‘Great Britain’ Not So Great

LONDON, ENGLAND - APRIL 21: New Police recruits take part in a passing-out parade at the Metropolitan Police Academy at Peel House, Hendon on April 21, 2017 in London, England. (Photo by Hannah McKay - WPA Pool / Getty Images)

Honk if you find this image reassuring.

The United Kingdom’s Parliament kept trying and has finally done it–passed the “Online Safety Bill” (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/09/20/uk-passes-online-safety-bill-creating-vast-list-of-content-moderation-requirements/).

Yowsah, yowsah! Three hundred pages of “content moderation requirements.” Three hundred pages of what you’re not allowed to say.

And if they could get inside your head and stop you from even thinking certain things, they’d do that, too.

Swing your arms proudly, coppers! Sure, it was dangerous, going after gangsters and murderers–but you can set that stuff aside now, you’ll be going after bigger fish. You’ll be nicking people who say the wrong thing online! You will be the phalanx standing between Britannistan and people who say wrong things!

The Mother Country will soon leave us orphaned.

UK Schemes to Curtail Free Speech

No mouth Stock Photo Images. 8,961 No mouth royalty free pictures and  photos available to download from thousands of stock photographers.

“Do you want free speech?” asks Guardian columnist Simon Jennings. “Then it has to be regulated, now more than ever” (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/13/online-safety-bill-tories-free-speech-david-davis).

But then it won’t be free–will it, sunshine?

The United Kingdom, in Parliament, is mulling an “Online Safety Act” that seeks to remove from channels of communication, chiefly the Internet, all speech that could b e considered hateful, dangerous, harmful, bad, etc., etc. Because Muslims keep trying to assassinate Salman Rushdie, they almost got him last time: and stuff like this is because people have too much freedom in the social media.

Trust any government, anywhere, to conclude that its people have too much freedom.

I don’t often agree with anyone who writes for the super-left-wing Guardian, but Jennings does have a point. The bill is so loosely worded that it can apply to almost anybody’s speech on any subject. Jennings calls it “a censor’s charter–or nightmare.”

So Mr. Guvvermint is gonna decide whether we can say what we’ve said or get shut down for it–maybe even fined or thrown in jail. And who, forsooth, is going to regulate Mr. Guvvermint? Even if they start with good intentions–however wildly unlikely that may be–they will inevitably be tempted to act with an increasingly heavy hand. To think they won’t is to think it’s okay to throw stuff up in the air as long as it doesn’t come down.

So they’re playing with this new doctrine of “legal but harmful”–like, yeah, sure, you’re allowed to say that; but no you can’t, because it’s harmful! How long would it take for the definition of “harmful” to expand in all directions?

God authorizes governments to protect the people who live in a state and restrain and punish those who would harm them. It has no warrant to make our minds right.

And why am I writing about some British political issue?

Because here in America the Far Left Crazy, the Democrat Party, sees what the British Parliament is up to and licks its chops in envy!

There’s nothing that scares me more than leftists’ good intentions.