Posts Tagged ‘Internet censorship’
Criminalizing critical thinking

Bat Ye’Or  slams politically correct kowtowing to Islamic expansionism:

Exploiting politically this crime, the government launched its bloodhounds, its anathemas, its fatwas and edicts against all writers on the planet who, painfully defying terrorism, professional ruin and social ostracism imposed by the single thought, struggle to maintain democratic freedoms and human dignity in Western societies. The crime of Breivick strengthened the government party and took hostage the right to think, speak and criticize political power. It imprisoned Westerners in the jail of totalitarianism and intellectual tyranny by criminalizing critical thinking….

Am I the creator of a diabolical theory because I re-humanized in the concept of dhimmitude, the millions of victims of jihadist imperialism throughout the ages? Did I conceive a conspiracy because I studied its current extensions in modern Europe, as stated by a witch hunt organized by ignorant hacks who only rely on the defamation of a work they have not even read? Is it more moral to ignore these victims and side with their executioner, groveling to their ideology?

Excusing Jihad is but one aspects of the left’s insanity. Islam is a convenient tool for them to use to dismantle our cultural foundations. To the extent there is reason behind this, it probably reflects a belief that they can fill any resulting void. More fool them. Atheists tend not to fare too well in Islamic societies. But I suspect the Left are not engaged in logic and reason. Their position reflects slovenly and habitual thinking aided by a desire to access the numbers and enthusiasm of adherents to Islam.  That’s why the new left so often mouth politically correct platitudes and attempt to silence opponents rather than defeat them in debate.

It is the left’s need to stop the spread of alternative more meaningful interpretations of reality that is behind their drive to take control of the internet. It’s why they are desperate to contain critical thinking, to stop people accessing alternative ideas. Mainstream media, talk back radio and the internet all have the capacity to subject their pet policies to scrutiny. To point out how wrong they are. That’s why the Left are so desperate to control them. They know that after 50 years of big government their manifest failings are becoming all too apparent. They risk being unable to shift the blame elsewhere as the  detrimental effects of their policies becomes too obvious to ignore.

 
Moves to control the internet

Perhaps the music industry is the work of the devil after all:

Canadian music labels demand keys to the Internet: The Canadian Independent Music Association is seeking to create liability risk for social networking sites, search engines, blogging platforms, video sites… it is also calling for a new iPod tax, an extension in the term of copyright, a removal of protections for user generated content, parody, and satire, as well as an increase in statutory damage awards… ADISQ is asking the government to add a requirement for Internet providers to disclose customer name and address information to copyright owners without court oversight. Meanwhile, CIMA wants takedown with no due process and unlimited statutory damages.

They may actually be a bigger threat to our freedom than the greens. Truly  amazing. Of course, once they get something like this through in one jurisdiction they will seek to extend it to all others. In today’s globalized interconnected world the “it can’t happen here” view is indefensible. The same vested interests see the same gain from the same changes. They will go through the same processes to impose them. That”s if they can’t bypass much of the legislative scrutiny by getting an august international body to approve it first.

Australia is not much better. Indeed may be worse, with its fascist tendencies far clearer:

THE Gillard Government’s media inquiry threatens not only our freedom to speak, but to hear and decide for ourselves. But why?

Its report last week, by retired judge Ray Finkelstein, proposes a super media-cop, funded by government, to police all that’s said and written in the media.

It would even have the power to disappear you – or, rather, your words – by requiring offending articles to removed from the Internet, never to be read again.

It’s time to gird your loins and accept that our generations time to stand up for our culture, our freedoms and our rights is fast approaching. That our moment of testing truth is soon to be at hand. Will our descendents wonder how we could have allowed our Hitler to rise? How we could have cast aside the cultural components our forebears fought and died for. That we could have sentenced several generations to tyranny, despotism and destitution.

Your government will be inspired by the moves afoot in Australia and Canada. Even if these specific threats go the way of SOPA and PIPA, they will re-emerge in a new form. The money to be made or power to be maintained by removing your rights, liberties and freedoms are too tempting to those without a moral compass or understanding of what they do.

Many really don’t know what they do as they cut our cultural underpinnings out from under us. Most of the left are thoroughly brainwashed against our culture. While some on the right go so far as to deny there is even such a thing as society. Amazing. Our individual interactions are shaped by our society which reflects our culture.  Just try ordering  beer in Mecca if you think otherwise, or even stepping foot in it. Our society and our culture are good and worth protecting.

It is so sad that we have such a powerful enemy within. The Australian government in particular seems to have taken the “hear no evil, speak no evil see no evil” to heart. It is seeking to impose a distorted version on us:

Hear nothing speak nothing and see nothing that criticizes our government.

We might be being led by a bunch of monkeys, but they are certainly not wise. They rarely are, which is part of the reason why it is best to limit their power and influence over us. The framers of the US constitution got that right. They knew their English history with its the battles between the King and Parliament. They were right to stand up for their rights as Englishmen. You are right to stand up for your rights. It’s your cultural inheritance, you owe it to your descendents to pass it on intact. Take it back.

 

 
Internet Censorship

Attempts to censor the internet are never-ending:

Orwell is vindicated by the near universal adoption of newspeak by proponents of a more authoritarian internet. This shows those pushing for it are aware  they risk a visceral reaction against their rent seeking. Something deep inside most of us finds it repugnant. That something deep inside us is our cultural inheritance. It is calling out to us with all the force of our forebears. Those who fought for our rights, for our freedoms.

We imbibe a way viewing the world along with our mothers  milk. The left have tried to sever us from our past, to denigrate our forebears, to put down our achievements. They have not succeeded. Not totally and not with all of us. Sure those most exposed to their indoctrination – university arts graduates and the like have largely succumbed.  But the vast bulk of the people, the bedrock upon which our society is built know in their heart what is wrong. We can spot the politically correct big lie:

Critics of ‘post-birth abortion’ guilty of ‘hate speech’: “Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the ‘hate speech’ directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that ‘proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.’

“In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently ‘morally irrelevant.’

“Morally irrelevant” what a marvelous phrase to justify murder. The Jews and mentally handicapped were morally irrelevant in NAZI Germany. How about criminals, have they forfeited their moral right to exist? Surely there’s better grounds to kill them than innocent children? If you feel in your heart that it is wrong to kill healthy babies then the lefts sophisms have not undermined your connection with your culture. People are more than their intellect and capacity to care for themselves. Civilization enhances these capacity.  Our cultural capital is the key and this is a direct assault on it.

There are so many assaults on our cultural capital. They strike at our ability to acquire knowledge and understanding. Without this our right to free speech is implicitly constrained. We don’t even need to get to the explicit component of the assaults on our use of the internet. And make no mistake, these are legion. Already we have:

Rumblefish claims to own copyright to ambient birdsong on YouTube: Rumblefish, a company notorious for sending copyright takedown notices to YouTube alleging copyright violations in videos’ soundtracks, demanded removal of a video whose audio consists entirely of ambient birdsong recorded during a walk in the woods. When the video’s creator objected, Rumblefish repeated its accusation, and Google added the notation “These content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content: Entity: rumblefish Content Type: Sound Recording.”

and

Techdirt post about SOPA censored from Google results due to bogus DMCA complaint: We’ve talked a lot about how copyright law and the DMCA can be abused to take down legitimate, non-infringing content, interfering with one’s free speech rights. And we’re always brushed off by copyright maximalists, who insist that any complaints about taking down legitimate speech are overblown.

So isn’t it interesting that we’ve just discovered that our own key anti-SOPA blog post and discussion… have been blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA takedown?

The UN International Telecommunications Union takeover of the internet is the vested interests fallback option to replace ACTA if it is unwound. Just as ACTA was the fallback option when SOPA and PIPA failed. Some are starting to recognize the threat:

Google’s Schmidt: Don’t Let the United Nations Rule the Internet: We are at a crossroads for the Internet’s future. One path holds great promise, while the other path is fraught with peril.

The promise, of course, lies with keeping with what works, namely maintaining a free and open Internet while insulating it from legacy regulations. The peril lies with changes that would ultimately sweep up Internet services into decades-old ITU paradigms. If successful, these efforts would merely imprison the future in the regulatory dungeon of the past. Even more counterproductive would be the creation of a new international body to oversee Internet governance.

There is more at stake than most know:

First they came for the hackers.

But I never did anything illegal with my computer,

so I didn’t speak up.

Then they came for the pornographers.

But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,

so I didn’t speak up

Then they came for the anonymous remailers.

But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,

so I didn’t speak up.

Then they came for the encryption users.

But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,

so I didn’t speak up.

Then they came for me.

And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

– Alara Rogers www.alara.net