Censorship Industrial Complex
Hillary Clinton Calls for Stricter Online Censorship as Establishment Fears Losing “Total Control”
From Reclaim The Net
|
In an interview with CNN, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her pressing need for social media companies to enhance censorship measures, suggesting that failure to do so would lead to the loss of “total control.” This declaration aligns with broader concerns expressed by figures within the Democratic Party regarding the control of information online.
Clinton’s remarks come in the wake of substantial changes in the space of online expression, notably influenced by Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022. Under Musk’s stewardship, the platform, now rebranded as X, has championed a more laissez-faire approach to content moderation. This stance has facilitated a pushback against what some perceive as misleading mainstream narratives, particularly evident in the recent coverage of FEMA’s reported mishandling of hurricane relief efforts in North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee – a narrative that the government is calling “misinformation.” During her conversation with Michael Smerconish, Clinton criticized the existing legal framework that she believes enables unchecked content dissemination. “We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted,” she explained. “If they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control,” Clinton argued, using the think of the children argument. She argues that this perspective is outdated and that without active moderation from platforms like Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram, and TikTok, the consequences extend beyond mere social and psychological impacts to encompass real-world harm. Adding to the discourse, John Kerry recently echoed similar sentiments at a World Economic Forum sustainability meeting, bemoaning the obstacles the First Amendment poses in controlling information flow. “It’s really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what’s a fact and what isn’t a fact has been eviscerated to a certain degree,” Kerry stated. |
|
|
|
Since you’re reading this, we hope you find Reclaim The Net useful. Today, we could use your help. We depend on supporters (averaging $15), but fewer than 0.2% of readers choose to give. If you donate just $5, (or the equivalent in your currency) you would help keep Reclaim The Net thriving for years. You don’t have to become a regular supporter; you can make a one-time donation. Please take a minute to keep Reclaim The Net going.
Thank you.
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canada’s justice minister confirms ‘hate crimes’ bill applies to online content
From LifeSiteNews
Individuals could be criminally charged for social media posts or other online content deemed offensive by the government under the Combating Hate Act.
Canadian Justice Minister Sean Fraser admitted that his new “hate crime” bill would indeed allow a person to be criminally charged for social media posts deemed offensive by the government.
Recently asked about Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, Fraser said the bill would indeed apply to certain online content that involves the “willful promotion of hatred.”
“Generally speaking, the law will apply equally online as it does in real communities,” he said, adding, “just in the limited circumstances where there is the willful promotion of hatred against someone.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Bill C-9 was brought forth in the House of Commons on September 19 by Fraser. The Liberals have boasted that the bill will make it a crime for people to block the entrance to, or intimidate people from attending, a church or other place of worship, a school, or a community center. The bill would also make it a crime to promote so-called hate symbols and would, in effect, ban the display of certain symbols such as the Nazi flag.
While being questioned by Conservative MP Andrew Lawton about Bill C-9, Fraser was asked if the new law would “affect what people can say and write on the internet” and also if people could be retroactively punished for online comments made today.
In reply, Fraser said, “The only circumstance where you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law would attach to behaviour that is criminal today but would be punished less severely.”
He said that “(t)he willful promotion of hate is a crime today, but we want to recognize a distinct charge where that same behaviour uses certain symbols of hate to bring a higher degree of culpability.”
John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has blasted Bill C-9 as something that would “empower police” and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis called out the hypocrisy of Bill C-9 for being silent regarding rising “Christian hate.”
Lewis has warned before that Bill C-9 will open the door for authorities to prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful possibly.”
Carpay also lamented how the bill mentions “rising antisemitism” but says nothing about the arson attacks on Catholic and Christian churches plaguing Canada.
“Anti-Catholic hate is obviously not on the minister’s radar. If it were, he would have mentioned it when introducing the Combating Hate Act,” Carpay wrote.
Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has introduced numerous new bills that, in effect, censor internet content and restrict people’s ability to express their views.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Who tries to silence free speech? Apparently who ever is in power.
Now that Trump is running Washington, Conservative thinkers must ponder a new-found appreciation for silencing speech they don’t like.
From StosselTV
War on Words: Both Parties Try to Silence Speech They Don’t Like
Donald Trump, before he was reelected, said he’d end government censorship. But now that he’s in office? He calls speech he doesn’t like “illegal.”
Free Speech should be a bedrock American value, no matter who’s in office. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, Republicans, who once complained about censorship, became censors. Democrats suddenly flip-flopped. All politicians should remember, the way to fight speech you don’t like, is with more speech, not censorship.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.
Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
———
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…
———
-
Business19 hours ago$15B and No Guarantees? Stellantis Deal explained by former Conservative Shadow Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology
-
Agriculture20 hours agoFrom Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Digital ID2 days agoThousands protest UK government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital IDs
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s licence plate vote is down to four
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIs The Latest Tiger Woods’ Injury Also A Death Knell For PGA Champions Golf?
-
International2 days agoTrump, Putin meeting in Hungary called off
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoBack Door Carbon Tax: Goal Of Climate Lawfare Movement To Drive Up Price Of Energy
-
Business2 days ago“Modernization,” They Call It: How Ottawa Redefined Fraud as Progress
