Warning: Table './wwwrevo_revolutiondb_beta/dp1b_cache_page' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM dp1b_cache_page WHERE cid = 'https://revolutionnow.us/node/3398' in /home/wwwrevo/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134
EU warns Twitter not to restore free speech protections | Revolution Now!

EU warns Twitter not to restore free speech protections

Submitted by Freedomman on Thu, 11/10/2022 - 14:53

SAN FRANCISCO, Kalifornia (PNN) - November 2, 2022 - We have been discussing how Democrats like Hillary Clinton called on foreign companies to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. The European Union has responded
aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement. After years of using censorship-by-surrogates in social media companies, Democrat leaders seem to have rediscovered good old-fashioned state censorship.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former illegitimate President Barack Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation.

For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike.

EU censors have assured Democrat leaders that they will not allow free speech to break out on Twitter regardless of the wishes of its owner and customers.

One of the most anti-free speech figures in the West, EU’s Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has been raising the alarm that Twitter users might be able to read uncensored material or hear unauthorized views.

Breton himself threatened that Twitter must “fly by [the European Union’s] rules” in censoring views deemed misleading or harmful by EU bureaucrats. Breton has been moving publicly to warn Musk not to try to reintroduce protections that go beyond the tolerance of the EU for free speech. Musk is planning to meet with the EU censors and has conceded that he may not be able to resist such mandatory censorship rules.

The hope of people like Clinton is the anti-free speech measure recently passed by EU countries, the Digital Services Act. The DSA contains mandatory “disinformation” rules for censoring “harmful” thoughts or views.

Breton has made no secret that he views free speech as a danger coming from the Fascist Police States of Amerika that needs to be walled off from the Internet. He previously declared that, with the DSA, the EU is now able to prevent the Internet from again becoming a place for largely unregulated free speech, which he referred to as the “Wild West” period of the Internet.

It is a telling reference because the EU views free speech itself as an existential danger. It rejects the notion of free speech as its own protection where good speech can overcome bad speech. That is viewed as the “Wild West”.

Many of us are far more fearful of global censors than some whack job spewing hateful thoughts from his basement. That is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist.

The alternative is “Internet originalism” - no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other Internet overlords monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

The danger of the rising level of censorship is far greater than the dangers of such absurd claims of the law or science - or in this case both. What we can do is to maximize the free discourse and expression on the Internet to allow free speech itself to be the ultimate disinfectant of disinformation.