Health freedom alert: Britain to ban everyone from privately discussing vaccine ingredients, side effects and damage to children by: Lance D Johnson for Natural News
At the turn of the century, the internet became one of humanity’s greatest gifts, a source of personal freedom and power. The internet unleashed endless opportunities for communication, commerce, and information sharing. Not only did the internet decentralize news, but it offered a platform for anyone to create and speak freely.
Two decades later, the internet has become a contentious place, with Tech giants, corporations, political activists, and governments all clamoring to control the flow of information, to stifle free speech, and to use personal data to exploit consumer’s purchasing habits and voting preferences.
Facebook has already implemented a plan to weed out information that is critical of pharmaceutical companies and their vaccine policies. For example, groups on Facebook may share information on measles, but they cannot share information on vaccine adverse events because this might cause “vaccine hesitancy.”
“Hate speech” policies are now used to censor “dangerous” ideas – ideas that certain people just don’t agree with. Information that criticizes the Democrat party is now deemed “disinfo” from Russia, and can be censored out of social media using filters and algorithms. The Russia collusion hoax has led Twitter to shadow ban conservative ideas, as they claim to “protect American democracy” from foreign interference.
Did you speak out about drugs and human trafficking along the Mexican border? You could be deemed racist and have your social media accounts taken down. Did you criticize shariah law online? The Southern Poverty Law Center may work to have you arrested. (Related: Citizen journalist Tommy Robinson jailed under secret order from U.K. government; total media blackout issued to protect Muslim pedophiles.)
In Great Britain, online speech is about to become extremely more regulated. It’s like history is repeating itself. The British government hopes to appoint an internet safety czar to “monitor” Facebook, Twitter, and Google to ensure “public safety.” The motivation behind the plan is to “ensure public safety,” not to protect the right of the citizens to speak freely. Soon, you won’t be able to express yourself or voice concerns if someone in authority deems that your speech is abusive, insulting, distressing, indecent, racist, seditious, obscene, defamatory, incites religious hatred, may cause a breach of the peace, or is scandalous to a court.
According to Britain’s new plan, a government czar will ensure that social media companies do the following:
- Stop cyber bullying on their platforms
- Stop the incitement of violence and spread of violent content
- Block children’s access to inappropriate material
- Block content that encourages self harm or suicide
- Stop child exploitation and abuse content
- Stop the spread of disinformation and fake news
This brings up obvious questions:
- Who decides what violent content is? Are historical depictions of war to be erased from the internet? What about medical experimentation of prisoners and children? What about gruesome abortion procedures and testimonies about medical error and vaccine damage?
- Who decides what is disinformation and fake news? Does this include information that the people in charge don’t agree with or aren’t educated about? By banning “fake news,” the government becomes a propaganda ministry.
- Who decides what constitutes cyber bullying? Does this include bans on information that someone or some group might find offensive? The easily offended will be validated and any unsettling truths will be taken offline.
Instead of working to ensure that freedom of speech is not trampled by Tech giants, the British government is essentially working with them to destroy dissent, to squelch historical perspective, to alienate certain political ideas, to cover up the harms of vaccines and other medical experiments. Government czars and the engineers of Big Tech are colluding to stifle free speech, not protect individual rights. Their coordinated efforts will be abused to stop the flow of information on vaccine dangers, among other topics that cannot be discussed such as natural cancer cures. All this is being done in the name of public “safety” but so often throughout history, promises of “safety” are used to take away personal liberties. This situation will be no different.
Many have exhausted themselves in asking, what makes it so hard for journalists to tell the truth with “clarity and moral force”? Answers range from the conspiratorial—journalists and editors are bought off or coerced—to the mundane: they normalize aberrant behavior in order to relieve cognitive dissonance and maintain a comfortable status quo. While the former explanation can’t be dismissed out of hand in the sense that most journalists ultimately work for media megaconglomerates with their own vested interests, the latter is just as often offered by critics like NYU’s Jay Rosen.
Established journalists “want things to be normal,” writes Rosen, which includes preserving access to high-level sources. The press maintains a pretense to objectivity and even-handedness, even when doing so avoids obvious truths about the mendacity of their subjects. Mainstream journalists place “protecting themselves against criticism,” Rosen wrote in 2016, “before serving their readers. This is troubling because that kind of self-protection has far less legitimacy than the duties of journalism, especially when the criticism itself is barely valid.”
Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness," not by government agents, but by a critical backlash aimed at preserving a sense of “normalcy” at all costs.
“If liberty means anything at all,” Orwell concludes, "it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
No comments:
Post a Comment