Globalist Governments Introduce Online Censorship Legislation Ahead of US & UK Elections

WARRIOR CREED Podcast

At the top of this Newszine, Resistance Radio presents our WARRIOR CREED podcast from yesterday Tuesday 6th February 2024, with a transcript provided - Globalist Governments Introduce Online Censorship Legislation Ahead of US & UK Elections.

This podcast is for premium members of Radical Media only. To listen, basic members should upgrade to the premium service here:

The rest of this Newszine is the write-up of our topic and is provided free. Read On.

---

Globalist Governments Introduce Online Censorship Legislation Ahead of US & UK Elections

A Radical Dispatch

1) UK Online Safety Act

Just in time for election season, the UK government has passed its new internet speech regulation laws known as the Online Safety Act. The US government is following suit with its Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), while the EU and UN are moving ahead with their own measures too.

The UK Government 31st January 2024:

“A new false communications offence will bring internet trolls to justice by outlawing the intentional sending of false information that could cause ‘non-trivial psychological’ or physical harm to users online. This new offence will bolster the government’s strong commitment to clamping down on dangerous disinformation and election interference online.”

So what’s wrong with this?

It all sounds very benign, just as terror laws did to many until Biden sought to apply them on MAGA voters.

Well, the task of policing online ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ is about to get a great deal more centralised by the state this election cycle. Corporate press had long ago acknowledged that in navigating the tension between speech rights and ‘safety’ concerns, the British law was set to become among the harshest in the Western world.

Politico reports 28th February 2023:

“…there are serious doubts the legislation can deliver on the U.K.’s twin promises of creating a safer internet and promoting itself as a place to do business — all while upholding freedom of speech…What resulted was some of the toughest digital regulation anywhere in the Western world.”

Since then the bill has become law. This law now means that it is officially an imprisonable criminal offence to knowingly publish ’disinformation’ online.

Off Guardian reports 20th September 2023:

“..sending threats is already illegal in the UK, so the only new ground covered here is “harmful” and/or “false” information, and the fact they feel the need to differentiate between those two things should worry you. After all, the truth can definitely be “harmful”…Especially to a power-hungry elite barely controlling an angry populace through dishonest propaganda…”

Section 179 of the act makes it illegal to publish false information with intent to cause harm.

But as Off Guardian reports 20th September 2023:

..the primary purpose of the new law is a transfer of responsibility to enable and incentivize censorship…For example: If I were to google “Is it safe to drink bleach?”, find some website that says yes, and then drink bleach, OfCom would not hold me responsible. They would hold Google responsible for letting me read that website. Likewise, if someone tweets @ me telling me to drink bleach, and I do so, Twitter would be held responsible for permitting that communication to take place.”

And in a twist that has outraged most rational observers, the UK law specifically exempts mainstream corporatist media - the purveyors of most disinformation - from this new criminal offence.

Off Guardian reports 2nd February 2024:

“‘Online Safety Act’ brands the publication of ‘false information’ a criminal offense punishable by up to a year in prison…unless you’re an MSM outlet, when it’s totally fine.”

See section 180, which exempts all corporate media outlets from this new law.

Yes that is correct. The new criminal offence will apply to all small and independent media voices, but not to corporate media and Big Tech.

All this without even addressing yet issues with the regulatory body OfCom’s ‘select committee’ and how they choose to define ‘misinformation’ in section 152.

Off Guardian reports 20th September 2023:

”…hands the duty of “regulating” certain online content to the UK’s Office of Communications (OfCom).

..Of some note is the “information offenses” clause, which empowers OfCom to demand “information” from users, companies and employees, and makes it a crime to withhold it. The nature of this “information” is never specified, nor does it appear to be qualified. Meaning it could be anything, and will most likely be used to get private account information about users from social media platforms…”

This is the same OfCom that so enthusiastically enforced censorship over questioning the state-sponsored Big Pharma disinformation around Covid mandates.

Off Guardian reports 20th September 2023:

“Section 7(135) is entirely dedicated to the creation of a new “Advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation”, which will be expected to submit regular reports to OfCom and the Secretary of State on how best to “counter misinformation on regulated services. This is clearly a response to Covid, or rather the failure of Covid. Essentially, the pandemic narrative broke because the current mechanisms of censorship didn’t work well enough. In response, the government has just legalised and out-sourced their silencing of dissent...Meaning de-platforming and cancelling independent media via increasingly opaque ‘terms of service violations’.”

Radical Media reminds readers of how globalists silenced all dissent to Covid mandates as ‘misinformation’ while interfering with the 2020 US election results by suffocating the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and leaning on twitter to suspend the New York Post until it agreed to remove the story.

In practise, regulation is not really the issue. The issue is always about ‘who gets to decide’ what is regulated. A new and alarming long-form investigative piece by the former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, highlights the controversy rather well. In the context of Netanyahu’s inhumane war on Gaza, Rusbridger reveals that a key media figure responsible for adjudicating the BBC’s supposed impartiality over the topic of Israel is Sir Robbie Gibb. The problem is that Sir Robbie also happens to be the owner of the Jewish Chronicle.

Prospect Magazine reports 24th January 2024:

“BBC board’s subcommittees, the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee..Two members of the four-strong committee have little or no grounding in journalism..which leaves just one member of the committee who is both uninvolved in daily decision-making and has a background in news. Step forward Sir Robbie Gibb, a non-executive director of the BBC since 2021 and easily the most influential external voice on the board—and, apparently, owner of the Jewish Chronicle. 

None of this would be a problem if Sir Robbie’s newspaper the Jewish Chronicle hadn’t been openly lobbying for the BBC to take a more pro-Israel stance. But Sir Robbie’s editor Jake Wallis Simons has been doing precisely that.

Spiked Online reports 17th November 2023:

We checked this over at Companies House and what Rusbridger reports appears as true. Here is the entry for the Jewish Chronicle stating Sir Robbie Gibb as its sole director.

The regulatory conflicts of interest only continue to expand as Rusbridger elaborates.

Prospect Magazine reports 24th January 2024:

“…And then there is the opaque and unexplained business of how he came to own the Jewish Chronicle, the BBC’s implacable critic. According to Companies House, Sir Robbie has, since April 2020, been the sole owner and director of the JC—the same organ whose long campaign for a “parliamentary inquiry” into the BBC’s coverage of Jews and Israel ended in “victory” in late 2022.

The rival Jewish News questioned the legitimacy of the inquiry (which never produced a report) quoting legal experts “expressing fears it is part of a long-running politicised campaign to pit the Jewish community against the BBC.

The ultimate financial backing for the newspaper which Gibb apparently owns and fronts is a closely guarded secret. ‘Whoever’s bought it has pulled off an interesting coup because they’ve bought a paper of influence without having to say who they are,’ the Times reported a source close to the JC’s former owners, the Kessler Foundation, as saying in 2020. Another told the paper: ‘Someone has put up more than £3m, including money to cover this year’s losses, fronted by a bunch of people who are not centrally involved in this community.’

The outgoing chairman of the JC, Alan Jacobs, was even more blunt in his remarks to the Financial Times: ‘A bid… using money from an unidentified source and fronted by a group of individuals who refuse to tell the world anything of their plans looks like a shameful attempt to hijack the world’s oldest Jewish newspaper.’ 

Gibb led a consortium that included Sir William Shawcross, now commissioner for public appointments. Shawcross is currently considering whether to investigate Gibb’s suspected role in trying—in concert with the mystery man who reportedly got him into the BBC—to fix the appointment of the chair of Ofcom, the corporation’s regulator.“

The below infographic appearing in Prospect magazine maps out the various players involved in what Rusbridger’s piece labels a “cabal” that he implies is seeking to capture the UK’s public appointments process.

2) Big Tech Senate Hearings for ‘Kids Online Safety Act’ (KOSA)

This election year the US also deliberates on its own online censorship bill as the Big Tech Senate hearings are underway. Certain social media executives have already declared their support for the new ‘Kids Online Safety Act’ (KOSA).

Yahoo News reports 31st January 2024:

“On the eve of Wednesday's Big Tech hearing (both Big Tech and a big hearing — five CEOs are testifying as we speak), Microsoft stepped up to back a controversial bill that aims to protect children from the dangers of social media. In the early hours of the hearing, X CEO Linda Yaccarino also climbed aboard.

In spite of some revisions, the bill’s many critics have warned that KOSA would dangerously sanitize the internet, empower censorship and isolate young LGBTQ people in the process. Security, privacy and free press advocates have also called attention to the bill's potential threat to encryption. The bill was revised last year in response to some criticisms, but many concerns persist.”

Similar complaints have arisen about what data collection duties the bill will impose on Big Tech at the expense of everyday citizens.

Tech Crunch reports 1st July 2023:

“Though these proposals may sound agreeable, more than 100 human rights and digital privacy organizations staunchly opposed the bill when it was first proposed, worrying that it could dramatically expand the collection of sensitive personal information and violate the privacy of older teens. The groups also believe KOSA could not be enforced without requiring everyone on the internet to verify their age.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation lists some of their concerns with KOSA, mirroring concern around the new UK law that grants established larger outlets more power while undermining smaller platforms.

“Today’s version of KOSA would still require surveillance of anyone sixteen and under. It would put the tools of censorship in the hands of state attorneys general, and would greatly endanger the rights, and safety, of young people online. And KOSA’s burdens will affect adults, too, who will likely face hurdles to accessing legal content online as a result of the bill…

..KOSA would not enhance the ability of users to choose where they spend their time. Instead, it would shrink the number of options, by making strict requirements that only today’s largest, most profitable platforms could follow. It would solidify today’s Big Tech giants, while forcing them to collect more private data on all users. It would force them to spy on young people, and it would hand government the power to limit what topics they can see and discuss online.” 

Such is the concern that more than 90 human rights groups have signed a letter opposing the new law.

So far, and as with the UK, it seems that US lawmakers are intent on passing the legislation regardless.

3) The EU and UN

The EU’s own Digital Services Act comes into force later this month. Coupled with the focus on “misinformation and disinformation” at the recent Davos summit, it should be clear by now that a major crackdown on internet speech is about to commence.

The Guardian reports 17th December 2022:

“Intended to tackle misogyny, protect children, stop consumer fraud, curb disinformation and protect democratic elections, the Digital Services Act (DSA) is wide-ranging. The UK is introducing its own statute, the online safety bill, but the EU’s rules are likely to have a bigger impact because they cover a bigger market, and the EU is more influential as a regulatory power.”

The UN too recently adopted this same mantra, publishing the below report.

The UN then rolled out none other than one of the world’s harshest Covid-mandate era Prime Ministers most prolific peddlers of disinformation, Jacinda Adern, to stress the importance of challenging online misinformation.

Click through to play:

Note: due to Elon Musk’s ongoing social media war with Substack, video via tweets can no longer be embedded into Substack. Readers must click on the image to view all video clips.

Former New Zealand PM Jacinda Adern: “We launched an initiative alongside companies and non-profits to help improve research and understanding of how a person's online experiences are curated by automated processes. This will also be important in understanding more about myths and disinformation online, a challenge that we must as leaders address. Sadly, I think it's easy to dismiss this problem as one in the margins. I can certainly understand the desire to leave it to someone else. As leaders, we're rightly concerned that even the most light-touch approaches to disinformation could be misinterpreted as being hostile to the values of free speech that we value so highly. But while I cannot tell you today what the answer is to this challenge, I can say with complete certainty that we cannot ignore it. To do so poses an equal threat to the norms we all value. After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology? The weapons may be different, but the goals of those who perpetuate them is often the same. To cause chaos and reduce the ability of others to defend themselves. To disband communities. To collapse the collective strength of countries who work together. But we have an opportunity here to ensure that these particular weapons of war do not become an established part of warfare. In these times, I'm acutely aware of how easy it is to feel disheartened. We are facing many battles on many fronts. But there is cause for optimism. Because for every new weapon we face, there is a new tool to overcome it. For every attempt to push the world into chaos is a collective conviction to bring us back to order. We have the means. We just need the collective will.”

On the face of it, Adern’s UN speech sounds perfectly reasonable, and it is not inaccurate. But as with the UK and US efforts to regulate online speech, these words are shrouded in noble concern and values that resonate with most people.

That is, until you remember this is the very same Jacinda Adern who transformed New Zealand into one large quarantine camp and fiercely enforced among the world’s worst vaccine mandates. The very same Jacinda Adern who had this to say while removing people’s civil liberties in the name of experimental and coerced medical injections, which peer-reviewed scientists are now demanding be globally suspended due to harm, while being deterministically linked to Myocarditis.

Radical Media reports 20th Novemner 2020:

Note: due to Elon Musk’s ongoing social media war with Substack, video via tweets can no longer be embedded into Substack. Readers must click on the image to view all video clips.

Former New Zealand PM Jacinda Adern: ”You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director General of Health, and the Ministry of Health, for that information do feel free to visit at any time to clarify any rumour you may hear, Covid 19 . govt . nz otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. We will provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see, a grain of salt.”

It is a Brave New World.

Our mission is to bring you Radical Media for Radical truths that modern corporatist media seek to silence. We cannot do this without your support. Full members also receive WARRIOR CREED and other Resistance Radio content and special offers. Please upgrade your membership and become a paying, full monthly member here: