Heads up, America. What Leftists want for Europe frequently is advocated here in the United States.
From the UKTelegraph.com:
Censorship concerns as European Parliament introduces ‘kill switch’ to cut racist speeches
by Associated Press
Press freedom organizations have raised concerns about censorship after Members of the European Parliament approved extraordinary measures to combat hate speech.
MEPs granted the parliament’s president authority to pull the plug on live broadcasts of parliamentary debate in cases of racist speech or acts and to purge offending video or audio material from the online system.
Critics say the rules are vaguely worded and could be manipulated or used as a tool of censorship.
Censorship in Europe? Perish the thought, you wanker!
“This undermines the reliability of the Parliament’s archives at a moment where the suspicion of ‘fake news’ and manipulation threatens the credibility of the media and the politicians,” said Tom Weingaertner, president of the Brussels-based International Press Association.
Facts in evidence. EU “journalistas” have it right on this one.
But some MEPs say nationalist rhetoric has recently crossed the line of what is acceptable.
“There have been a growing number of cases of politicians saying things that are beyond the pale of normal parliamentary discussion and debate,” said Richard Corbett, a British MEP who backed the new rule.
“What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say: ‘Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It’s broad, it’s live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let’s use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular,'” he told The Associated Press.
This is the quintessential Straw Man argument, because the EU’s installation of this policy providing shocking power over speech is most certainly aimed not at what they’re publicly stating, but — bottom line — at speech with which Leftist elitists disagree. Like, say, Brexit. Or sovereignty. Or independence. Or any make and manner of speech with which EU elitists agree must be quashed. Like this: oppositional speech. Of any kind.
What is the European Parliament? Answer: a bastion of Leftist elitists whose decisions take precedence over the rules and laws of client states in the EU.
Rule 165 of the parliament’s rules of procedure allows the chair of debates to halt the live broadcast “in the case of defamatory, racist or xenophobic language or behavior by a member.” The maximum fine for offenders would be around 9,000 euros ($9,500).
What is “xenophobic”? According (here in the US) to Bill Kristol, speech by President Trump saying “America first.” Kristol thinks that’s “depressing and vulgar.” Likely Kristol would love to suppress Trump’s speech.
In the EU and in many areas of the US and particularly Canada, to state the unseemly and hidden truths about Islam is also xenophobic.
To bandy about the words “American exceptionalism” is also considered xenophobic by many Leftists, elitists and GOWPs.
Of course, like much of the law passed by Leftists, it isn’t done in the light of day.
The new rule, which was not made public by the assembly until it was reported by Spain’s La Vanguardia newspaper, offending material could be “deleted from the audiovisual record of proceedings,” meaning citizens would never know it happened unless reporters were in the room.
Mr Weingaertner said the IPA was never consulted on that.
Oh please. When and where were advocates of free speech ever consulted by those who would limit same?
A technical note seen by the AP outlines a procedure for manually cutting off the video feed, stopping transmission on in-house TV monitors and breaking the satellite link to halt broadcast to the outside world.
A videotape in four languages would be kept running to serve as a legal record during the blackout. A more effective and permanent system was being sought.
It is also technically possible to introduce a safe-guard time delay so broadcasts appear a few seconds later. This means they could be interrupted before offending material is aired.
Stop right there. “Offending material.” Just who determines the likes of “offending material”? Correct. The Leftist elitists who demanded the policy in the first place.
But it’s not about just perceived “racist speech.” It’s also about non-PC speech. Already at the BBC all climate change “deniers” can’t acquire any air time or employment at Auntie Beebe. It’s just not popular. Wouldn’t be prudent.
Leftists have what I term BZ’s Succession of Oppression. It goes like this, in three major stages:
These days, if you are not an active advocate of any and all Leftist policies, you are now an ______-ist. Fill in the blank.
Finally, Tucker Carlson interviewed an EU GOWP Drone who has apparently never watched any of his shows.
I repeat at the risk of being a repetitive member of the Department of Redundancy Dept: it’s nothing more than another Leftist Straw Man argument.