The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime

"The Online Safety Act is set for a showdown with US Courts. What was promised as domestic UK legislation has now creeped into the American sphere. US firms, including 4chan, are refusing to comply with Ofcom guidance on the grounds that it’s an egregious attack against constitutional free speech."

 


https://x.com/Devon_Eriksen_/status/1993712500215312436

We all know what's really going on here.

Utah senator John Curtis, and other political hacks like him, are getting their boomer asses handed to them on social media.

They long for the days of television, when they could control the narrative by having a cozy relationship with the networks, and so they could lie to you without fear of contradiction by some autist named @DataRepublican whose existence is solely defined by her full-time hobby of sniffing out lying dirtbags.

So they want to pass a bunch of laws to make the internet behave like television. To filter it all through a set of major website choke-points that they can control by threatening the corporate entities that run them.

Long, complicated, and vaguely defined liability laws are a tool to do that.

Basically what they do is allow John Curtis to put any website out of business if people say mean things about him on it, such as pointing out that he looks like some kind of deranged and malevolent goblin that just crawled out of a swamp.

The problem he has right now is that when I say stuff like that on Twitter, I'm the one who said it.

Not Twitter.

There's nothing he can do to me. Because even if I get hit by a unmarked sedan tomorrow in a totally unrelated accident, there's a million more people like me who are only too happy to point out that John Curtis looks like a deranged and malevolent goblin that just crawled out of a swamp.

So he wants legal tools to punish Twitter for what I said.

So how does he go about that? What is a deranged and malevolent goblin, with a "business management" degree, and a history of changing political parties when convenient, to do?

Why, muddy the waters with vague platitudes about "safety", of course.

Except we've heard that song before, and we're not interested. So let us laugh at him, remind him that he looks like a deranged and malevolent goblin that just crawled out of a swamp, and mock until he goes back to doing what he normally does, which is shilling for the "Fairness For High Skilled Immigrants Act".

And then we can eventually replace him with someone who cares about fairness to actual fucking Americans.

 


"WHAT A LEADING U.S. LAW PROFESSOR JUST REVEALED

A major warning was issued this week—not by activists, not by commentators, but by one of America’s leading constitutional law professors.He was just in Berlin, and what he described is chilling.

He said only TWO people at the World Forum were defending free speech… and the rest of the room was demanding coordinated censorship—not just across Europe, but against Americans.

And here is what he testified:

European regulators want U.S. speech controlled by EU law

Platforms are being threatened with ruinous fines

International bodies now expect enforcement against U.S. citizens

Silence is being globalised through regulation, not debate

He also stated that Hillary Clinton personally intensified this push—calling on the EU to weaponise the Digital Services Act when Elon Musk acquired Twitter.

Think about that:

A former U.S. presidential candidate urging a FOREIGN authority to pressure an American company into censoring U.S. citizens.

According to this professor, what is happening is not organic—it is strategic.

He said the Berlin gathering was “the most anti-free-speech event” he had ever attended.

He warned that:

“This is how censorship becomes internationalised.”

Not through law in Washington.

Not through court rulings.

But through transnational regulatory power overriding domestic rights.

As he put it:

“Free speech isn’t falling—it’s being dismantled.”

This is not speculation.

This is testimony—firsthand—from someone who was in the room.

Defending free expression is no longer optional—it is urgent."
 
wef-schwab-free-speech-misinformation-top-global-risk.jpg
 
Back
Top