The freedom of the Internet, although frequently and flagrantly abused, was great while it lasted. But the world’s governments don’t intend for it to last much longer.
The United Kingdom, a country with no First Amendment to protect free speech, is preparing to set up an “Internet safety czar” to promote “Internet safety” and prevent “online harms,” with full powers to regulate the social media and shut sites down if he sees fit. “Huge fines” will also be on the menu.
According to plan, the “czar” will come crashing down on any site where he finds any of the following.
“Violence or incitement to violence.”
“Encouraging self-harm or suicide.”
Children given access to “inappropriate material.”
Child exploitation or “abuse content.”
Let’s take a little closer look, shall we?
Take “violence.” Because I state the truth, that there is no such thing as a “transgender person,” but only people who say they are, I have been accused of “violence” and even “assault” and “beatings.” For the Far Left Crazy, “violence” is any degree of dissent from their program. So depending on which political faction happens to be in power at the time, I could be shut down and fined for “violence”—without ever having raised a hand to anyone.
What would they call it when a state legislature enacts a law permitting assisted suicide? When an “end of life counselor” advises a seriously ill patient to ask a doctor to kill him? Or when Netflix makes a TV series glamorizing suicide? Or when self-anointed intellectuals brandishing the Humanist Manifesto II declare that suicide is a human right? But of course all these are Far Left projects: no one in the British government would dream of stifling them.
What is “fake news”? If it’s news that’s wrong, un-factual, lies cooked up to serve a political agenda, our mainstream nooze media’s cup runneth over. Trump colluded with “The Russians,” Trump’s a Russian agent, Brett Kavanagh organized gang rapes at a party, the kids from Covington High School picked on a poor defenseless Native American, Jussie Smollett was attacked by white supremacists—these were all frauds, much ballyhooed by all the major media. Would the czar shut them down and fine them? Oh—but they’re not the social media? But all those phony stories slopped over into the social media. Would you get shut down for repeating or commenting on fake news stories pushed by mainstream media?
As for “inappropriate material” for children—what about the award-winning “young adults fiction” crammed into the shelves of public school libraries, chock-full of depictions of aberrant sex, pedophilia, drug abuse, and all sorts of self-destructive behavior? To say nothing of “comprehensive sex education” for first-graders! Again, much of this finds its way into the social media. Will the czar be shutting that down, too?
Naturally, we don’t want our children subjected to cyber-bullying on the social media, or being targeted by pedophiles using the social media as a blind. Maybe children shouldn’t be allowed unlimited time online. Maybe parents should pay closer attention to what their kids are viewing. Maybe we could even allow the government to play a role in catching and punishing the perpetrators—if any government would ever be content with that. The danger would lie in whetting the government’s appetite for more. Much more.
Why are we so certain that any “Internet czar” would concentrate exclusively on silencing Christians, Jews, conservatives, and Republicans while allowing socialist, Democrat, atheist, LBGT, Islamic, and anti-white sites to flourish unimpeded? Is it fair to judge by past performance? It’s flaming stupid not to.
Freedom is not the natural state of fallen man. Freedom can exist only under the protection of a sovereign, righteous God.
“Righteous” is not a word that describes our worldly governments.
I have discussed these and other topics throughout the week on my blog, http://leeduigon.com/ . Stop in for a visit. A single click will take you there. My articles can also be found at http://www.chalcedon.edu/ .