,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Sajid, the paper goes way beyond child sex abuse and beheading videos - and you know that. It includes ‘trolling,’ ‘intimidation,’ ‘extremist content,’ and ‘disinformation’ - undefinable terms that will lead to substantial censorship.
Throughout the paper you talk about “illegal and unacceptable content”. An advocate of free speech does not try to censor content merely because it’s “unacceptable”. This is disgraceful.
There’s also the phrase “Harms with less clear legal definition,” a euphemism for legal speech that you now want a big new government censorship agency to prevent people from saying online.
One man’s trolling is another man’s salient point. Will we be allowed to criticise politicians with memes? Would humorously edited photos of the Vote Leave’s campaign bus come under ‘disinformation’? Are questions about the UK’s immigration intake akin to ‘extremist content’?
It emerged today that a British woman has been arrested in Dubai for calling her ex-husband's new wife a "horse" on Facebook. What moral authority does the govt have criticising the UAE for draconian overreach when they are introducing similar measures? bbc.co.uk/news/uk-478477…
Also, what's to stop a Corbyn Government, after appointing their cronies to the internet regulator, deciding any criticism of socialism is 'misinformation'.
