech laws. Politicians argue that these measures are necessary to combat misinformation and hate speech spread through social media. Nowadays, even mild insults are often labeled as hate speech. Illiberal politicians, government officials, and special interest groups frequently use this term to silence anyone who criticizes them. Those who dare to question their politics risk destroying their reputation and being “canceled.”

In theory, hate speech laws are there to protect people who face discrimination. In practice, anyone can be arrested for anything said about a protected group. In Ireland, arrests can be made for memes and other digital images that are considered offensive. In Germany, social media companies with more than two million users have 24 hours after receiving a complaint to block or delete what is illegal content or face fines.

According to the New York Times, more than 1,000 Germans faced charges for online hate since 2018, and people have experienced early morning police raids where the police enter a home and confiscate computers and personal devices. More troubling is that German hate speech laws are used against citizens who have criticized the government.

In France, Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, a social media platform with a billion users, was arrested for violations that include “complicity in selling child pornography, drug trafficking, fraud, abetting organized transactions, and refusing to share information with investigators when required by law.” In 2018, Russia pressured Telegram to remove online communities of Russian opposition activists. Pavel Durov refused and left the country. Governments are attempting to use social media platforms as a database of information to access at any time without legal justification.

Britain was once a global power and the envy of the world. Today, its government is so out of touch with working people’s problems that it blames free speech for its inability to provide competent government. Through the Communications Act, some of the harshest censorship in the world has been handed out against its citizens. The Times conducted an investigation and discovered that nine people a day were being arrested for posting offensive messages online; in 2016, three thousand three hundred people were jailed.

British speech is so controlled that celebrities like Rowan Atkinson have lambasted the government: “Free speech is my passionate belief that the second most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself freely and the most precious thing in life is food in your mouth,” he stated.

Atkinson is speaking out not only for himself but for ordinary people who don’t have the resources to defend themselves. He spoke of an Oxford man arrested for calling a “police horse gay, a teenager arrested for calling the Church of Scientology a cult, and a cafe owner arrested for displaying passages from the Bible on a TV screen.” He thinks the government may be well-intentioned in its ambition to control troublemakers. Still, the result is an “authoritarian, intolerant society.”

After nine years in power, the Trudeau Liberals have created a kangaroo speech court in Canada. The passage of the Online Harms Act muzzles Canadians with punishments and forces collective self-censorship on its citizens. The Act empowers the Human Rights Commission to haul citizens in for a pre-trial hearing before any crime has been committed based on a complaint where a person feels a hate crime may be directed against them. The judge can put the person under house arrest or electronic surveillance without due process. As well, anyone who advocates for or promotes genocide is “liable to life imprisonment.” The Trudeau government is more restrictive on free speech than on handling serial killers. The latter are often moved from maximum to medium security, and repeat offenders are released within 24 hours to continue their criminal activities.

The country’s activist Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from author Dr. Jordan Peterson against an order for him to undergo social media training by the College of Psychologists of Ontario as punishment for some controversial media posts. The College threatened to revoke Peterson’s license unless he went in for social media training. The result is that 25% of Canadians who are members of professional and trade-regulated vocations have been effectively silenced and warned not to express their opinions publicly. “It is an invitation to extortion and to levying personal vendettas by threatening people with loss of their professional licenses if a complaint is made against them that something they said or wrote might offend the sensibilities of their regulatory bodies” stated Peterson’s lawyer Howard Levitt.

Americans are proud of their First Amendment rights, but two-thirds of Americans are afraid to state their true beliefs about politics for fear of losing their jobs. This fear is four times what it was during the height of McCarthyism during the 1950s. The Biden administration tried to create its own Ministry of Truth. In a landmark decision, a Louisiana federal court upheld First Amendment rights to speak without being censored by the government. Judge Terry Doughty said (Missouri v. Biden) “arguably involved the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” The Biden-Harris administration is appealing.

The message conveyed by Pastor Martin Niemöller was that the German people were complicit and never exercised their chance to speak up about the Nazi imprisonment and murder of millions of people. In contemporary times, citizens of the Western world are similarly complicit in passively accepting their governments’ actions, which curtails their freedom to express dissenting views on contentious issues that challenge the established narrative. As a result, the government has stepped in to become the arbiter of truth, using the state’s coercive power to silence its citizens and tell people what they should think. “Whatever the Party holds to be the truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party, wrote George Orwell in 1984.

The right to free speech, once cherished in the West, is now considered a major offense. Citizens are being jailed for protesting against war and expressing their opinions on illegal immigration. Moreover, private conversations are now targeted by those seeking to control thoughts and opinions. If people do not take a stand for their freedoms, democracy could become totalitarian, and its citizens will be oppressed—just as Orwell predicted in 1984.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/09/19/speak-up-for-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)

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

Fury as free speech group 'kicked out' of Brighton pub over a discussion about gender ideology in schools

Angry free speech campaigners hit out last night after allegedly being ousted from a pub meeting over a discussion about gender ideology in schools.

According to members of the Free Speech Union, private security guards ejected them from the Brighton pub because the landlord disapproved of their belief in biological sex.

They also claimed security staff stopped them entering another pub in an 'authoritarian' attack on freedom of speech.

Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union (FSU), said it was 'no different to kicking someone out because they're black or gay' and threatened the pub with legal action.

About 50 members of Free Speech Brighton, a splinter group of the Free Speech Union, had gathered in the pub on Tuesday night.

The first talk was given by a retired teacher who said 'gender ideology' should not be taught to schoolchildren.

But as the woman in her 50s took questions, five security guards allegedly asked the group to leave.

Footage shows one telling the activists there had been a complaint 'from the management'.

Those attending the meeting said they had pre-booked a private portion of the Southern Belle pub in Brighton and were being 'quiet and well-behaved'.

One attendee was journalist Julie Burchill.

She said that they were kicked out 'because we talked about gender reality'.

Last night, Mr Young said the landlord couldn't evict customers 'just because he disapproves of their perfectly lawful beliefs'.

'It's no different to kicking someone out because they're black or gay', he said.

'It's unlawful discrimination.'

The Southern Belle declined to comment, while the private security firm did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13866127/free-speech-group-kicked-Brighton-pu-gender-ideology-schools.html?ito=video_player_click

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

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)

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

Concerning the censorhip of "EDUCATION WATCH"

Google have now wiped out a number of my blogs and each time I have had to decide what to do about that. Most of what I was putting up on "EDUCATION WATCH" could equally well have gone up on "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH" so I have decided to do that. I will not try to resurrect "EDUCATION WATCH" but will from now on post most of what it was saying on "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH"

I have no real idea of what inflamed Google about "EDUCATION WATCH" but I will try to avoid posts of a more controversial kind.

"POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH" has itself been shut down by Google but contnues to exist as "Skeptical Notes" and can be found at https://westpsychol.blogspot.com or http://jonjayray.com/pcsep24.html

A response to censorship

I had a variety of ideas about the cancellation of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH" by Google. One idea that I thought I would try out was to repurpose one of my dormant blogspost blogs as a replacment of the "lost" blog. So I have done that

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com is the address of the "new" blog.

I have called it Skeptical Notes and will try to avoid posts on it that might inflame Google

Another blog down

Since Google started to use AI to evaluate my blogs, what I write has come under heavy attack. Two of my blogs no longer exist. That is a bit demoralizing.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH has now joined the legion of the lost. Google has wiped it. It is however still going up on my backup sites. For today's postings see:

http://jonjayray.com/pcsep24.html

Coconut placards and the truth about free speech in Britain

When you describe what happened, you realise how ridiculous it was. A woman was dragged to court for holding up a placard that featured a drawing of a palm tree with coconuts falling from it. Superimposed on two of the coconuts were the faces of Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak, who was Prime Minister at the time. And that was it. Hauled before magistrates for carrying a daft illustration through the streets. Anyone who doubted that our liberty to speak is in peril has surely been shaken awake now.

So, yes, I believe it is hateful. But should it be illegal? No

This is the case of Marieha Hussain, a 37-year-old Londoner and secondary-school teacher. Well, until she held aloft the infamous placard, which caused her to lose her job. Last November, Hussain, with around 300,000 others, attended a ‘pro-Palestine’ demo in the capital. She was keen to have a dig at Braverman and Sunak, so she depicted them as coconuts. Hussain said this was a form of political critique against what she said were ‘politicians in high office who perpetuate and push racist policies’. The prosecution said it was something uglier. But, even so, should it be a matter for the courts? Of course not.

Yet that’s how it was treated. Hussain was arrested on suspicion of committing a racially aggravated public order offence. She was subjected to a two-day trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. She was found not guilty on Friday. Oh, and she’s heavily pregnant. What kind of society forces a pregnant woman out of her teaching job and gives her a grilling in a court of law all because she expressed a sharp view in public? A cruel one, I’d say.

There are so many twisted things in this case. There’s the craziness of it. I find it terrifying that the Crown Prosecution Service thought it a good idea to prosecute a teacher for holding up an image of a palm tree and two politicians in the midst of a vast crowd. Clearly they caved to the mob: when a photo of Hussain’s placard was posted online, some right-wingers went nuts, morphing into a cancel-culture rabble and demanding she be punished. Yet surely the CPS should think coolly about what is in the public interest, not let itself be swept along by vengeful hotheads online.

Then there’s the hypocrisy. Leftists noisily stood up for Hussain and her birthright of free speech. Some protested outside her court hearings, holding placards similar to the one that landed her in trouble. Even the Guardian came out swinging for her right to be offensive. These people are far from friends of free speech. They’ve turned a blind eye, or indeed lent a foaming mouth, to many of the heartless cancellation campaigns of recent years. And now they want to pose as John Milton reincarnate?

Where were they when feminists who don’t believe people with penises are women were being hounded off campuses? Or when a man was arrested for denigrating the Pride flag? Or when cops warned various individuals to watch their words, and even to reorder their thoughts, on the issue of transgenderism? Or, indeed, when people have been arrested and jailed for making racist comments? If you’re so committed to liberty you will defend a person’s right to depict brown folk as ‘coconuts’, surely you will defend other people’s right to cause offence?

That’s the thing. Hussain’s lefty cheerleaders are not fighting for free speech but for me speech: the right to express ideas they approve of, and those ideas alone. This is not the ‘liberty to utter’ that so many of our forebears fought tooth and nail for – it’s a licence to utter, granted only to those who have taken the knee to chattering-class consensus. In this case the pretty vile consensus that politicians like Braverman and Sunak are racial quislings.

To my mind, ‘coconut’ is a racist insult. I believe that is the case because it is exclusively used against people of colour. It’s a barb built on racial stereotypes. It implicitly proposes that there is only one, ‘right’ way to be a person of colour: you must be leftish, rebellious, not too studious. Deviate from any of these decrees, dare to be a black person who’s reserved, conservative and not down with either mass immigration or ‘Palestinian resistance’, and you will be damned as a coconut, a racial failure.

So, yes, I believe it is hateful. But should it be illegal? No. We need to get serious about freedom of speech. Of course a line must be drawn where people are inciting violence. But if they are only expressing a belief, even a belief many will find offensive, their liberty must remain intact. We must always remember that the very freedom that allows people to say things we hate also allows us to push back against hatefulness.

It isn’t only the left whose hypocrisy has been exposed by the Hussain case. Many on the right had a Damascene conversion to the cause of cancel culture the minute they clapped eyes on her placard. Listen, we all know there are double standards on the ‘hate speech’ question. But the solution is not to call for a single standard of censorship to be applied without fear or favour to everyone who makes a distasteful utterance. It is to insist on a single standard of liberty, on freedom of speech for all.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/coconut-placards-and-the-truth-about-free-speech-in-britain/

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

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)

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

Congress pushes bill to break the internet and censor websites—again

On Sept. 18, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is marking up 16 pieces of legislation including the so-called Kids Online Safety Act and Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), both of which would dramatically erode liability protections that websites and applications currently enjoy under existing law including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

For example, in Section 110 of the Kids Online Safety Act, civil actions may be brought by states against “public-facing website, online service, online application, or mobile application that predominantly provides a community forum for user-generated content” including perceived “harms” allegedly inflicted upon users including minors.

Actions by every single state in the country against websites and other applications would bring a new level of regulation to the internet never seen before: “In any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that a covered platform has violated or is violating section 103, 104, or 105, the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States or a State court of appropriate jurisdiction…”

The bill also authorizes guidances and other regulations by the Federal Trade Commission against all websites and applications subject to the bill that would require content filtration on behalf of minors and other highly expensive mechanisms that could harm small businesses from functioning on the internet at all and otherwise would raise serious First Amendment concerns because it would fundamentally alter the content being published on these websites and applications.

All of these provisions would directly undermine core protections of websites and other applications that were enacted by Congress in 1996, including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1) forms part the internet’s liability shield, stating, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Subsections (c)(2)(a) and (c­)(2)(b) form the other part of that protection, stating, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described…”

These simultaneously grant a broad liability exemption for websites and other interactive computer services from whatever users happen to post on their websites, and grants the companies power to remove items at their discretion they find objectionable. The delicate balance this creates shields websites and other applications from lawsuits, allows for user networks to exist and otherwise protects the First Amendment rights of those websites by giving them the final say over what goes on their platforms.

Removing the liability protections, as the Kids Online Safety Act and COPPA envision by creating clear exceptions to section 230, would subject almost every website and interactive computer service to liability from the millions of users on these websites — on purpose.

The intent behind eroding these protections was made clear at a hearing on May 22 entitled, “Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” to discuss proposed draft legislation by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), the “Section 230 Sunset Act,” which would end Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protections on Dec. 31, 2025 in order to force Big Tech companies to negotiate directly with Congress.

In a May 12 oped in the Wall Street Journal House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) outlined the blackmail provision, stating, “It would require Big Tech and others to work with Congress over 18 months to evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms. Our bill gives Big Tech a choice: Work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely.”

And the goal is censorship. Chairing the May 22 subcommittee hearing was U.S. Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) who promised in his opening statement that Congress is going to “reform [Section 230] in a way that will protect innovation and promote free speech and allow Big Tech to moderate indecent and illegal content on its platforms and be accountable to the American people.”

The subcommittee’s ranking member, U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) who blasted Section 230, saying Congress needed to address “disinformation” allowed on websites: “The broad shield [Section 230] offers can serve as a haven for harmful content, disinformation and online harassment.” She included so-called “election disinformation” in that category.

So, right off the bat, the goal of sunsetting Section 230—the legislation thankfully went nowhere—was to force a discussion about other legislation that would regulate “indecent” content or “disinformation”.

The Kids Online Safety Act and COPPA are that other anticipated legislation. And it’s already passed the Senate overwhelmingly, 91 to 3, making the House the last stopgap to protect the free and open internet. Despite massive efforts to conduct oversight on the executive branch whose actions resulted in censorship, Congress is pushing yet new measures to expand the scope of censorship to include the Federal Trade Commission and all 50 states to boot.

It would break the internet — on purpose — since the only platforms that could afford to assume the risk of hosting somebody else’s material that the government might deem “harmful” will be those with teams of lawyers and hundreds of billions of dollars of market cap that will get to define the regulations to exclude smaller and emerging market actors that will not be able to afford to filter content. That will limit the creation of new platforms, raising the question, does Congress even want a free and open internet?

https://dailytorch.com/2024/09/congress-pushes-bill-to-break-the-internet-and-censor-websites-again/

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

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 is about to create two classes of free speech, but the Coalition can stop them

Here’s the good news: The Coalition appears, just possibly, ready to take the fight to Labor over its misinformation bill.

On Sunday, shadow communications minister David Coleman told my Sky News colleague Andrew Clennell, “we in the Coalition will always stand up for free speech.”

That’s great so far as it goes, but now for the bad news.

As vital to a functioning democracy as free speech may be, if the Coalition tries to turn the misinformation bill into a battle over freedom of expression they will almost surely lose.

The reason is depressingly simple.

In Australia, if you set something up as a battle between safety and freedom, safety wins the day nine times out of 10.

Just think about how things played out when then-attorney general George Brandis defended the classically liberal view that people have a “right to be bigots”, or the way premiers saw their popularity rise during the pandemic with every new restriction.

Those who drafted the legislation must have had this in mind: The word “harm” appears no less than 26 times in the proposed law.

So rather than a culture war, allow this column to suggest a better way to knock this thing on the head.

While Australians may not be free speech absolutists, they do have a strong allergy to class systems, tech companies, politicians, and powerful people having a lend.

If the Coalition really wants to defeat this bill – which is sadly is in keeping with efforts to limit what the great unwashed can read, say, or think in Western democracies around the globe – this is the way forward.

Point out that if the misinformation bill gets up, members of certain “elite” professions will have more rights than others, while at the same time the messy business of deciding what is and is not allowable speech will be pushed into the laps of Big Tech.

Because, under the terms of the legislation, Australians will have different rights to say what they think depending on what they do for a living.

Down in paragraph 16 of the bill parody and satire, “professional news content”, as well as academic, artistic, scientific, and religious content, are given a pass.

If this column were to question one of the things the bill seeks to protect, namely “the efficacy of public health measures in Australia”, by criticizing vape bans or punishingly high alcohol taxes there wouldn’t be a problem.

Yet others might find their posts blocked or taken down by their social media providers, who the legislation puts in the frame for stopping the spread of anything that doesn’t accord with the government’s official narrative (aka “misinformation”).

Likewise, Treasurer Jim Chalmers can go out and pick a fight with the RBA and accuse it of smashing up the Australian economy.

But ordinary Australians taking the same view might find themselves censored by social media companies not wanting to risk crippling fines from government communications bureaucrats.

These are just two examples, but the legislation is shockingly broad.

In the explanatory memorandum for the law, not only bald-faced lies but “opinions, claims, commentary, and invective” that causes “serious harm” are captured.

That same explanatory memorandum hints around how charges of “misinformation” might be used to shape the narrative, or stigmatise uncomfortable conversations, around issues like immigration and culture.

It even admits that tech platforms could be incentivized by the bill’s provisions to “take an overly cautious approach to the regulation … or in other words, they could have a ‘chilling effect.’”

But this it waves away these concerns, “because they pursue a legitimate aim.”

See the problem?

The bill creates a two-tier system. The government, being effectively exempt, can spread any sort of misinformation in service of its agenda.

Meanwhile, those who think differently could be censored, not directly by the state but by social media platforms – those always trustworthy outfits to whom censorship will be effectively outsourced.

This is already happening in some policy areas, like nuclear energy.

Recently the ALP set up a website for Australians to report misinformation which led to young nuclear activist Will Shackel reporting Labor for its own inaccurate and misleading scare campaigns around atomic energy.

Yet at the same time the government was pushing its three eyed fish anti-nuclear propaganda, users of Facebook, owned by Meta, found the service shutting down their ability to share content from Shackel’s group Nuclear for Australia.

If you think the Big Tech companies are politicized now, just wait until they have the cover of government legislation.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/labor-is-about-to-create-two-classes-of-free-speech-but-the-coalition-can-stop-them/news-story/49d545920d9a65fd7d9c39dc58229068

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

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)

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

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)

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