This is the stick, if you will, with which the globalist agenda will thrash its opponents who dare speak against them. The thread I just posted on the Global Board might be said to be the softer approach, the carrot maybe . . .
********************************************************************************

Germany's new censorship law, which has introduced state censorship on social media platforms, came into effect on October 1, 2017. The new law requires social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, to censor their users on behalf of the German state. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint -- regardless of whether the content is accurate or not. Social media companies are permitted seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law.

The new censorship law, however, was not fully enforced until January 1, 2018, in order to give the social media platforms time to prepare for their new role as the privatized thought police of the German state. Social media platforms now have the power to shape the form of current political and cultural discourse by deciding who will speak and what they will say.
On January 1, 2018, however, the law was immediately enforced. Twitter began by suspending the account of the deputy leader of the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), Beatrix von Storch, for 12 hours, after she tweeted the following in response to a New Year's greeting issued in Arabic by the Cologne Police:


"What the hell is happening in this country? Why is an official police site tweeting in Arabic? Do you think it is to appease the barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men?"
(During New Year's Eve of 2015/16, over 1,000 mainly Muslim men sexually assaulted around 1,200 women in Cologne.)

Von Storch also had her Facebook account suspended for repeating her tweet there. Facebook told her that her post contravened German law, as it constituted "incitement to hatred".
It did not stop there. Cologne police filed charges against von Storch for "incitement to hatred", which is punishable under section 130 of the German Criminal Code. According to the Cologne police chief, Uwe Jacob, multilingual tweets at major events are an important part of the police's communication strategy:


"The campaign was really well received by most people – however, some were bothered by the fact that we tweeted in Arabic and Farsi – they were very prominent right-wingers, who then felt that they had to make tweets that incited to hatred. We simply filed charges".

Notice the ease with which the police chief mentioned that he had filed charges to silence a leading political opponent of the government. That is what authorities do in police states: Through censorship and criminal charges, they silence outspoken critics and political opponents of government policies, such as von Storch, who has sharply criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel's migration policies.
While such policies would doubtless have earned the German authorities many points with the old Stasi regime of East Germany, they more than likely contravene the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to which Germany is a party, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights states:


1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...
2. The exercise of these freedoms... may be subject to such... restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10


"...protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected".
Even more important in the context of charges against politicians is the fact that according to the European Court of Human Rights' case law:


"...the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns... strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court".

When leading politicians are criminally charged for questioning the actions of the authorities, such as in this case the actions of the police, we are no longer dealing with a democracy, but with a regular police state.

At least the German media can claim that it packages its censorship in many different ways for its consumers, whether it's faking, distortion or whatever.

The latest example is the admission by public broadcaster ARD that it boosted the audio to maximise the impression of booing at Trump's Davis speech. It defended this as giving precision to it's reporter's impressions.

Spiegel and Zeit, two MSM worthies, have not been averse to journalistic impressionism. We've had Trump cutting off the head of the Statue of Liberty in a simulated ISIS execution recently.

It all gives pleasure to Fuhrer Merkel.

Judith Bergman, Gatestone Institute:

The European Union is intensifying its efforts to censor and marginalize voices that disagree with its policies, under the convenient euphemism of combating "fake news".
"The Commission needs to look into the challenges the online platforms create for our democracies as regards the spreading of fake information and initiate a reflection on what would be needed at EU level to protect our citizens," wrote Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, in May 2017. How considerate that Juncker, in totalitarian fashion, wishes to protect EU citizens from news that does not fit the Commission's narratives and agendas.

In October 2017, the European Commission announced its "fake news" policies and how it intends to "design solutions to address the spread of fake news". According to the Commission, "Fake news consists of intentional disinformation spread via online social platforms, broadcast news media or traditional print". Furthermore, according to the Commission, the EU's fake news policy is guided by, among other things, "the freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information".

This assurance of freedom of expression and pluralism comes across as rather laughable: the EU already does what it can to eliminate "media pluralism and... diverse and reliable information". The EU, for example, has programs in place -- such as the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (REC) - - that seek heavily to influence European mainstream news outlets and their journalists with its own agendas -- such as that of continued mass-migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. For this purpose, the European Commission recently funded the publication of a handbook with guidelines for journalists on how to write about migrants and migration. The handbook was launched on October 12 by the International Press Institute (IPI) -- an association of media professionals representing leading digital, print and broadcast news outlets in more than 120 countries. Specifically, with regard to Muslims, the guidelines recommend:


"... Take care not to further stigmatise terms such as 'Muslim' or 'Islam' by associating them with particular acts... Don't allow extremists' claims about acting 'in the name of Islam' to stand unchallenged. Highlight... the diversity of Muslim communities..."
The EU also financially supports a campaign, "Media Against Hate" run by the European Federation of Journalists (EJF), the largest organization of journalists in Europe, which represents over 320,000 journalists across 43 countries. That campaign aims to:


"... improve media coverage related to migration, refugees, religion and marginalised groups... counter hate speech, intolerance, racism and discrimination... improve implementation of legal frameworks regulating hate speech and freedom of speech..."

To further its nascent "fake news" policies, the European Commission recently appointed 39 "experts" to a so-called "High Level Group (HLEG) on Fake News and online disinformation":


"It comprises representatives of the civil society, social media platforms, news media organisations, journalists and academia....

"The High Level group will advise the Commission on scoping the phenomenon of fake news, defining the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders, grasping the international dimension, taking stock of the positions at stake, and formulating recommendations".

The media representatives have been almost exclusively picked from the mainstream media -- giants such as ARD, RTL, Swedish state television, Sky News, AFP and News Media Europe, which renders any sort of balanced outcome that these "experts" might reach a rather illusory option. To the extent that they even view new or alternative media as a threat, it is seemingly in the interest of these media representatives to label competition from alternative or new media, "fake news". The high-level group held its inaugural meeting on January 15, 2018.

The European Commission will poll EU citizens and conduct a Eurobarometer public opinion survey to be launched early 2018 "to measure and analyse the perceptions and concerns of the European citizens around fake news". The Commission will also be organizing a "multi-stakeholder conference on Fake News" which, will "define the boundaries of the problem, assess the effectiveness of the solutions already put in place by social media platforms and... agree on key principles for further action".

The EU is not alone in threatening the shutting down of free speech under the cover of combating "fake news". In France, President Emmanuel Macron has announced that he wants to introduce new legislation aimed at regulating "fake news" during election seasons, including "emergency legal actions" that would allow the French government to remove "fake news" from a website or block sites entirely. Macron said:


"If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules. When fake news is spread, it will be possible to go to a judge ... and if appropriate, have content taken down, user accounts deleted and ultimately websites blocked."

Bogie, even your propaganda presents good reasons for laws like these, but I'm curious.

Why are you defending fake news and hate speech?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2018 at 7:31pm:


No, FD, but I'd like to see Facebook and Twitter ban fake accounts and bots, selling dubious messages like that fake passport racket you take down every few months.

I'd also like to see Facebook restore its team of fact checkers and fake news investigators, banning repeat offenders like Russian agents selling propaganda as actual news - stories that accounted for over 20% of likes and reTweets during the US election.

Personally, I think our potential for freedom and democracy is too precious to give away to the liars with the most cunning algorithms, don't you?

Or do you uphold the use of porkies in your campaign against the tinted races?

Sorry if you've already answered that one, FD.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2018 at 5:54pm:


Exactly. You voted in the last Dutch erections if I'm not mistaken, Mechanic. Good old Geerty, Ja?

One day, when you renounce your cheese-snorting citizenship, you can vote in Australia, you silly old sausage.

Good on you.

The elephant in the room is Turnbull trying to censor the ABC

Spot