European Commission: Censor Illegal Hate Speech Or Else
There's legal hate speech?; Contradictions to what Elon was told; and UK hasn't left EU?
Continuing on from our earlier article European Commission Wants To Censor Talk On The Great Reset, the next questions the EC answered were:
2. How does the EU reconcile the freedom of people to express their views - including beliefs in untrue things - with censoring of 'disinformation'?
And
3. Who determines what is and is not disinformation, and who ensures they themselves aren't spreading disinformation?
And
5. How does the EU reconcile this enforcement with international countries that are not party to the EU?
They skipped answering question 4 but we’ll come back to that.
The “European Commission [EC] Spokesperson” replied (emphasis added):
The EU is not determining what is disinformation. The new rules set out EU-wide rules that cover detection, flagging and removal of illegal content, as well as a new risk assessment framework for very large online platforms and search engines on how illegal content spreads on their service.
What constituted illegal content is defined in other laws either at EU level or at national level – for example terrorist content or child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech is defined at EU level. Where a content is illegal only in a given Member State, as a general rule it should only be removed in the territory where it is illegal.
Contradicts What They Told Elon Musk
Remember what EC spokesperson said (emphasis added):
“Where a content is illegal only in a given Member State, as a general rule it should only be removed in the territory where it is illegal.”
Does not say must, and stresses in that country only, confirming countries retain sovereignty on what is illegal hosting-wise. Only those that fall under laws “defined at the EU level” are obliged to censor.
Elon Musk is hosting in America, and doesn’t fall under EU laws, therefore isn’t obliged. What Elon is hosting, cannot, by the EC’s own admission, be censored.
Thus sanction threats and sanctions on US hosting companies are illegal, they’re not covered by DSA (Digital Services Act). It is overreach not justified. Not legal advice (seek a legal professional etc), but perhaps a pre-emptive counter-suit in ECHR might dissaude them?
“Illegal Hate Speech”
The EC trapped themselves by refusing to declare what is and isn’t disinformation. The “illegal hate speech” implicates there is legal hate speech, and admits cannot censor what isn’t in law.
Still circular shifting goalposts from “disinformation” (lying?) to “hate speech” (some sort of aggressive rhetoric?), without defining what “hate speech” is. Vague. Dangerous.
Surprising? Demand precision we must, and not let them smuggle broadsided trucks of censorship. Who is going to pay for this? You, of course. More reason to fight back.
Risk Assessment Framework
One giant red flag the UK hasn’t actually left the EU, is the EC uses the same “risk assessment framework” language found in the UK’s so-called “Online Safety Bill” (should be titled: “Ofcom’s Censorship Bill for Crybabies And Control Freaks”).
Need to be brought up to speed on it? Watch a tongue-in-cheek 2 minute video mocking the absurdity here:
Both demand ‘very large platforms’ perform ‘risk assessments’ of online “harmful content”, a maliciously nebulous concept only an unelected bureaucrat agency decides in the dark on a whim, no oversight.
Companies have to moderate and must speculatively forecast, predict moods and postings of users, and call it a “risk assessment”. Failure to file incurs fines, filing incurs fees. Ker-ching.
Take away? Somehow ‘Brexit’d’ UK is implementing the exact same online rules as the EU, using different titles. Like the UK never left, and all democracy and referendums are a complete scam.
‘Sorry officer I was just engaging in some 2 minutes of legal hate speech’ said Winston.
Get More Content Like This. Subscribe.
Learned something new and think others should learn?
Or leave a comment below: