Goodbye github and KFN?

[woodsmoke]

What has Canada or Britain got to do with Twitter's house rules or Roseanne Barr?

Please consider how you will feel when YOUR "ox is gored".

When a friend on Twitter in your area is shut down or your favorite politically incorrect show is shut down because "somebody was offended".

Not that I'm defending Barr, after the first viewing of the first show I never watched it again.

But what happens "here" will happen "there".

woodjustsayin'smoke

[Bings]

Some of the things people have been jailed for in the UK for hate speech

"Personally im glad that teacher got stabbed up, feel sorry for the kid… he shoulda pissed on her too".

Jailed for six weeks.

Robert Riley, 42, of Port Talbot, South Wales, told his followers he would have killed 'all the b****** teachers' at Corpus Christ School, Leeds, where the 61-year-old was fatally stabbed on April 28

jailed for eight weeks

Sorley, 23, used Twitter to tell Criado-Perez to "f*** off and die you worthless piece of crap" and "go kill yourself", and said: "Rape is the last of your worries."

Jailed for 12 weeks.

Nimmo, 25, told Criado-Perez to "shut up bitch" and "Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine", followed by: "I will find you [smiley face]" and then the message "rape her nice ass", Westminster magistrates court heard.

Jailed for eight weeks.

In the UK, if they behave themselves, people generally only serve half of a sentence. So that's the depth you have to plummet to get a light sentence in the UK. A bit over the line of subjectively offensive.

[chimak111]

Samantha Bee

I had to look up the meaning of one of the words she used.

[TWPonKubuntu]

Welcome to the New World Order... This emoji is not intended to induce any feeling or emotion in the reader, it was produced by a random motion of anonymous fingers on a keyboard.

More could be said, A LOT more, on this topic, but that might be grounds for perma-banning, at a minimum. Not by the forum moderators, but by someone (who must not be named) who might take offense and report those statements to TPTB.

OMG! (another random set of keyboard strokes, nothing to see there, move along now)

Does anybody else see a trend here? Please be extremely circumspect in commenting about this... Nice weather we're having today, don't you think?

I just realized that this post is reminiscent of woodsmoke, but they (non-gender specific pronoun) didn't write it.

Rhetorical question: Where has this world gotten to and where will it go from here?

[GreyGeek]

Some of the things people have been jailed for in the UK for hate speech
......
In the UK, if they behave themselves, people generally only serve half of a sentence. So that's the depth you have to plummet to get a light sentence in the UK. A bit over the line of subjectively offensive.

I can't blame you for sanitizing your post about "hate speech" and the abuses your government commit jailing people for merely expressing their opinions on line or in public, if those opinions counter the prevailing political correctness enforced by the bureaucracy. However, the issue isn't about using "bad" words or even insulting people. And, there are sufficient laws in Britain and the US for those who feel their character has been maligned to sue for defamation.

The issue is free speech. The UK law concerning it is here.

A man who is running for office in Britain stands up in public and reads an excerpt from a book by Churchill about the Muslim culture.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gn-speech.html

Police officers arrested Mr Weston, mid-speech, for failing to comply with their request to move on under the powers of a dispersal order made against him. He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harrassment
...
The Liberty GB mission statement reveals what the party believes to be the 'most important issues of our time' - namely 'mass immigration from the Third World, the steady rise of fundamentalist Islam and the hijacking of traditional British culture and institutions by well-organised left-wing progressives'.

To be arrested for a "hate" crime one would expect that Weston would have to make malicious statements about the Muslim faith. All he did was to recite Churchill's experiences and observations visiting the Sudan in 1898. If Weston committed a criminal act in citing Churchill then Churchill committed a criminal act is writing this:

PASSAGE QUOTED IN FULL

'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!,' wrote Churchill.

'Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

'The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

'A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

'The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

'Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

'No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.'

It's been a long time coming in Great Britain. As one barrister noted,

“It’s worth bearing in mind that crude abuse is not defamation, and thus a lot of what goes on online will not ground a defamation action,” explains Fergal Crehan, a Dublin-based barrister.

However crude abuse can possibly, if extreme enough, be prosecuted under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989. Unlike similar laws in other countries, this Act does not specify that the hate must be racial in nature. It simply makes it an offence to engage in actions ‘likely to stir up hatred’.

But, as is becoming the habit in many political environments today, speaking the truth is no defense. It's even happening in America.
https://www.care2.com/causes/4-journ...the-truth.html

Have you done a search and found this tacked onto the end of your search?
https://www.thedailybell.com/wp-cont...7522468970.png

Ignore Tommy. Notice the contents of the red box
Attack you legally when you make remarks online or publically, or even worse, limit your access to information which the state does not approve:

Some results may have been removed under data protection laws in Europe. Learn more

Now that's scary.

[Bings]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_W...tician)#Arrest

Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Hayes responded to the media coverage on the Hampshire Police and Crime Commission website:

It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.
Members of the public are of course at liberty to debate issues of importance to them in private or public spaces. However, there must be a level of decorum and decency.
Hampshire Constabulary has an obligation to ensure action is taken if decency or safety is put at risk and, if there is any reason to suspect they have intervened unnecessary [sic], this will be investigated.
As far as I am aware, this is not so in this case. With the local and European elections coming up, it is important to register that there is a great deal of politically motivated spin going on at the moment which it [sic] is having a significant impact on local policing – both in terms of vital frontline rescourse [sic] and reputation.^[18]

Ignore Tommy. Notice the contents of the red box
Attack you legally when you make remarks online or publically, or even worse, limit your access to information which the state does not approve:

That is absolutely not what that is about. There is a link called "learn more" which explains.

[GreyGeek]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_W...tician)#Arrest

That is absolutely not what that is about. There is a link called "learn more" which explains.

It absolutely is.

While I have no doubt that Google IS filtering its US results to hamper searches which aren't PC, I have never seen that red box on any of my searches so I can't click on "Learn More" but, apparently, in Britain and the EU the red box is common. Is it? At least you know that your searches are being filtered and you are not allowed to see results that your superiors don't want you to see. Have you ever asked yourself WHY they feel obliged to withhold information from you, and who gives them that authority?

How do I know that Google is filtering? Because the results include links which are just the opposite of the information I am seeking, and that info doesn't appear until the 7th, 8th or higher pages.

In the US, besides the 1st Amendment, we have the 6th, the right to face our accusers in a court of law and to cross examine them. We also have the right to refuse to incriminate ourselves, the 5th Amendment.

If you can't face your accuser, then you can't be certain that what you're being accused of has any basis in fact. If the government could bring charges against someone without presenting the person claiming that you have done something wrong, then the government would be entirely free to make up whatever crime it wants, along with whatever evidence it wants, without any recourse of your own. This is how "trials" during the Inquisition were performed, and the decision by the Founding Fathers to include the 6th Amendment explicitly in the Constitution is a reflection of the abuses that such systems wrought in the past.

What the police commissioner "understands" should have no bearing in a court of law. It would be better to have unambiguous laws that describe what a crime is and leave little wiggle room for prosecutor to make up charges. How do you know his "understanding" isn't misconceived or politically biased. You don't.

In America the Grand Jury system gives a prosecutor the opportunity to indict a ham sandwich, if he is so politically motivated. He can present just the evidence and witnesses he wants to jury to see, suppressing evidence or witnesses he doesn't want the jury to see. If he gets an indictment he can then pursue charges in a criminal trial, but then the accused has the 5th and 6th Amendment. However, if the accused does not exculpatory evidence because the prosecutor hides it, the a mistrial and wrongful conviction is possible.
A classic case is the LaCrosse players accused of rape and prosecuted by DA Nifong, who concealed DNA evidence. He lost his license and spent one day in jail. The LaCrosse case was the second in which he suppressed DNA evidence. The first case caused a man to spend 20 yrs in prison.

Even so, the 5th Amendment right to refuse to incriminate one's self has, over the years, been deliberately sprinkled with legal land mines that can blow up in your face and make even your silence used as evidence against you.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

[Bings]

It absolutely is.

It absolutely isn't. It's called the "right to be forgotten", it's an EU privacy law where citizens can apply for information about them to be removed from search engines. It has nothing to do with state censorship. It's a stupid law designed for people to hide their dodgy pasts but it's not state led censorship. The link in the red box is here: https://policies.google.com/faq

[woodsmoke]

PLEEZE...GO BACK TO THE SIXTIES...

I...the woodsmoker...was a RABID...LIBERAL...

And just WHO were we "against"... BIG GOVERNMENT...

OK...BIG HUGE QUESTION...

The liberal elite intelligentsia say that they ONLY ACCEPT ... human generated "stuff"... not that STOOPID RELIGIOUS STUFF...

So...George Orwell...

AND TWENTY YEARS of LIBERAL ELTITE INTLLIGENTSIA...

were PROTESTING WITH THEIR BODIES ...

against,..."big brother"...

In other words...

which "position" ...likes "big brother"...liberal or consrvative...

WE WERE PROTESTING ......BIG ELITE SMARTER THAN YOU GOVERNMENT...

THE LIBERALS...ME...were protesting "big goverment" "taking over"...

and now it has COMPLETELY REVERSED...

Big goverment will...

TAKE CARE OF THE LIBERAL ELITES!!!!!

and "business, private enterprise"...ESCHEWED...

which means...that the liberal elites like GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF EVERYTHING...

hmmmm wonder what THAT means...

CONY ISLAND OF THE MIND...

BELOVED OF THE PEOPLE

WHO BECAME THE NOW LIBERAL ELITES...

THE WASHINGTON POLITICIANS...

how many of themn reference this very HUMANISTIC...POETRY...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cone...nd_of_the_Mind

THE NEW ...POLITICALY AGGRANDIZING leftist elite...

have completely REVERSED... the people who "trained them".

wood...smoke

[GreyGeek]

It absolutely isn't. It's called the "right to be forgotten", it's an EU privacy law where citizens can apply for information about them to be removed from search engines. It has nothing to do with state censorship. It's a stupid law designed for people to hide their dodgy pasts but it's not state led censorship. The link in the red box is here: https://policies.google.com/faq

It absolutely is, and any statement by the "First Do No Evil" corporation which has done nothing but since abandoning that motto is a statement I would not trust. They are, after all, calling politicians "bigots" and blocking people whose political views are not Far Left.

However, remember that my OP in this topic wasn't about the GDRP or personal info or the right to be forgotten, it is about the Article13(1), the copyright and link tax.

https://saveyourinternet.eu/about-this-campaign/

How will this impact you

---

Article 13 is a provision in the proposed EU Copyright Directive mandating that all content uploaded to the internet be monitored and potentially deleted if a likeness to existing copyrighted content is detected. This provision will be voted on by the end of 2018.
Find out more from C4C, Copybuzz and Save the Link.

Whether a creator or a consumer, everyone who uses the internet will be affected by this law — which is why we all need to speak out against it.

If you are a creator or independent business, the content that you upload to share with your audience might be deleted without your consent. Creators include but are not limited to artists –such as cartoonists, gamers, illustrators, photographers, documentary filmmakers, animators, musicians, DJs, and dancers,– bloggers, journalists, and technologists.

Online platforms will be required to implement complex and expensive filtering systems and will be held liable for copyright infringement, potentially incurring fines that threaten their economic viability.

Article 13 would restrict the ability of Internet users to consume content – meaning they won’t be able to find and enjoy diverse kinds of cultural expressions that they have grown accustomed to. The days of communicating through gifs and memes, listening to our favourite remixes online or sharing videos of our friends singing at karaoke might be coming to an end.

Ultimately, the internet culture that has emerged in recent years – a culture that enables connections and democratises information – will become bureaucratic and restrictive.

---

Blast from the recent past

---

A couple of years ago, European citizens were asked to Save the Internet at a time where an important vote was going to shape the future of network neutrality in the European Union. The stakes were huge as a negative outcome would have meant that big corporations would have been able to decide what content was available at what price on the Internet. But European citizens stepped up and a positive outcome was generated thanks to the millions that raised their voice.

It is now time to Save Your Internet, the one where you decide what you upload and where, who you share a meme with and when you can upload a parody.

If you do not act now, many of your daily activities on the Internet will no longer be possible, blocked by automated filters that are unable to recognize your rights under EU law.

[NickStone]

Confirmation of Article 13

http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/...bject-GDPR.htm

[GreyGeek]

Wonder why the social media are censoring folks not aligned with their politics?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...ial-censorship

Germany has made no secret of its desire to see its new law copied by the rest of the EU, which already has a similar code of conduct for social media giants. The EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourova, recently said she might be willing to legislate in the future if the voluntary code of conduct does not produce the desired results. She said, however, that the voluntary code was working "relatively" well, with Facebook removing 66.5% of the material they had been notified was "hateful" between December and May this year. Twitter removed 37.4%, and YouTube took action on 66% of the notifications from users.

What is "hateful" you ask?

Meanwhile, the district court in Munich recently gave a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of "disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations". While the mutual admiration that once existed between al-Husseini and German Nazis is an undisputed historical fact, now evidently history is being rewritten by German courts. Stürzenberger has appealed the verdict.
...
UK Prime Minister May keeps insisting that "these ideologies" are spread "across all parts of our societies" when in reality, virtually all terrorism is Islamic. Meanwhile, her own Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has refused to ban the political wing of Hezbollah. Hezbollah's hate speech, apparently, is perfectly acceptable to the British authorities. So is that of South African Muslim cleric and hate preacher Ebrahim Bham, who was once an interpreter to the Taliban's head legal advisor. He was allowed to enter the UK to speak in the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, a government building, at the "Palestine Expo" a large Jew-hate event in London in July. Bham is known for quoting Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels and saying that all Jews and Christians are "agents of Satan". Meanwhile, a scholar such as Robert Spencer is banned from entering the UK, supposedly on the grounds that what he reports -- accurately -- is "Islamophobic".

The EU doesn't even allow free speech, or the truth, in its parliament:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1...nt-free-speech

The European Parliament lately seems to be waging war against free speech. At the beginning of March, the body lifted the parliamentary immunity of French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen. Her crime? Tweeting three images of ISIS executions in 2015. In France, "publishing violent images" constitutes a criminal offense, which can carry a penalty of three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros. By lifting her immunity at the same time that she is running for president of France, the European Parliament is sending the clear signal that publicizing the graphic and horrifying truth of the crimes of ISIS, rather than being received as a warning about what might soon be coming to Europe, instead ought to be punished.

This is a bizarre signal to be sending, especially to the Christian and Yazidi victims of ISIS, who are still largely ignored by the European Union. European parliamentarians, evidently, are too sensitive to deal with the graphic murders of defenseless people in the Middle East, and are more concerned with ensuring the prosecution of the messengers, such as Marine Le Pen.

So, political correctness, now effectively the "religious police" of political discourse, has not only taken over the media and academia; elected MEPs are now also supposed to toe the politically correct line, or literally be cut off. No one stopped the European Parliament from passing this undemocratic anti-free speech rule. Why did no parliamentarian out of the 751 MEPs raise red flags about the issue before it became an actual rule? Even more importantly: Where does this clearly totalitarian impulse stop and who will stop it?

When will it stop? That's easy. It won't. And when Muslims reach political majority a Caliphate will be formed and all those MEPS will be paying the Jizya tax or be forced to convert, leave or die.

[NickStone]

GreyGeek, your complaining about censorship. Did you not read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page you quoted?

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

If that's not censorship I don't know what is.

[GreyGeek]

GreyGeek, your complaining about censorship. Did you not read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page you quoted?



If that's not censorship I don't know what is.

It is possible censorship of any comments I might make to an article, but at least gatestone institute is not censoring her, as far as I can tell, and I can read the articles she wrote. I doubt if her articles or excepts from them would survive long on the major media without shadow banning, blocking or canceling her account, if she had an account.

For a list of her articles on that website see:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/a...Judith+Bergman

[NickStone]

I took a look at who Judith Bergman is. She is a writer and political analyst living in Israel. As well as writing articles for the gatestone institute she also writes for https://www.israelrising.com/ is it any wonder why her articles are demonising Islam? Also, she bashes everyone who she thinks is bashing Israel. So it is also no surprise that Judith Bergman also bashes the EU and the UN for in her mind their constant bashing of Israel.

And you choose to believe her?