Posted on 04/27/2022 11:58:42 AM PDT by Red Badger
The UK on Tuesday threatened to ban Twitter altogether and potentially jail Elon Musk if he violates their incoming "Online Safety Bill" by allowing free speech on his platform.
The move came just hours after the EU threatened to ban Twitter entirely if Musk allows free speech on the platform and the US threatened to "reform" Section 230 to hold social media companies "accountable" for the "harms they cause."
From CNBC: Britain's Online Safety Bill would make it mandatory for social media services to tackle both illegal posts as well as material that is "legal but harmful," a vague definition that has attracted criticism from some in the tech industry over concerns that it may stifle free speech.
"Twitter and all social media platforms must protect their users from harm on their sites," a U.K. government spokesperson told CNBC.
"We are introducing new online safety laws to safeguard children, prevent abusive behaviour and protect free speech," the spokesperson said. "All tech firms with users in the U.K. will need to comply with the new laws or face hefty fines and having their sites blocked."
The stakes for platforms like Twitter would be even higher under the Online Safety Bill, which threatens jail time for company executives for serious violations, as well as penalties of up to 10% of annual global sales.
The legislation, which is yet to be approved by U.K. lawmakers, is expected to become law later this year. Musk said earlier in the day after the EU's threats were issued that, "The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all."
"By 'free speech', I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people," Musk said.
It's truly remarkable how these Western regimes will condemn China and Russia for cracking down on dissent while they actively wage total war against free speech and free expression in their own countries against their own subjects.
LOL! UK isn’t even a legit country as an entity anymore, they’ve given most of it away, and they’re going to do what? lol.
Western Canada is standing, and will keep doing so. We’re in the same boat, a fight for our very futures.
But hey! Ukraine!
Maybe. I try not to pay any attention to what that corrupt idiot puppet does. I consider him a fake president and none of his acts are legally valid in my opinion.
But do not doubt the government will levy a heavy hand on "private" corporations to force them to censor who the government wants censored.
In this direction lies fascism.
“All tech firms with users in the U.K....”
Ok, easy solution then, just ban all accounts from the UK and carry on.
“Isn’t it Hyde Park in the UK where folks used to bring a box, stand on it and give their opinions in public?”
Still there, and people still do it, though I believe a Christian preacher got arrested there a few years ago for daring to quote Bible verses within earshot of a queer.
Musk should just give the EU the middle finger and let them deal with twitter disappearing for the unwashed masses.
Musk should just give the EU the middle finger and let them deal with twitter disappearing for the unwashed masses.
AT&T does not control speech on their platforms. Neither does Verizon or any of the other "carriers".
That we've tolerated allowing digital text censorship by other carriers is stupidity on our part.
I can envision Congress trying to intervene to ban so-called “hate speech” on Twitter and similar platforms if the platforms don’t do it themselves.
You think *that* wouldn't come afoul of the First Amendment? You think the Supreme Court would uphold that?
I don't see it. Right now, the grave threat we face is that public speech is banned on many mass communications infrastructure, and we need to force them to follow the same rule as Telephone companies.
Thanks, and wouldn’t doubt it.
They have no right to control content. They are carriers of speech
Like hell they are. Just because it would make your argument work better doesn't make it so.
The FCC has some power to regulate the phone companies because they're using public infrastructure or publicly-owned spectrum. There are dozens of communications companies that aren't regulated at all - Skype, Viber, WhatsAp - none of the internet based ones are.
Your fever dream of the FCC regulating Facebook is just that.
But no one has a Constitutional right to post on Twitter.
When it has millions of users, *YES* they do. It is defacto public communications infrastructure.
You're confused. We have the Constitutional right to speak freely without the government interfering.
We don't have the Constitutional right to appropriate others' private property to broadcast that speech. You have the right to speak, not the right to be listened to.
Besides, any right we have to use a phone service comes from the licenses the government granted to the carriers or from the regulation imposed by the government, it doesn't come from the first amendment.
Not at all.
You can't with a straight face deny that when the government says "you must use your platform to publish whatever someone sends you, even when it isn't in the interest of you, your users or your shareholders", they are controlling your speech.
It is *SO* because it absolutely must be so. To do otherwise is to destroy everything. We will have fascism.
The FCC has some power to regulate the phone companies because they're using public infrastructure or publicly-owned spectrum.
And is not the internet "interstate infrastructure"? Was it also not built on a public system?
You're confused. We have the Constitutional right to speak freely without the government interfering.
We have a right to speak freely without anyone interfering.
Besides, any right we have to use a phone service comes from the licenses the government granted to the carriers or from the regulation imposed by the government, it doesn't come from the first amendment.
Oh, it comes from the first amendment alright, and if we have to license all massive communications companies using the American built internet, well then that's just a bit of discomfort that i'm perfectly willing to endure.
I don't like them anyway. Too much money is being made without actually producing anything useful. They are another parasite class eating away the sustenance of the producers.
I cannot say it because it is garbage.
My position is simple. You don't want to allow speech? You can't be in the communications business.
And I note you say "publish". They aren't "publishers", they are "carriers."
It should be easy enough to limit what tweets UK members can see and post to. The USA doesn’t need to hear from the socialists anyhow.
Well, unless you’re under a million users or you’re a club or you’re a special purpose forum or you’re a newspaper or a magazine or a TV network or DL has thought up some other exemption of convenience for you.
Funny how the left has adopted “1984” as their core governing philosophy.
If you are a multi-million user communications system, you can't censor speech.
See? Much simpler.
I believe the LaRouche Group is correct in their assessment of the UK, i.e. that it is the only natural adversary and enemy for the United States that actually exists on the planet.
The UK has always had just a hint of fascism; sometimes it bubbles up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.