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.
The idea that British authorities will be able to prevent their people from seeing what is on a website is a testament to how childish and stupid those authorities are.
Read the headline and really thought it was a Babylon Bee article.
You just can’t make this sh*t up anymore
Obviously the criminal government swamp syndrome is world wide. Those who have orchestrated it, financing and controlling it all need to be routed out and hanged. Go after the NWO banksters first to stop the criminal money flow!!
There is no difference now. The title of this thread is about a *GOVERNMENT* forcing a *PRIVATE* company to *CENSOR* what the *GOVERNMENT* wants *CENSORED*.
China routinely censors stuff on Google, Facebook, and so forth.
You can no longer separate large companies from government censorship. They will all bow to pressure.
“It wouldn’t seem much like Musk to voluntarily drop revenue by a few billion...”
He’s already paid WAY too much per share to acquire it
We are introducing new online safety laws to safeguard children, prevent abusive behaviour and protect free speech,”
________________________________
and it only applies to conservatives or other we don’t like, such as Christians, Jews, etc.
Muslims can say and do what they want
Man made global warming idiots can say anything want about anyone.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
So they say they want to protect free speech by jailing Elon Musk for his free speech?
I know; I had to read that 3x, and it still makes no sense.
This thread is about the UK, which does not have an equivalent to our First Amendment or even an equivalent of our Constitution.
The UK has a law requiring this censorship because they don't have a first amendment.
You want the US government to pass a law dictating the speech owners have to allow on their platforms.
Those are both anti-free speech positions.
Requiring someone to use their resources to promote a message they don't like is undeniably a first amendment violation.
I don't want the UK model nor yours.
I want the government out of it.
If Elon wants to say anything goes on Twitter I'm fine with that. If he wants to ban liberal posts I fine with that too. It's his toy and he can play with it the way he wants.
But no one has a Constitutional right to post on Twitter.
Out of control government is out of control.
I am aware of that. My point was that if we allow massive "private" companies to control speech, we will get governments (like England) forcing them to do it.
"Private" companies are simply proxies for behind the scenes (or in this case quite publicly) efforts by governments to control speech.
What they do in England is up to them, but *WE* cannot allow what they do in England to endanger free speech in America.
And there you go, once again *deliberately* misstating my position.
I want Telephone companies to carry all speech. All of these companies are the equivalent of telephone companies.
They have no right to control content. They are carriers of speech. They are tools for Americans to speak, they are not publishers.
Requiring someone to use their resources to promote a message they don't like is undeniably a first amendment violation.
They are telephone companies. They have no right to decide what speech gets carried by their telephone wires.
And secondly, with governments threatening private corporations, these corporations become agents of government, which I think even your understanding of the 1rst amendment would prohibit.
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.
So far as i'm concerned, we need to nationalize all communications infrastructure just to make people like you shut up about allowing censorship.
In my opinion *NOBODY* can own public speech or the means to convey it to others.
“Thars too much free speech goin around down here.” - Ernest Hollins.
5.56mm
And your solution is to strine fast and have...the government control those companies' speech instead of the companies themselves.
Requiring them to say things they don't want to is controlling speech.
Well if they are going to put him in jail I guess he had better turn off Starlink over the UK just to be sure nobody uses it for any evil twitter free speech.
.
Once again, a *deliberate* misstatement of what I've said.
My solution is to ban censorship.
Massive communications companies don't get to control speech, especially political speech.
Ever hear of the "incorporation doctrine"?
Same concept. Apply it to carriers.
Didn’t Biden just set up a DHS board to watch against “disinformation?”
I understand your concern but, to address the specific issue here, private media companies have always controlled “speech” on their platforms. For example, I have no First Amendment right to compel the Washington Post to publish my Letter to the Editor. In the pre-Internet era, this gave rise to the old axiom: “Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”
Actually, I take the position opposite your main point: if we *don’t* allow massive “private” companies to control speech, we *will* get governments (like England and even *ours*) forcing them to do it. 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. I don’t like it any more than you do, but I think that may be where we are headed.
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.