When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Australia Criminalizes Failure To Remove Violent Content From Internet Platforms
April 4, 20196:48 AM ET
Australia's parliament has passed new laws to criminalize Internet platforms for failing to remove violent videos and audio, after an Australian gunman livestreamed himself shooting worshipers in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Under the new legislation, social media executives — among other online content or hosting providers — could be imprisoned for up to three years and companies could face penalties of up to 10% of their annual revenue if they do not remove violent content in an "expeditious" manner.
The bill passed on Thursday local time with cross party support but faced criticism, including that it could cause increased censorship and that the process was rushed.
AUS, literally banned Milo from entering the country, then changed their mind, then banned him again after the shooting in NZ.
Australia is free to deny non-citizens permission to enter their country.
Here in the US, the problem is that while we've all been debating what might happen if the government were ever hypothetically to ban hate speech, or censor political speech, or whatever, the companies which control the vast majority of public speech went ahead and did it.
I do hold that if Facebook or Twitter or whoever wants to control the content which is posted on their servers, they have every right to do so. Hypothetical laws which prevented Facebook or Twitter from exercising editorial control would, in and of themselves, be an abridgment of the first amendment. (The Press would no longer be free to govern its own content.)
I also acknowledge that when a majority of such companies impose similar censorship rules, such that few commonly-used channels of communication remain uncensored, that the chilling effect on political and social discourse is far worse than that which might be imposed by law, because there is virtually no recourse against it in the courts.
Government censorship in the US is a hypothetical threat. Corporations bowing to angry mobs' demand for censorship is a thing that's already happening.
California already bars official travel to Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.
It's nice that California is sufficiently self-sufficient* that they can ban official travel with most of the southeast and be just fine with it. Imagine if a state like Virginia banned travel to most of the places where its food and minimum-wage laborers come from?
* = I know that sounds ackward, but it's grammatically correct.
What this country needs is a real live crisis to give both sides something to come together on.
Not some pissy little thing like who to appoint to the Supreme Court or what the Mueller report says.
I don't want anybody to suffer or die but we need something like 911 to bring us together as a country.
ONE: “How many years until the world ends again? We have 12 years to cut emissions by 50 percent.”
If the world is ending again, doesn’t that mean it’s ended before and… started itself up again? Kind of seems like if the world is ending again, and ended before, that’s not actually ending. Ending means it’s over. Done. Finito. Roll credits. Almost like an overstuffed Marvel movie where characters turn to dust, only to be cast in the next film so you fork over more cash.
When did the world end before, is my question? And what started it back up again? Also, why is the world ending in 12 years? Why not ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Frankly, why isn’t the world over right now if man-made global climate change is the disaster climate alarmists say it is. Someone riddle me that. It’s a point I’ll raise as I address other points AOC mentioned between munches.
TWO: “You may laugh, but your grandkids will not.”
Remember, Alexandria doesn’t want you to have children at all, to save the planet. WATCH: AOC Questions if It’s Still Okay to Have Children. Because Climate Change. So how can grandchildren guilt grandparents if we don’t have children who have children of their own? I’m sure it’s racist for me to even ask that of such a strong, spectacular woman of color such as AOC. But I am curious.
Secondly, the reason we’re laughing about climate change ending the planet — again — in 12 years, is because climate alarmists have predicted the end of the world or part of the world multiple times in efforts to scare us into ceding control to the government. Which can’t even run a Post Office without sucking. Al Gore predicted in both 2008, and 2009 the North Pole would melt “within the next 5-7 years.” Which would’ve been 2016 at the latest. The North Pole is still there. In 1988, Ted Danson predicted the oceans would die in ten years, which would’ve been 1998. Here we are in 2019. Oceans are still there. This scientist predicted the polar ice caps would melt in 2013, then when that date blew him by, he changed to 2016. Well now it’s 2019, and the ice caps are still there. Some glaciers that were once melting, causing climate change alarmists to panic, are refreezing and growing just as fast as they melted. Read CLIMATE CHANGE FAIL: Melting Glacier is Growing Again.
The point is, climate change alarmists don’t have a clue. They never admit when they were wrong. They just re-predict and no calls them on their complete bullshit. Except for right-wing “climate change deniers.” That’s why we:
THREE: “The Internet documents everything.”
You’re damn right it does, sweetie. See the point above. Because these world-ending predictions are stale, tired, and frankly getting boring. If only you could run that Google machine yourself.
FOUR: “You look back and open history books about the civil rights movement…”
Yes, it was Democrats who didn’t want blacks to have the right to vote. It was Democrats who didn’t want to free the slaves. It’s Democrats who’re predicting, constantly, that the world will end when it never does. It’s Democrats who’re supporting abortion up until birth, and in some states after birth. It’s Democrats who are on the “wrong side of history” pretty much always. So go ahead, open a history book.
FIVE: “People who are trying to mock and delay this moment… I mean, I feel bad for you. I pity you for your role in history right now.” Grabs snacks. Noms on snacks. Smacks her snacks.
Girl, you just keep being you, babe. You’re so brave. You wake up, every day, knowing you’ve gotta be you. I couldn’t do it. And yes, I tried finding the video clip from which I referenced that line, but couldn’t find it on the YouTubes in a timely fashion. I’m so disappointed.
You might have missed it, but Caleb got a sassy question into the stream, asking Alexandria why she was making furniture if the world was going to end in 12 years. In fairness to AOC, if you’re building your own furniture, you’re not buying from William Sonoma. At least homegirl is being economical when facing down the world’s untimely timely demise.
04-04-2019, 09:25 AM
0
