The European Digital Panopticon and the Silencing of Dissent

     Not satisfied with throttling free speech through vague and excessive copyright restrictions, the European Union is looking to abolish all expressions of thoughtcrime as well as the privacy that inhibits the ability of the technocratic overlords to monitor and control what the serfs talk about and quash anything doubleplusungood.

     Specifically, the European Union wants the power to define what is “unacceptable” or promotes “exclusion and hatred”, as some Eurocrat may arbitrarily and capriciously decide.

“‘Media can build the culture of dialogue or sow divisions, spread disinformation and encourage exclusion,’ the commissioner [of justice, consumers, and gender equality] said. ‘The Brexit debate is the best example of that.’ Politicians should ‘show responsibility’ and ‘restraint,’ and must ‘realize that their words become justification for some people to act on their urges and their fears.'”

     More specifically to counter what the new Feudal lords and their gentry class bureaucrats deem to involve “‘exclusion, discrimination and lack of respect for minorities have spilled over from the margins to the center and don’t meet enough resistance from the media, politicians or opinion leaders.'”

     To implement this, media would be regulated to make sure that they define the limits of what is “unacceptable” according to “potential” new regulations under a ” European approach to media based on quality and smart regulation, if needed”.

     Any voice that opposes unrestricted importation of “refugees” would be silenced and those platforms who enabled it would be punished. From the above tone, wanting to leave the EU could be a doubleplusungood position that must be throttled. Even the slightest criticism could be deemed prohibitable as being contrary to the values of the European Union.

     But it goes beyond that. Private communication itself could be banned with virtually all online forums and groups, including closed groups that are private, to provide the authorities with a full list of members or even one time posters. That’s right, people would not be able to privately discuss anything online; that the European Union, which makes laws and regulations in secret, is not affected by this makes it clear that the distant elite want to keep a check on the people while being free from the restraint from the same.

     But isn’t this just limited to the European Union? Perhaps not.

“Most Americans find the idea of foreign law being applied to them as repugnant. At least in the sphere of free speech, Congress and the courts have agreed that to a large extent such judgments are not enforceable against American entities.

“For example, The SPEECH Act is a federal law that forbids the enforcement of a defamation judgment based on substantive foreign law that does not meet First Amendment standards. While that act is limited to defamation, other case law has held that American entities are entitled to Due Process under American law when a foreign entity attempts to enforce an overseas judgment in the United States.

“…

“[N]ews and public interest organizations who have bureaus in those countries are at risk. In addition, many nations forbid foreign ownership of media outlets, so many news organizations have had to create partnerships or local subsidiaries subject to those nation’s laws.”

     This is not just a hypothetical:

“While it is unlikely that such judgments would be enforced here (as in the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld), if the European Court of Justice rules that Google (and others) doing business in Europe must block ‘offensive’ content on a worldwide, and not just a European scale, there’s little doubt Google and others would cave: There’s just too much revenue at stake. (Google is already in the process of building out ‘Dragonfly,’ a pre-censored Internet search engine in collusion with Chinese government).”

     Sure, these companies could spin off into difference subsidiary companies to fully comply with the law. But then, when did the law ever stop the European Union from doing whatever it wanted?


This entry was posted in Progressives and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The European Digital Panopticon and the Silencing of Dissent

  1. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.02.18 : The Other McCain

  2. avatar Nessimmersion says:

    The principled protest would be more compelling if the US had not already set a precedent of extraterritorial application of its own laws whether IRS related -most European banks will not allow a US citizen to set up a local account, or for example when they seized a CEO off a plane making a fueling stop as his company based in Gibraltar had done business with Merkans abroad.
    So if you don’t like other countries extending their laws abroad, stop your own doing it first.

  3. avatar Nessimmersion says:

    A principled objection to extraterritorial over-reach would be more compelling if the US had not already set a precedent of extending IRS compliance overseas hence US citizens being rejected when applying for local bank accounts in Europe or when pulling executives off planes on refuelling stops in the US as their companies did not comply with US law when extending services to Merkans in Gibraltar for example. If you do not like extraterritorial behaviour by bureaucracy stop your own doing it as well. Remember most of the feral SJW behaviour has been by companies that are US based.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *