Censored!

[Darrell]

You're welcome. I did my best. Sadly, censorship has taken over the UK and jeopardises the livelihood of people like me, while ignoring all the crime going on elsewhere.

Seriously, what is happening to your country..? Surely there is a breaking point soon, where you gather in masses and storm the parliament..

 

[moke123]

Musk and Zuck going to do about it.

What can they do? They can't vote in the UK.

I wouldn't doubt many are going to withdraw from that market, very much like Pornhub did to Texas. Either that or comply with the law. Comes down to what is cheaper.

Thinking about it in the context of my vr golf game and the business model of the quest headsets it's seems pretty complicated. Who's responsible? The Developer or Meta? I play with a ton of guys from the UK. When a kid tries to join our game we usually boot them. Problem is you don't know it's a kid until they say something. Everyone lets a random expletive fly when they miss that easy putt. Not sure how you'd handle things that happen in real time. I belong to a discord channel with the developers so I may go ask them their thoughts.

 

[Jon]

I asked Chatty to summarize the UK Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023. This paragraph caught my eye.

1. Protections for Lawful Speech​

• Platforms cannot be required to remove content that is legal but merely offensive or controversial.
• The law explicitly protects political debate and democratic discourse, meaning platforms must not censor lawful speech just because it is unpopular.
• Ofcom, the UK’s regulator, must ensure that enforcement does not lead to unintended censorship.

Political debate also covers religion, and there is much talk about blasphemy laws in the UK now, via the backdoor. And then you get accused of hate speech, an offence. They can turn anything that is "merely offensive", into a hate speech classification, in my view.

 

[Minty]

My view is that our super efficient, money and resource rich government, won't have anything like the time or inclination to actually police this act except in really extreme cases.

I'm a member of a forum that has some very interesting points of view expressed by a number of participants.
It's an adult place to vent and be somewhat inappropriate. It couldn't be more "anti-woke" if it tried!
The site is definitely UK based, and the owner/s admins aren't bothered due to reasons above.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

What can they do? They can't vote in the UK.

I wouldn't doubt many are going to withdraw from that market, very much like Pornhub did to Texas. Either that or comply with the law. Comes down to what is cheaper.

Thinking about it in the context of my vr golf game and the business model of the quest headsets it's seems pretty complicated. Who's responsible? The Developer or Meta? I play with a ton of guys from the UK. When a kid tries to join our game we usually boot them. Problem is you don't know it's a kid until they say something. Everyone lets a random expletive fly when they miss that easy putt. Not sure how you'd handle things that happen in real time. I belong to a discord channel with the developers so I may go ask them their thoughts.

According to Jon, if a UK citizen is affected, it doesn't matter where the platform is located. I can't see Musk or Zuck tolerating this.

 

[Jon]

According to Jon, if a UK citizen is affected, it doesn't matter where the platform is located. I can't see Musk or Zuck tolerating this.

This means US companies also have to comply with the legistation, since the internet gives global access. I believe the EU wants to upgrade their own laws. Then how do we deal with all this? Each country or block having their own rules. It would be nearly impossible for all those small businesses to comply. It is like reducing a motorway speed limit from 70mph to 5mph, criminalising everybody in the process.

 

[Isaac]

Vance has come down hard recently in some speeches about this issue, good for him. Hopefully they think twice about it.

Jon do you have any insights you can share as to your own personal opinion, after consideration, of examples of what kind of speech that may already be on this site that you would want to exclude going forward?

The reason I ask is that I know I am one of the members that posts on all kinds of 'delicate' subjects, so I'm planning to self moderate and try to make sure I don't cause you any harm from this - but due to that, a summary of what qualifies as should-be-excluded.....in your own words, might be helpful, if it's not too much trouble.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I moderate on a tax pro forum and the owner declared no political posts even though the forum these posts were on were only visible to the members.

 

[Jon]

Vance has come down hard recently in some speeches about this issue, good for him. Hopefully they think twice about it.

Jon do you have any insights you can share as to your own personal opinion, after consideration, of examples of what kind of speech that may already be on this site that you would want to exclude going forward?

The reason I ask is that I know I am one of the members that posts on all kinds of 'delicate' subjects, so I'm planning to self moderate and try to make sure I don't cause you any harm from this - but due to that, a summary of what qualifies as should-be-excluded.....in your own words, might be helpful, if it's not too much trouble.

Currently unknown, but could be things like excluding any talk about religion, Islam etc. Or genders. Basically, stopping all the things we like talking about!

 

[Mike Krailo]

Inconceivable!

 

[Steve R.]

There seems be a significant number of recent independent stories that do not apparently appear linked at first blush. Nevertheless they imply an expanding pro-censorship theme. For those of use who ascribe to conspiracy theories, it's troublesome.

German prosecutors tell '60 Minutes' it's a crime to insult people online as government raids offenders' homes

"60 Minutes" did a lengthy report on Germany's efforts to stop offensive rhetoric online, ranging from riding along with police raids to speaking with state prosecutors.

www.foxnews.com

Germany has been raiding the homes of those it believes to be making offensive statements online. CBS rode along with six armed officers as they raided a suspect’s home and seized his electronics.

JD Vance slams CBS host for claiming free speech was ‘weaponized’ in Germany to carry out Holocaust during argument with Marco Rubio

“No, I have — I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide,” Rubio shot back.

nypost.com

CBS journalist Margaret Brennan was rebuked Sunday after she claimed that free speech was “weaponized” in Germany to carry out the Holocaust during a back-and-forth with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

VP Vance's Munich speech praised as 'Churchillian' moment as CBS host faces criticism for response

Jonathan Turley praised VP Vance for his Munich Security Conference address, criticizing European free speech laws, criticizes response from CBS anchor Margaret Brennan.

www.foxnews.com

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley praised Vice President JD Vance for criticizing German censorship laws during his speech to the Munich Security Conference, where the vice president called out organizers for banning both far-left and far-right wing parties. Turley also reacted on "America's Newsroom," Tuesday to a CBS host blaming the Holocaust on free-speech.

What is also interesting with the pro-censorship narrative. The altruistic assertion for banning free speech is based on the need to combat so-called "far right extremism". Yet, one never hears about the need to combat something to reign-in "far left extremism". "Far left extremism" has resulted in the deaths of millions of people all in the name of protecting the "people" who the left claim to work for.

 

[Steve R.]

VP Vance's Munich speech praised as 'Churchillian' moment as CBS host faces criticism for response

Jonathan Turley praised VP Vance for his Munich Security Conference address, criticizing European free speech laws, criticizes response from CBS anchor Margaret Brennan.

www.foxnews.com

Is it there merely as a trap so you can ensnare someone you don't like and never prosecute anyone you do like?

Just happens that there is an example. The 1799 Logan Act was used as an attempt by Democrats to persecute Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Moreover, John Kerry (a private citizen at the time) surreptitiously negotiated with Iran (in 2017?), which would be a violation of the Logan Act. Yet he was never prosecuted.

Biden raised 'Logan Act' in Oval Office discussion about Flynn, Peter Strzok notes show

Former Vice President Joe Biden mentioned the "Logan Act" during an early January 2017 Oval Office discussion about the investigation into retired Lt.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Isaac]

Currently unknown, but could be things like excluding any talk about religion, Islam etc. Or genders. Basically, stopping all the things we like talking about!

That's kinda what I was thinking.
Thanks

 

[Isaac]

It will come down to protected classes versus non-protected classes that’s where enforcement and resources will ultimately be focused. I won’t provide examples here, but readers will get the gist.

I remember one thing I came away from my Con Law class with the strong impression that the creation of protected classes was supposed to be very limited, it's a VERY big deal constitutionally and precedent-wise, and the 3-5 we already have should be enough. In modern times, people want to make everything and its brother a protected class - except they never lean conservative, always liberal, and they are definitely a slippery slope.

 

[Isaac]

What is the point of enacting a law that you have no intention to enforce? Is it there merely as a trap so you can ensnare someone you don't like and never prosecute anyone you do like? Sounds like it. We have lots of laws like that on the books.

Sounds like some of the stuff they used on J6 people. Not all, but some. Not finding any real crimes, they dug up charges based on stuff that had virtually never been used in that context. Pretty desperate if you ask me

 

[Isaac]

We are getting to the point where if you believe in traditional values, you may well find yourself in prison, just for teaching those values to your kids at home or daring to suggest the schools teach them - or at least avoid aggressively teaching the opposite. I believe countries like Sweden are already there, Scotland too maybe.

 

[Steve R.]

Things will change here shortly, due to the impending UK Only Safety Act. I personally become liable for everything you say, with huge potential fines. Consequently, topics for discussion will be severely curtailed, and moderation likely to be heavy.

First 6 minutes are commercials!

Download - Liz Truss: Fighting for Freedom in a Censored UK | Podbean

www.podbean.com

 

[Mike Krailo]

"Thou shall not bear false witness"

Remember what your mommy always told you - the lie doubles your punishment. Many people simply won't lie in this situation. I happen to agree though, in the same situation, I would lie. The law is unjust and I would do nothing to give it any credence.

Ah, but that's not how that works Pat. Witnessing is something that is visible in the world, not in your head.

It's very clear to me, that they are really objecting to standing near the clinic and that is the only trigger needed for them to haul you off to jail. It doesn't matter what you think, they will assign that idea for you. Everything else is just a way to justify their actions. Remaining silent is also an important right we have in America that should be an even better option, but elsewhere, they might force you to speak or be hauled off where they will force you do their bidding anyway. It's called a tyranny. You must answer my questions or be jailed. So to thwart all of the nonsense, the easiest way to circumvent all of that red tape is to simply maliciously comply with the "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10" and be done with it. They got nothing after that response.

 

[Jon]

There is a good chance that we will have to ban all Direct Messages in the very near future. The Online Safety Act says that you need to ensure nothing nefarious goes on in Direct Messages too, and the only way to do that is to make them all viewable to moderators, which is not currently possible with the Xenforo software. Also, it would mean going through thousands of previous Direct Messages between members, and also an invasion of everyones privacy.

It looks like the only solution will be to turn that feature off for everybody, unfortunately.

 

[Isaac]

Anything short of shutting down all conversation is a win, given the adversity you're facing!