Every time a politician tries to sell the idea of internet censorship, they wrap its wolfish features in the fluffy sheepskin of ‘safety’.
‘If you don’t agree with this bill, you are literally endangering children! Don’t you care about child sex trafficking? Are you a terrorist? You hate speech monger!’
These are the childish accusations thrown back at those who criticise attempts to strangle public discourse.
The idiocy of our political leaders – those who claim to be smarter, ‘kinder’, and more inclusive than ordinary citizens – has reached the threshold where it can only be explained as deliberate wickedness.
Online safety and misinformation policies are not penned with ‘good intentions’. Their faults have been explained ad nauseam to blank stares, mindless nodding, and stuttered defences of ‘hate speech!!!’
Australia’s ministers and advisers are educated people. They are not ignorant of modern history – or indeed the present reality of Australia’s authoritarian neighbours. We must conclude that those wielding censorial laws know exactly what they are doing.
Like Canada’s Justin Trudeau, Labor’s Communications Minister and Prime Minister have side-eyed China’s ruthless grip on public speech and stroked their villainous moustaches. The Liberal Party, far from defending the West, wrote the notes from which Labor is copying its lines.
Digital silence is not a valid solution to citizen safety any more than killing the sick in their beds is a viable public health policy to relieve stress on hospitals. Sure, politicians get their advertised outcome but the public might have a few followup questions about the ethics involved.
This is not an extreme, cherry-picked example made to dramatise the point.
Representatives of Australia’s ‘esteemed’ health bureaucracy, along with State Premiers and established media commentators, suggested leaving the unvaccinated to die as a solution to annoying vaccination statistics that refused to endorse the ‘safe and effective’ propaganda. That was less than a year ago. The national psyche required to create ‘cruelty for the Greater Good’ is entrenched in the shallows of Australia’s political waters.
If Australia’s leaders were happy to manipulate the public health system for political gain, how guilty do you imagine they would feel infesting our economic systems to punish those who say mean things about Net Zero? Climate Change is a convenient ‘existential threat’ that can be dragged out whenever a politician needs to justify a cruel act just as Covid was flogged until it leaked its last drop of click-bait fear.
Speech is the public’s sole defence to this sort of bad government.
It is without equal in terms of the power required to collapse arrogant regimes. The worse our leaders get, the more dogged they will become in their desire to use duct tape instead of debate. They seek online safety measures for the same reason Xi Jinping wets himself at the sight of a children’s cartoon, honey-eating bear.
While the Morrison government spent a fortune on censorial legislation – caught up in some kind of deranged crusade – Labor has altered the text to make sure the toxic scum bleeding from the minds of university intellectuals, drip-fed on Marx’s corpse, remains immune from public criticism.
Yes, the tyranny of ‘safety’ has become the favoured political vibe of our Age.
If you have any lingering doubts about the sincerity of this claim, or believe it to be hyperbolic in its predictions, look to the behaviour of the UK last week in which its freshly minted Online Safety Bill aimed at protecting the kiddies was immediately – immediately – used to intimidate social media companies regarding Russell Brand’s monetised accounts.
Sold by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as a way to stop child porn and bullying, everyone’s fears about the UK’s Online Safety Bill have been confirmed.
Hours after the House of Lords passed it into law, the Chair of the House of Commons Culture, Media, and Sport Committee penned an Orwellian letter to independent online video platform Rumble – a competitor of YouTube who recently demonetised Russell Brand without any evidence of guilt.
Rumble posted the embarrassing letter:
Dear Chris,
I am writing concerning the serious allegations regarding Russell Brand, in the context of his being a content provider on Rumble with more than 1.5 million followers.
The Culture, Media, and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today.
However, we are also looking at his use of social media, including on Rumble where he issued his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against by The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches. While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.
We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.
Yours sincerely, Dame Caroline Dinenage
Dame Dinenage surely means alleged victims. Regardless, when did we decide as a society that a government department could hound an employer and demand a person be robbed of the ability to earn a living before the courts have had a chance to decide if a crime has taken place?
Let’s presume for a second that Brand is innocent.
The UK government has effectively destroyed his career and ability to earn money overnight, without evidence, and without liability. This behaviour would be illegal for any other entity.
When did we give the government the power to usurp the courts?
Governments that send unsolicited letters of demand to private companies regarding customers are engaging in threatening and bullying behaviour.
What happens if the government is wrong? Are they going to write to YouTube and Rumble and insist Brand be reinstated? Will the government cough up back pay for the months of lost revenue for both Brand and the platforms?
Worse, the UK has put Ofcom in charge of its little censorial safety binge.
‘We are putting Ofcom in charge as a regulator to check platforms are protecting their users.’
It is claimed Ofcom could fine companies 10 per cent of their global revenue or £18 million for noncompliance.
‘Today is a major milestone in the mission to create a safer life online for children and adults in the UK. Everyone at Ofcom feels privileged to be entrusted with this important role, and we’re ready to start implementing these new laws,’ said Ofcom Chief Executive Dame Melanie Dawes.
You remember Ofcom? The same Ofcom that never said a word about all that painfully pro-Covid propaganda on ‘mainstream’ news channels ringing in our ears for two years – content that has been proven false. The same Ofcom that went in all hot and heavy after GB News’ Mark Steyn when he dared to shed light on those who suffered vaccine injuries…
That Ofcom.
It’s like putting China in charge of the UN Human Rights Commission…
Rumble, to its credit, replied to what it called an ‘extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament’:
We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don’t agree with the behaviour of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalise them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.
Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.
Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski wrote on Twitter, ‘I really really appreciate everyone’s support this past week. Your support is what keeps me fired up and moving forward. I will not waiver on my values.’ It comes after he wrote earlier that the ‘attacks on Rumble are relentless, from all angles, and accelerating’.
And there you have it. The very first act of the UK Online Safety Bill passed to protect children has been to threaten YouTube competitor Rumble with being blocked unless it silences a popular user who – as yet – has not committed a crime.
Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan said of the Bill:
‘The Online Safety Bill is a game-changing piece of legislation. Today, this government is taking an enormous step forward in our mission to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online.’
The accompanying article provides a checklist of the Bill’s child safety achievements – none of which mention hounding online platforms to remove adults and their content.
Even if a person is eventually convicted of a crime, are we saying that after they have served their time, they will no longer be able to speak on social media? Have we shifted to a civilisation that practices social punishment in perpetuity?
That is the consequence of what we are seeing here.
Not for everyone, of course.
There are still real terrorists online making real money which the government ignores because their hateful speech does not pose a political threat to the regimes of the ruling class.
‘Safety’ is not your safety, it is the political and corporate ‘safety’ of those who think they are entitled to rule us without dissent.
Obviously, these entities cannot be trusted with the weapon of censorship and as such, it must be taken off them. Australia would be foolish to make the same mistake as the UK, but I am willing to bet we are about to follow them into the padded room of Online Safety and all of its torture devices.
Alexandra Marshall is an independent writer. If you would like to support her work, shout her a coffee over at donor-box.
