Who decides what is harmful? (24 Jun, 2021)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Who decides what is harmful? (24 Jun, 2021)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:56 am

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2021/0624.shtml

When "harmful" material is banned from the internet, who gets to decide what "harmful" really is?

It's undefined in law (unlike "illegal") but if a proposed new bill in the UK is passed, online publishers and social media platforms will be legally required to block and delete "harmful" material under threat of harsh penalty.

How will they decide and won't it be a dead-cert that they'll err on the side of caution -- thus imposing unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech?

What is the world coming to?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5181
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Who decides what is harmful? (24 Jun, 2021)

Postby hagfish » Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:50 am

The trouble with laws that get enacted by Hufflepuff - even with the best of intentions - is that they will invariably get flexed by Slytherin on their return to power. When it comes to phenomena we like to call 'freedoms' and 'rights', the laws would have to be so specific as to be almost useless. If the laws are intended to suppress a (willfully?) ignorant, angry section of society, maybe address that instead.
hagfish
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Who decides what is harmful? Comrade Commissar Cindy

Postby Perry » Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:56 am

I suspect that what Bruce describes is a slow - North-Korea-like - move to suppressing criticism of the government.

Image

It will be beguilingly spun so as to induce the wilfully ignorant to embrace it as a great idea.

The media will fall into line, of course, or they won't get any of the $55M that FarGoneBoy is doling out to control them.
Perry
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Who decides what is harmful? (24 Jun, 2021)

Postby GCSBIntercepts » Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:36 pm

Technically elements within the government do.

For example, if Marc Daalder decides to write an article about white supremacy, or that a neighbourhood has too many white people it, or the government isn't pumping enough vaccine into citizens veins (daddy gave him a memo) ...
The media are in control of the narrative.

Exhibit A stuff trying to force the Medical Council to terminate the careers and registrations of doctors who wrote a letter asking questions about Cominaty?

Another example would be harmful publications act thingy?

When Tarrant videoed his little Mosque event, and published a manifesto, it just had to be banned. Andrew Little was the chief eraser for this.
any hint that Kiwis might analyse the videos (plural) for themselves, and come to their own conclusions just had to be stopped.
Everyone else in every other intelligence agency on the entire planet worked it out in 30 seconds.

But you can't see that because the government finds it objectionable.

If anyone had actually read Tarrants manifestos, they would draw a number of stark conclusions that would not coincide with the narrative given.

So boys and girls, and the other 198 other genders that might read this. Your reality is defined by parties which you have no control over. You are not allowed to think for yourselves.

It is for your own good. Honest.
GCSBIntercepts
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:43 pm


Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron