Thank you Linda Pannozzo for this excellent expose of the war being waged on free speech in so-called western democracies and its various modalities. As an aside, though I haven't yet read the whole Harvard Law Review article, the quote from it is premised on an outdated paradigm. It reads:
"These private company actions likely responded to concerns about being associated publicly with 'undesirables.' There is no clear evidence that these acts were done at the direction of a government official with authority to coerce them. The sole acknowledged direct action was a public appeal for and subsequent praise of these actions by Senator Joe Lieberman."
In fact, these massive private companies, particularly Silicon Valley leviathans like Amazon, have practically merged with the government and it's not clear who is responding to whose concerns, or whether there is any meaningful difference between them at this point. In a world run by organized crime on the public-private-partnership model, the facilitation and protection of whistle-blowers in both corporations and governments is a threat to the whole gangster class, to the Jeff Bezoses and the Joe Liebermans of the world. One doesn't need "clear evidence of coercion". Where interests merge, no coercion is required. And the fear is not of public association with Wikileaks but of their own dark secrets being exposed by the organization.
I hope the threat to free speech in Canada posed by Bill C-63 also becomes widely known and opposed. As Matt Taibbi writes:
"C-63 is a Frankenstein’s Monster combining the worst censorship ideas already deployed by supposed ally government-in-laws like Europe’s Digital Services Act, Australia’s updated Australian Communications and Media Authority Act (ACMA), and Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which saw 7,152 complaints in its first week when the law took effect last month.
Trudeau’s creation is a turbo-charged social surveillance law aimed first at forcing big platforms like Facebook and Twitter to 'self-police,' but secondarily targeting individuals and doling out civil and criminal penalties for speech and thought on a scale not seen anywhere. What constitutes hateful conduct? While the bill newly defines hate speech as 'likely to foment detestation or vilification' of Canada’s growing list of protected groups and individuals, Canadian lawyers interviewed were generally unsure of what the standard might look like in practice."
So many excellent points here, Brooks. Thank you. I am very concerned as well about Bill C-63, (the Online Harms Act) which I touch on in one of the endnotes. When Harper was in power for a decade, he brought in so many laws, many of them hidden in Omnibus bills, that eroded environmental protections and began the silencing of scientists -- now most people accept this, whereas in the past it was shocking for Canadians -- muzzling scientists used to be a bad thing. Now it's normal. Many of us voted for Trudeau, not because we were Liberals, or even agreed with their policies, but because we wanted Harper out. But over nearly a decade of power, he has not only kept Harper's environmental erosions but has moved on to erode our Charter Rights and Freedoms. Canada is not alone, obviously. This is happening all over the world -- in the US, EU, Ireland, Scotland, UK, Australia, etc. There is a global, concerted effort in so-called democracies to erode these hard won principles -- freedom of speech, expression, bodily autonomy, informed consent, etc. And for the most part, Canadians are accepting it, but that's partly because of the ways these issues are being framed in the media. I hope that part of this series addressed what could be going on there -- but as we see, none of it is good.
Thank you Linda Pannozzo for this excellent expose of the war being waged on free speech in so-called western democracies and its various modalities. As an aside, though I haven't yet read the whole Harvard Law Review article, the quote from it is premised on an outdated paradigm. It reads:
"These private company actions likely responded to concerns about being associated publicly with 'undesirables.' There is no clear evidence that these acts were done at the direction of a government official with authority to coerce them. The sole acknowledged direct action was a public appeal for and subsequent praise of these actions by Senator Joe Lieberman."
In fact, these massive private companies, particularly Silicon Valley leviathans like Amazon, have practically merged with the government and it's not clear who is responding to whose concerns, or whether there is any meaningful difference between them at this point. In a world run by organized crime on the public-private-partnership model, the facilitation and protection of whistle-blowers in both corporations and governments is a threat to the whole gangster class, to the Jeff Bezoses and the Joe Liebermans of the world. One doesn't need "clear evidence of coercion". Where interests merge, no coercion is required. And the fear is not of public association with Wikileaks but of their own dark secrets being exposed by the organization.
I hope the threat to free speech in Canada posed by Bill C-63 also becomes widely known and opposed. As Matt Taibbi writes:
"C-63 is a Frankenstein’s Monster combining the worst censorship ideas already deployed by supposed ally government-in-laws like Europe’s Digital Services Act, Australia’s updated Australian Communications and Media Authority Act (ACMA), and Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which saw 7,152 complaints in its first week when the law took effect last month.
Trudeau’s creation is a turbo-charged social surveillance law aimed first at forcing big platforms like Facebook and Twitter to 'self-police,' but secondarily targeting individuals and doling out civil and criminal penalties for speech and thought on a scale not seen anywhere. What constitutes hateful conduct? While the bill newly defines hate speech as 'likely to foment detestation or vilification' of Canada’s growing list of protected groups and individuals, Canadian lawyers interviewed were generally unsure of what the standard might look like in practice."
So many excellent points here, Brooks. Thank you. I am very concerned as well about Bill C-63, (the Online Harms Act) which I touch on in one of the endnotes. When Harper was in power for a decade, he brought in so many laws, many of them hidden in Omnibus bills, that eroded environmental protections and began the silencing of scientists -- now most people accept this, whereas in the past it was shocking for Canadians -- muzzling scientists used to be a bad thing. Now it's normal. Many of us voted for Trudeau, not because we were Liberals, or even agreed with their policies, but because we wanted Harper out. But over nearly a decade of power, he has not only kept Harper's environmental erosions but has moved on to erode our Charter Rights and Freedoms. Canada is not alone, obviously. This is happening all over the world -- in the US, EU, Ireland, Scotland, UK, Australia, etc. There is a global, concerted effort in so-called democracies to erode these hard won principles -- freedom of speech, expression, bodily autonomy, informed consent, etc. And for the most part, Canadians are accepting it, but that's partly because of the ways these issues are being framed in the media. I hope that part of this series addressed what could be going on there -- but as we see, none of it is good.
Jesus... to quote Kurt Vonnegut Jr., What a "tentative, tangle of tendrils."
Thank you for unspooling this crazy ball of yarn, Linda.
Thanks! But I think I've only grasped on one thread of many... but I think this particular one is quite illuminating.
Excellent reporting, as usual, about a chilling situation.