While the Brexit mess is ongoing, there are people in NZ who have the police arrive at their doorstep because of their social media postings. The current declarations imply that Facebook, Google, Twitter etc will report you if they deem you are hateful. WordPress, who are probably the biggest blog hosting site, have taken down Chateau Heartiste. Milo was deplatformed from Youtube, and demonetized. Sargon and Dankula (who are candidates in the European election) are being “milkshaked”. And public speech is silenced. Because these people are seen as naff, rude, and unacceptable. As if the only free speech is acceptable.

The Christchurch Call pledge has now been signed by 17 countries, the European Commission and eight major tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and YouTube.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Dr Bronwyn Howell, a programme director at Victoria University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has closely followed the developments in Paris and outlines exactly what the pledge entails. She is extremely concerned, however, that the process has been hijacked for political purposes:
“At first glance the pledge appears, as intended, a positive example of collaborative negotiation toward a self-governing regime… A deeper examination, however, leads to a more worrying conclusion. While governments have agreed to a range of difficult-to-enforce aspirational goals, the tech companies have agreed to take a number of concrete, observable, and measurable steps on which it will be much easier to hold them explicitly accountable.
“In the bargaining of the summit, they have agreed in effect to act as the agents of the governments in delivering their political objectives of countering ‘distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives’ and engaging in ‘the fight against inequality’.
“Rather than simply removing offending content, as they might be required to do for pornographic or addictive content, they have been recruited to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism through the ‘development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging’ and to ‘redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content’ – that is, to develop and distribute government-sanctioned propaganda. This is further reinforced by the tech firm-specific undertaking to use ‘algorithms to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives’.”
In other words, Bronwyn believes the pledge could ultimately lead to mass censorship: “It behooves both the governments and the tech companies engaged in the Christchurch call pledge to demonstrate that their agreement is not just another exertion of government control over the freedom of the press (and other publishers) to prevent citizens from seeing the world in all its ugly reality by directing them instead to a preferred sanitized message. The current wording, unfortunately, provides no such assurance.”
Facebook’s report on the Christchurch Call agreement also points out that one of the joint goals is “combatting hate and bigotry in order to attack the root causes of extremism and hate online”.
While an investigation into internet regulation by former Prime Minister Helen Clark found that “it is difficult to establish a causal link between on-line hate speech and violence”, this fact will do nothing to temper the regulatory zeal of Jacinda Ardern.
RadioNZ reports “Jacinda Ardern says the ultimate test would be stopping the hatred not just the abuse on social media”. And Newshub reports she hasn’t ruled out blocking Facebook altogether to achieve her goal.
The danger is that such restrictions will be the thin end of the wedge, and will escalate from addressing extremism to criminalising speech that socialists like our Prime Minister and her parties think is objectionable.

Muriel Newman, NZCPR

In other words, if you dare to disagree with me, I have the means to silence you.
This is the government’s plan for New Draconia, and this is how you can expect to be treated under the proposed elitist hate speech law.

Suze, WhaleOil.

There is a reason this blog is anonymous, hosted well away from New Zealand, and is not hosted by a large corporation who the social justice woke can protest to. It is time to run silent, run deep: at work, in the community. Only talk with those who you trust. Note that this does not include the USA, who seem to think they can arrest anyone, anywhere. Including significant members of the Chinese elite, in Canada.

Excuse me for my obvious legal naivety since nobody else is talking about this matter, but how on earth are these charges applicable to Assange? He is not an American citizen. He was not on US soil at the time of the charges. I expect based on this precedent that next they’ll be leveling the charge of treason at him. It would make about as much sense as any of those other 17 charges.
Assange’s lawyers don’t seem to give a toss about this aspect so maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree. But this has parallels with the Wanzhou case; how is it possible that US law is applicable to foreign nationals outside US territory? To call this an overreach is somewhat of an understatement. Somebody please enlighten me because last time that I checked there was no global court run by the USA.
If I have a serious legal point here then Julian, you owe me a few beers, mate

Adam Piggott, Pushing Rubber Downhill.

Until you can speak freely — which will require you are outside the reach of the US corporate viletards, who think they can rule the world. Or you can vote these bastards out. Note that Facebook and Google cannot be voted out, and are completely converged.

The fact Hauwei cannot use Android is a bonus. We will have alternative OSes for our phones. They will use them — I use one non Google version of such already. In the meantime… they cannot track the second hand books you buy for in cash.

“What’s up with Josh?” his friends may ask when they notice him sitting quietly, reading a book by Sun Tzu or Machiavelli. He is intelligent and observant, and not generally shy about expressing himself, but he knows when to keep his mouth shut, and he also knows this: When your enemy seeks to provoke you, you should refuse to be provoked. Never permit the enemy to draw you into battle on a field of his own choosing, at the time that best suits him. Your enemy would not seek to provoke you into an attack here and now, if he did not think conditions were favorable to him.
Applying the maxims of military strategy to a situation like this anti-male propaganda campaign at Brookfield High, let’s make one thing clear: Feminists knew that boys would feel insulted by these hallway posters — that was the intended purpose, to insult boys. If you study feminist rhetoric, as I have, you realize that whenever you see a woman publicly declaiming against misogyny, toxic masculinity, rape culture, etc., she knows full well that men find this rhetoric insulting. Her anti-male rant on social media is intended to provoke hostile reactions from men, to make them lash out and say stupid things she can then screen-cap and show her feminist colleagues as evidence of male inferiority.
Don’t be that guy. Never argue with a feminist. Never let yourself be provoked into a hasty reaction that will discredit you (and do nothing to persuade her she’s wrong). Learn to remain silent in the face of such deliberate provocations, especially in any situation where your response could be used as a weapon against you.

Stacey McCain.

But know this: there will be payback. China is not taking this lying down — the Han consider everyone not from the Middle Kingdom as barbarians, and are acting accordingly. Read the older histories, and know that the same geopolitical drivers exist among the nations. Do not expect perfection.

Remain apart from this elite. and innocent. But to stop being like them, you will have to be as cunning as a rat. For they will rat you out, using lies if needed.