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.
that’s why i left Kanadastan.
“Yes; for example, in the UK it is much easier to win a defamation case than in the US.”
But the UK also has a pretty strict regimen for those who file a defamation case. There are consequences for filing frivolous or retaliatory defamation lawsuits.
“”We are introducing new online safety laws to safeguard children, prevent abusive behaviour and protect free speech,” the spokesperson said.
****
their interpretation of free speech sure sounds hypocritical.
I agree. The only restrictions that should apply are for active terrorist recruitment, calls to murder, and sexual abuse materials.
The problem is bureaucrats want very broad definitions to stifle non-PC opinion.
Paul Joseph Watson can use his PrisonPlanet, it is US incorporated.
Louise Mensch is hit-and-miss.
Piers Morgan should be banned from using a computer, ever.
Interestingly, PJW’s PrisonPlanet.com still goes to Alex Jones’ Endgame, PJW should give some thought to untangling that domain from Tinfoil.
No, it’s real life, which is stranger than anything anyone could ever dream up.
Milton! Thou shouldst be living in this day!
Fortunately for you, you’re not.
“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.”
—
“It’s for the children”; the bankrupt phrase of every sleazy corrupt politician.
The boorish limeys at it again. And this is from a so called conservative government.
“There are consequences for filing frivolous or retaliatory defamation lawsuits.”
As there should be. Nevertheless, it is still the case that the standards that must be met for a plaintiff to prevail in a defamation case in the UK are much weaker in the UK than they are in the US.
There are also consequences for the plaintiff because the defendant gets to subpoena the plaintiff’s records to prove their accusations.
Plaintiffs who try to drop a case may also find themselves with a tar baby when the defendant insists on going to trial to prove their accusations.
“AT&T does not control speech on their platforms. Neither does Verizon or any of the other ‘carriers’.”
The courts have ruled that the crucial issue is whether the platform is a public or private forum. Only the former is subject to the First Amendment. Twitter, YouTube, etc. are private forums. Here is a discussion of the most recent and relevant ruling by a US Court of Appeals:
Earlier, the *conservative* majority of the Supreme Court ruled in a related case that “ ... merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”
Let me guess—WEF Young Global Leaders are in charge?
I was willing to bet the headline was from The Onion, then I started reading... wow.
Clip from Lew Later (Apple iPhone 14 Will Have A New Shape)The EU Strict Warning With Elon Musk Owning Twitter
April 27, 2022 | LaterClips
Clip from Lew Later (Apple iPhone 14 Will Have A New Shape)Jack Dorsey Aggressively Admits Why Elon Musk Should Own Twitter
April 27, 2022 | LaterClips
That was my guess. But I s**k at this game.
Next, they will require bystanders to stone anyone who says something illegal or something legal but dangerous.
And Biden would extradite him in a heartbeat.
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.
