|
|
Post by em on Sept 19, 2024 8:28:33 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 19, 2024 8:31:23 GMT 12
Nice writeup by Cramner. Not sure I agree with Sumption when he says Ardern didn't realise how serious her words were. I think she was knew exactly what she was saying and it was a softener to her bullshit disinformation project and the likes mentioned below. The War on Words: a threat to democracy In her speech at the UN two years ago, Jacinda Ardern argued that words had become the new weapon of war, it was a comment that Lord Jonathan Sumption told me he found 'profoundly sinister'.
Philip Crump
Sep 18
Earlier this week, Donald Trump became only the second sitting or former U.S. president, after Gerald Ford, to have survived two failed assassination attempts. Events in the United States over the last month have been a stark reminder of how political rhetoric can become dangerously charged.
They also occur at a time when governments worldwide are increasing pressure on social media companies to regulate speech which they deem harmful. But as these efforts intensify, we must ask: where should the line be drawn between restricting speech and upholding the right to free expression?
Undoubtedly, social media has transformed how we communicate and how news is disseminated, with words spreading faster than ever before via platforms which bypass the traditional mainstream media.
In response, governments around the globe are taking decisive - and often aggressive - action against social media platforms.
Last month, Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram was arrested in France amid an investigation into crimes related to child sexual abuse images, drug trafficking and fraudulent transactions associated with the Telegram app.
Following his release on bail Durov stated, “Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach”.
In the United States, Tiktok is challenging an “unconstitutional” law that could result in it being sold or banned in that country. TikTok argued in court on Monday that the law would have a “staggering” impact on the free speech of its U.S. users if it were allowed to stand.
Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and one of three judges hearing the case said that if the law in question targeted only US-based companies, “there’s no doubt that would be a huge First Amendment concern”. Even though that is not the case given that the law is concerned with TikTok’s links to China, Srinivasan still expressed concern “about the speech consequences on U.S. consumers” if the ban comes into effect on January 19 next year as the law stipulates.
Closer to home, the Australian government is currently trying to pass new laws on misinformation and disinformation which could see social media companies fined up to 5% of their annual turnover for breaches. Earlier this week, Elon Musk responded to news of the proposal by calling the Australian government, “fascists”.
However, in the midst of this titanic battle between governments and free speech advocates, those in favour of greater regulation are not having it all their own way.
In April, Australia’s eSafety commissioner issued an order to X requiring it to remove graphic content after clips of a Sydney bishop being stabbed remained on the platform. X complied with the order in Australia but declined to enforce it worldwide arguing that an unelected official in Australia should not have the authority to decide what citizens in other countries can see or read on social media.
Musk accused the commissioner of attempting to suppress free speech, prompting Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to hit back by calling Musk an “arrogant billionaire”. But despite all the name-calling and tough talk, the eSafety commissioner discontinued the federal court proceedings in an embarrassing retreat.
Earlier this week, France’s European Commissioner, Thierry Breton, who has been in the midst of a bitter and protracted battle with X over greater content regulation announced his immediate resignation.
In August, just after Musk had interviewed former U.S. president Trump on X, Breton issued a strongly worded letter in which he warned Musk of the “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the E.U. in connection with events with major audiences around the world”. It soon became public that the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen had not been informed about the letter and that other E.U. officials were concerned about becoming embroiled in the U.S. presidential race.
Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, reacted to the news of Breton’s resignation by posting, “It’s a good day for free speech.”
Within days of Breton’s resignation another unrelated battle was also swinging in X’s favour as Brazil lifted a ban on the platform from operating in that country after X and Starlink agreed to pay $3.3 million in fines to the Brazilian authorities.
The ban had been imposed by Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes at the end of August after X had failed to comply with a court order. At the time Musk reacted by stating, “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
On Tuesday, the White House issued a rare rebuke to another country, criticising Brazil for enacting the ban in the first place.
“When it comes to social media, we have been very clear that we think that folks should have access to social media. It’s a form of freedom of speech,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a White House briefing.
Even Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is having second thoughts about where the line should be drawn between censorship and free speech as he expressed regret at bending to government demands for greater censorship during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Last month, in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee he wrote, “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain Covid-19 content, including humour and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.”
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it”, Zuckerburg concluded.
At the heart of this push for increased regulation lies a desire to broaden what is considered to be hate speech, and to create a new category of speech which is considered harmful.
This trend is perhaps best exemplified by our former Prime Minister, Dame Jacinda Ardern.
Speaking at the United Nations two years ago, Ardern argued that misinformation has become the new weapon of war, suggesting that words can be just as dangerous as bullets. Her view, that online rhetoric can be equated to acts of physical violence, has arguably been influential in the global debate seeking to justify greater control over speech.
At the end of last year, I had the opportunity to meet and speak to the former U.K. Supreme Court Judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption, when he visited New Zealand for a speaking tour arranged by the Free Speech Union.
Sumption was particularly critical of Ardern’s suggestion that words could be as dangerous as bullets, commenting that, “I think that that was a profoundly sinister thing to say. I don’t think she realised how sinister it was. I doubt whether she thought it through.”
“Words are not coercive, whereas violence is. And for you to equate them therefore, that seems to me to be a really serious mistake which leads to a vastly increased volume of pure persecution.”
Sumption’s view is that the Common Law countries, including New Zealand, already have a perfectly satisfactory answer to this issue. In his words, “the limit of free speech is when you reach the point where somebody is being deliberately provocative and insulting to a group who can reasonably be expected to respond with violence. That’s a very narrow test, but it’s the right test because it preserves the right to free speech.”
“When you advance on to hate speech, you’re advancing into territory that’s very poorly charted, because the definitions are extremely loose, and you’re moving into an area where the objective of curtailing free speech is not to maintain the public peace but to protect people from being offended. I’m afraid that in a democracy, we’ve got to accept that you will be offended by many things.”
Sumption’s critique hits at the heart of this issue: the over-regulation of speech isn’t just a threat to free expression, it’s a threat to democracy itself.
You’re currently a free subscriber to Cranmer’s Substack. To post comments and to access all archived articles, please consider upgrading your subscription. If you’ve enjoyed this article, please feel free to share it with friends or family. Many thanks for your support - it’s much appreciated.Good on Zuckerberg foe blowing the whistle on the US Govt . Don’t think much of Pavel Dubrov saying “ not my circus , not my monkeys” |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 19, 2024 9:52:52 GMT 12
Sumption’s critique hits at the heart of this issue: the over-regulation of speech isn’t just a threat to free expression, it’s a threat to democracy itself.
You’re currently a free subscriber to Cranmer’s Substack. To post comments and to access all archived articles, please consider upgrading your subscription. If you’ve enjoyed this article, please feel free to share it with friends or family. Many thanks for your support - it’s much appreciated.Good on Zuckerberg foe blowing the whistle on the US Govt . Don’t think much of Pavel Dubrov saying “ not my circus , not my monkeys” Zuckerberg is a total hypocrite, he was right in there with the Dopeycrat administration when it suited him (especially during WuFlu times), now he will be reading the political winds and anticipating Trump possibly winning, want to have "a dollar each way" on his allegiances. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 19, 2024 10:37:25 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 23, 2024 9:10:13 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 7, 2024 11:41:30 GMT 12
The police gang need reigning in on this one. (police gang only used as black power and mongrel mob used to say - there are three gangs in nuzld, BP, MM and the police gang)
The silly shit being questioned by the fuzz on social media is bad enough, but then referring the case to orange tangareeky is an absolute outrage.
Mark Mitchell should be calling the Akl district commander into his office over this imo.
From the FSU.
Gareth* is a husband and the father of a busy young family. He has triplet toddlers- frankly I can't imagine!
He's a project manager, a role that comes with a bit of stress, and in his spare time, like a lot of us, he lets off some steam on social media. From time to time, he's made a dumb comment or two there, but that's not a crime... or is it?
On a Thursday evening in August, two police officers turned up on his doorstep, unannounced, and out of the blue.
After an awkward interaction where the police officers asked Gareth for a private conversation away from his wife, they informed him that they'd received a complaint about comments he'd made on his anonymous social media account.
They were just there to check his thinking on a few issues.
This is the sort of case that frightens me. It simply confirms to me how essential our work is.
Gareth declined to engage with the officers. After implying they would take legal action if he didn't engage with them, eventually, they left.
It may not sound like much, but this experience left Gareth feeling anxious. The experience frightened his children, and he took several actions in the following days:
1. Due to struggling to sleep that night, Gareth approached his GP for help and sought counselling.
2. He filed a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority.
3. He contacted the gun licence registry and informed them that, while he did hold a gun licence, he'd previously sold his guns, so he no longer had any in possession. During this conversation, he mentioned the stress the visit from the police officers had caused him, and that he'd been getting help for his anxiety and lack of sleep since.
A few weeks passed, and several police officers showed up again.
But this time, outrageously, they tried to force themselves into Gareth's family home, claiming they didn't need a warrant. (Warning, it's not an easy thing to watch).
They issued him with a notice saying his firearms license had been suspended.
On what grounds?
1. He allegedly disclosed to the gun license registry that he had a mental health condition so was therefore not fit to hold a gun licence. (He told them he'd been getting help for his anxiety and lack of sleep since the visit from the Police.)
2. Allegedly, his posts and comments on social media were extreme and 'hateful'.
Like with everyone we represent, we don't ask you to agree or disagree with his statements. It's about the principle of a basic right.
Whether his comments were provocative or not, they don't meet the criteria for a response from Police.
The situation was also made worse by the Police taking the comments out of context of the wider conversations. Because of the Police's dramatic arrival a second time, Gareth's triplets were upset again, and were crying as the Police came into the house.
As a result, the Police referred the matter to Oranga Tamariki, concerned for the welfare of the children.
You'll be pleased to know that when Oranga Tamariki reviewed the case, they raised no concerns and closed the file. The only reason the children were upset when the Police arrived, it seems, was because of the Police forcing themselves into the house.
'Hate speech' laws were shelved for a reason. Frankly, we should not be coming against this.
Police should not be turning up on doorsteps based on someone's opinions expressed on social media, forcing themselves into houses, and frightening their children.
Yesterday, we submitted on Gareth's behalf to the Firearms Licencing Authority in defense of Gareth and included a range of references from friends and family. If we're not successful, Gareth will lose his gun licence (even though at the moment he doesn't even own a gun), all because when after Police arrived to check his thinking, he admitted he'd found it a confronting experience.
Gareth is a hardworking, family man with a busy family life and a demanding job. He has found himself in the middle of a storm. If Police continue on this course, this situation could be any one of us.
We've recently shared about the unlawful training the Police are putting their officers through to identify 'hate speech' and even the terrifying concept of 'non-criminal hate incidences'.
I believe, if we don't keep pushing against that, this story could be the start of many more situations like this.
Is this really what you want our Police to focus on?
This is the first time we've dealt with a speech issue relating to a gun licence, and I think it will set an unjust precedent if we don't all pull together now. Having a firearm licence comes with particular duties, fair enough, but it doesn't mean a basic right to free speech is taken away.
Currently, we have nine legal cases on the go, and frankly, it's not cheap. However, I believe - hand on heart - it is worth standing up for your right to speak your mind. But we need your support to do this.
I am writing to ask if you would chip into our work to support Gareth and others like him, and stand for their right to speak.
Donate now, to stand against policing 'hate' through censorship
By supporting our work, you're not just helping to defend Gareth's right to speak. You're also supporting us to speak out on your behalf. (My team already submitted legal filings on his behalf yesterday, and we'll be helping him meet with a psychologist who will be able to speak to his soundness of mind).
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Oct 7, 2024 13:09:38 GMT 12
The have an internet skullduggery unit in morrinsville . I know several people who are mentally marginal at times and have guns who are far more deserving of a visit than * Gareth
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Oct 7, 2024 14:48:05 GMT 12
There are videos of the visits on twitter, Simon Anderson has tried to raise the issue.
It really looks like cops got made to look like idiots so got vindictive.
There are some pretty big privacy issues around the whole thing. let alone police bullying attempt to get past the limits of their legal powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Oct 7, 2024 15:27:18 GMT 12
There are videos of the visits on twitter, Simon Anderson has tried to raise the issue. It really looks like cops got made to look like idiots so got vindictive. There are some pretty big privacy issues around the whole thing. let alone police bullying attempt to get past the limits of their legal powers. Wow, that's fucked up! Is any mainstream media covering this? The police don't actually need a search warrant to go into your house if you have a firearms license, but what sort of asshole just walks up and bullies their way in, which they did in nigh on no time flat. Heads need to roll over this. Perhaps the cops can go catch some rapists or murderers... |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Oct 7, 2024 17:45:13 GMT 12
"The police don't actually need a search warrant to go into your house if you have a firearms license" There is a lot more to it than that, this is a very detailed paper explaining what you and the police must or don't need to do. Its on that twitter some where. ex this guy assets.nationbuilder.com/actnz/mailings/4895/attachments/original/What_to_do_during_a_police_interaction_-_Nicholas_Taylor_-_Copy.pdf?1664340534www.firearmslawyer.co.nz/This is a tiny bit of it but gives you the idea: "Section 1 – If you are a standard firearms licence holder - You must permit the police to enter your home to inspect all of your firearms you are in possession of, along with your gun safe and security, and your ammunition and where it is stored. However: i) You must be given at least 7 days notice of this inspection occurring. ii) The inspection must be at a “reasonable time”. This is a time that most people in the community would consider to be reasonable,...." |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Oct 8, 2024 16:26:05 GMT 12
Well, I'm a bit bemused, again. World War two ended something like 80 years ago. The Nazi's reign thus ended about 80 years ago. So, for some reason Australia passed a law last December, 79 years after the end of the Nazi reign, banning their salute. If the salute wasn't a problem for the last 79 years, why is it suddenly a problem now? Anyway, for some obscure reason, some guy, who states he is a Nazi, decided to do a salute infront of media on the steps of a Court, after appearing on some other matter. Now faces a possible 12 months in prison. www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/350444437/self-described-nazi-becomes-first-australian-state-victoria-be-convicted-overA self-described Nazi on Tuesday became the first person convicted in the Australian state of Victoria of performing an outlawed Nazi salute. Jacob Hersant, 25, gave the salute and praised Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in front of news media cameras outside the Victoria County Court on October 27, 2023, after he had appeared on a unrelated charge. It was six days after the Victoria state government had made the salute illegal. The Federal Parliament passed legislation in December that outlawed nationwide performing the Nazi salute in public or to publicly display, or trade in, Nazi hate symbols. A Melbourne magistrate found Hersant guilty, dismissing defense lawyers’ arguments that the gesture wasn’t a salute and that the ban unconstitutionally infringed upon Hersant’s implied freedom of political communication. |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Nov 4, 2024 16:48:54 GMT 12
You don't know me, but you might remember my story.
My name is Paul Burns, and I'm not in prison... which is a way to say, I have excellent news to share with you today - thanks to the Free Speech Union.
Earlier this year, I was arrested for simply engaging in public debate. Yes, in New Zealand. For this, there was a chance I was going to prison.
But thanks to the Free Speech Union, I'm not.
Let me explain.
I was standing on Lampton Quay one Sunday in March holding a sign that said, ‘$100 to the 1st person who proves that slavery is more evil than abortion’ with $100 worth of notes taped to the sign.
This was regularly how I spent my free time. I stand by my beliefs that abortion is wrong, and I see it as my mission to get people thinking about this issue.
Anyway, on this particular day, I was approached by a group of young people prepared to engage with me.
One of them proposed an argument: 'Overpopulation is a problem, so abortion is justified.'
With that, I replied as any debater would and challenged their own logic: “If you think that the world is overpopulated, then why don’t you kill yourself?”
Well, I was handcuffed, taken to Police cells, and charged under section 1(4)(b) of the Summary Offences Act for, 'offensive language'.
Dr. Roderick Mulgan, Chairperson of the Free Speech Union, heroically represented me despite not sharing my opinions on abortion.
Leading up to my trial, outrageously, the charge was bumped up to disorderly behaviour, and then bumped up again to a more aggravated form of disorderly behaviour.
We think this upgrade was simply for intimidation. And this is especially why it is an outrage:
Public disorder charges can come with jail time. If I'd been convicted, that could have been me. I could have gone to jail
But today was my hearing, and my charge was withdrawn!
Think what you like about abortion - but engaging in a discussion about it and holding strong views one way or another should not constitute an arrest, let alone jail time.
This could be any one of us simply standing for what we believe in. But are we all going to be bold enough to speak up when we see people being arrested for doing exactly that?
This is why the work of the Free Speech Union is absolutely crucial.
Every act of censorship, big or small, is telling person after person that it's safer to keep their mouths shut.
What a tragedy for democracy and our nation.
I am immensely grateful for the work of the Free Speech Union, which I know is only made possible by your support.
I have been telling friends and family that the best way to support FSU is by becoming a member, and today I want to tell you the same message.
I can't stress it enough. Back the Free Speech Union. Defend free speech. Defend the rights of those you disagree with because one day, it could be you who needs defending.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 5, 2024 16:04:54 GMT 12
This one is a hangover from Saint Dame Jacinda and the great oppression. Police prosecuting Tamaki and a couple of mates for something. Protesting against fascist laws or some such. Tamaki has Ron Mansfield KC on the payroll, so it should be excellent viewing if Polkinghorne's defense was anything to go by: The lawyer pointed out in some parliamentary emails, including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry of Health were cc’d in ahead of media releases being sent out. He asked why this was. Perkins said it was to keep everyone informed. Mansfield suggested there was pressure being placed by Parliament, including those at the Ministry of Health, the Covid-19 response team and the police minister, on the police to take action an prosecute Tamaki. Mansfield went on to suggest there wasn’t the same level of interest within Parliament in relation to the Black Lives Matter and Groundswell protests. Perkins said she couldn’t be sure about the timings of those protests and the restrictions in place at the time. www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360474922/brian-tamaki-defence-team-suggests-political-pressure-charge-destiny-church |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Nov 5, 2024 17:37:52 GMT 12
oh this is brilliant! Oliver Jull wasn't allowed to do his speech at New Plymouth boys high because some of the teachers deemed it 'right wing' and it would offend people. He had no trust in getting to do his speech so recorded the conversations with the teachers in the various meetings (unbeknown to them, which is not illegal) of them trying to dodge their way out of cancelling him. Free speech union got on board, loser teachers wouldn't budge or apologise, then the recordings were bought out. The skool still hasn't apologised but now the kid has been invited to speak at the FSU event at parliament! 🤣😁😂👌 theplatform.kiwi/podcasts/episode/jonathan-ayling-updates-us-on-oliver-julls-banned-school-speech |
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Nov 5, 2024 17:42:17 GMT 12
FSU had a few good wins of late.
Two months ago, we contacted you with the biggest issue we have dealt with yet. The NZ Police were wading into areas far, far beyond their remit, training their officers to 'recognise, record, and respond' to 'hate speech'.
This afternoon, I am thrilled to tell you that we've pushed the NZ Police back, helped them to see reason, and they're entirely revising their training, changing the framework, and reviewing every file they had flagged with 'hate'.
This is a massive victory for free speech in New Zealand. And it's because you and I spoke up.
Instead of doubling down and pushing on, the Police Commissioner was willing to meet with us and hear our concerns. It may have been a combative meeting, but there was a lot at stake.
Here are the key outcomes:
✅ The Police Commissioner instructed a complete review of the training material.
✅ The training is being fully redesigned.
✅ The definition of 'hate crime' is being reset, connected explicitly to the Police's responsibility to protect 'physical safety'.
✅ Whenever 'hate crimes' are flagged, there will be a review to ensure that this is an appropriate response.
The NZ Police in a media release this afternoon said:
"The Police Executive has agreed Police’s definition of a non-criminal hate incident should shift from a perception-based standard to one requiring reasonable grounds to believe an event involves or implies a significant risk of physical harm..."
This is exactly how it should be. Where people are physically at risk, Police should step in. But differing opinions are not a reason for this.
They also say they're training their officers to "recognise, record, respond to and resolve hate-motivated offending." Again, this is right. Police should focus on actions already against the law. Not speech.
I want to acknowledge we live in a divided age where some people do respond to ideas they don't like with violence, and it is up to Police to protect us while keeping our basic freedoms in mind. That isn't an easy task. But the response from the Police to our campaign gets us much closer to this.
We still have several concerns after reading the report including that they provide working definitions for 'hate crimes' and 'hate incidents' "in lieu of legislative definitions".
There is a very good reason why there are no legislative definitions for these. It is impossible to define 'hate'. We will continue working with Police to ensure subjective policing does not become a new normal.
Our fight against the proposed 'hate speech' laws was big. However, I think the original training conducted by the NZ Police had the potential to have even worse outcomes. We believe this training was extrajudicial, potentially illegal, and went against basic freedoms that Kiwis should be guaranteed.
Police should not be 'protecting' us from ideas.
__________________________
You might wonder how the Police's approach to 'hate crime' would actually play out in reality. Well, no need to wonder.
Gareth's* story that we shared with you recently shows us exactly the sort of thing that's happening and will only continue to happen the more that Police focus on speech they don't like instead of actual crimes.
Likewise, Lucy's story, of being arrested on Queen Street for silently holding a sign, shows what can happen when Police think they need to manage opinions.
Yesterday, we also shared Paul's story. Thankfully that case had a happy outcome (with charges dropped and the case dismissed). But it shows that Police need to be told clearly, offending someone shouldn't land you in prison!
Kiwis don’t need Police (or any other such a – acting beyond their lawful powersuthority) going ultra vires.
But when they do, we have to be ready to call their bluff and reign them back in.
|
|
