A new Government White Paper to clamp down even harder on what remains of free speech:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... hite-paperQuote:
Hate crime
7.16 Hate crimes include crimes demonstrating hostility on the grounds of an individual’s
actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity. In
Action Against Hate, the government’s plan for tackling hate crime (2016), and Action Against
Hate Two Years On (2018), jointly led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government (MHCLG) and the Home Office, the government has made clear that offending
online is just as serious as that occurring offline and perpetrators of hateful attacks should
be held accountable for their actions. Companies should create platforms where people –
whatever their identity or background – can work, learn and socialise together, with shared
rights, responsibilities and opportunities.
Who or what defines “Hate”? Will it be a case of: “We do not agree with your opinion, therefore you have committed a hate crime” as in all disagreement with officialdom becomes a “hate crime”?
Quote:
Harassment
7.20 Being harassed online can be upsetting and frightening, and online harassment can
amount to a criminal offence. Far too many people, from public figures to schoolchildren, have
experienced this kind of behaviour. A poll conducted for Amnesty International found that
21% of the women surveyed in the UK (504 women) had experienced online harassment or
abuse, with 17% having experienced this on social media. There are many forms of abuse
and some evidence suggests differences in the type of abuse experienced between men and
women. Research suggests more women than men experience sexual forms of verbal abuse
(21% compared to 9% of men), while more men than women experience offensive name
calling (30% compared to 23%) and physical threats (12% compared to 8%).
I am harassed every month via Royal Mail by BBC/TV Licensing for not having a TV Licences that I do not need. Even the involvement of my MP has not stopped the harassment. If snail mail harassment cannot be stopped, what is the point of restrictions on digital harassment?
Quote:
Disinformation
7.25 When the internet is deliberately used to spread false or misleading information, it
can harm us in many different ways, encouraging us to make decisions that could damage
our health, undermining our respect and tolerance for each other and confusing our
understanding of what is happening in the wider world. It can also damage our trust in our
democratic institutions, including Parliament.
Who decides what is true or false. From what I see, the mainstream media are the most prolific promulgators of fake news. The real aim would appear to be to take control of all news outlets, whether it be mainstream or alternative media.
Quote:
Online abuse of public figures: Fulfilling the duty of care
7.36 As set out in Box 14, those involved in public life in the UK experience regular and
sustained abuse online, which goes beyond free speech and impedes individuals’ rights to
participate. As well as being upsetting and frightening for the individual involved, this abuse
corrodes our democratic values and dissuades good people from entering public life.
Who decides what is abuse? I believe that we ordinary folk have our intelligence abused by the mainstream media almost every time we access their output.
Quote:
Cyberbullying: Fulfilling the duty of care
7.45 The regulator will set out steps that should be taken to tackle cyberbullying, such as
ensuring that those who have suffered from this harm are directed to, and are able to access,
adequate support.
Unfortunately, there are no bullies like official bullies.
It would appear that the current crop of politicians have a hard skin when it comes to handing down oppressive policies against the people, but themselves are ultra-sensitive to public disapproval and disagreement.
As for terrorism and child sex abuse, they are both criminal activities under present law. It’s the enforcement of present law and justice systems that are largely dysfunctional these days. It isn’t more law we need, it is honest and upright enforcement of existing law and justice that is required.
The political shenanigans and open dishonesty surrounding Brexit have only served to reveal the plurality and dishonesty of both this Government and the present Parliament. How can any of us have any trust in anything any of them suggest or do any more?
Toby Young says of this White Paper, it is “Backdoor press regulation”:
https://order-order.com/2019/04/05/stat ... back-door/