‘It is hard to overstate just how sinister the Online Safety Bill is. The gravest threat to freedom of speech since section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalised “insulting words and behaviour”? That scarcely does it justice. Let’s settle on the most serious threat since the proposal to force state regulation on the press in the aftermath of Levison.
The Online Safety Bill, which has already had its second reading in the House of Commons, is intended to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online. If you think “safest” is code for “most heavily regulated” you’re not far wrong.
The Bill will empower Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, to fine social media companies up to 10 per cent of their global turnover if they fail to remove harmful content — and not just harmful to children, which is hard to argue with, but to adults as well.
What does the Government mean by “harmful”? The only definition the Bill offers is in clause 150, where it sets out the details of a new Harmful Communications Offence, punishable by up to two years in jail: “‘harm’ means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.”
But, confusingly, it won’t just be harmful content that meets this definition that the bill will force social media companies to remove. After all, this relates to a new criminal offence — and content that meets the threshold for prosecution under this new law will, by definition, be illegal. Notoriously, the Bill will also force social media companies to remove “legal but harmful” content — and exactly what that is, is anyone’s guess. I’m sure political activists and lobby groups claiming to speak on behalf of various victim groups will have a lot to say about it.
The bottom line is that stuff it is perfectly legal to say and write offline will be prohibited online. And not just mildly prohibited — YouTube or Twitter or Facebook could be fined of up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover for a transgression — so in Facebook’s case $11.7 billion, based on its 2021 revenue.
That’s a powerful incentive for social media companies to remove anything remotely contentious — and they hardly need much encouragement. Facebook deleted 26.9 million pieces of content for violating its Community Standards on “hate speech” in the first quarter of 2020, 17 times as many as the 1.6 million instances of deleted “hate speech” in the last quarter of 2017.
More than 97 per cent of Facebook’s purged “hate speech” in the last three months of 2020 was identified by an algorithm and removed automatically. It’s a safe bet that the sensitivity dials on the algorithms social media companies use to censor questionable content will be turned up to 11 if this Bill ever becomes law.’ More of this article at https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/june-2022/why-i-fear-this-censors-charter/
Conservative Calvin Robinson ‘A black trainee vicar was blocked from becoming a Church of England priest after a white bishop voiced concerns about his belief that Britain was not institutionally racist.’https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10840691/Black-priest-Calvin-Robertson-said-Britain-NOT-racist-country-BLOCKED-priest.html
If you are a Bible believing Christian and looking for a you can bypass the Church of Scotland.
‘An historic vote has taken place which will allow Church of Scotland ministers and deacons to marry same-sex couples.
The General Assembly voted to change a standing church law to allow the right to apply to become an authorised celebrant to conduct same-sex ceremonies by 274 votes to 136.
The decision, which would enable ministers and deacons to opt-in to a new scheme, came after a majority of presbyteries – 29-12 – approved the “Solemnisation of Same Sex Marriage Overture”.’https://churchofscotland.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/articles/general-assembly-approves-scheme-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages
‘The Muslim World League (MWL) hosted the “Forum on Common Values of Religious Followers” last week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which was the first “interfaith event” ever held in the Arabian peninsula.
This event was attended by Christian leaders from the United Kingdom and the United States.
Here are a few facts to lay out before proceeding with this story:
Do American Christian leaders really want to praise a government that participated in killing 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001?
With all of this on the table, one must wonder how blind, naive, and stupid American Christian leaders must be to participate in this Muslim World League/Muslim Brotherhood hosted event in Saudi Arabia.
“Lying. Permissible Lying. It is permissible to lie (to non-muslims) if the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.” Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, Book r 8.0
A few of those Americans who fell into – jumped into – this dangerous pit include:
Sam Brownback, former Kansas Governor and U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom (2018-2021).
Dr. Walter Kim, President of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Joel C. Rosenberg, political consultant, author, and evangelical.
Bob Roberts Jr (Dallas, Texas), Senior Global Pastor at Northwood Church and founder of several non-profits and “multi-faith” organizations.
Chris Seiple, President Emeritus of the Institute for Global Engagement.
UTT is working to assess the complete list of other key U.S. figures who attended this hostile enemy operation.’
‘An Adelaide court has heard a family accused of trying to kill a young Muslim woman in an “attempted honour killing” tried to track her down days earlier, breaking into a house and assaulting someone else in the process.
Five members of the woman’s family – including her father, mother, sister and brother — have been charged with the attempted murder and false imprisonment of the 21-year-old, who was allegedly stabbed in the abdomen several times with a large kitchen knife at the Sefton Plaza Shopping Centre car park in November.
The alleged victim suffered a perforated kidney, lacerated liver and significant internal bleeding.
Her 29-year-old sister asked the Adelaide Magistrates Court on Tuesday to vary her home-detention bail so she could communicate with her husband who is in custody over the alleged offending.’https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/woman-held-younger-sister-while-father-stabbed-her-during-attempted-honour-killing-court-hears/ar-AAXEbxh?ocid=mailsignout&li=AAgfYrC
‘ISLAMABAD (AP) — Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers on Sunday began enforcing an order requiring all female TV news anchors in the country to cover their faces while on-air. The move is part of a hard-line shift drawing condemnation from rights activists.
After the order was announced Thursday, only a handful of news outlets complied. But on Sunday, most female anchors were seen with their faces covered after the Taliban’s Vice and Virtue Ministry began enforcing the decree.
The Information and Culture Ministry previously announced that the policy was “final and non-negotiable.”
“It is just an outside culture imposed on us forcing us to wear a mask and that can create a problem for us while presenting our programs,” said Sonia Niazi, a TV anchor with TOLOnews. In an act of solidarity with female colleagues, the channel’s male personnel covered their faces with masks, including the main evening news reader.
A local media official confirmed his station had received the order last week but on Sunday it was forced to implement it after being told it was not up for discussion. He spoke on condition he and his station remain anonymous for fear of retribution from Taliban authorities.
During the Taliban’s last time in power in Afghanistan from 1996-2001, they imposed overwhelming restrictions on women, requiring them to wear the all-encompassing burqa and barring them from public life and education.
After they seized power again in August, the Taliban initially appeared to have moderated somewhat their restrictions, announcing no dress code for women. But in recent weeks, they have made a sharp, hard-line pivot that has confirmed the worst fears of rights activists and further complicated Taliban dealings with an already distrustful international community.
Earlier this month, the Taliban ordered all women in public to wear head-to-toe clothing that leaves only their eyes visible. The decree said women should leave the home only when necessary and that male relatives would face punishment for women’s dress code violations, starting with a summons and escalating to court hearings and jail time.
The Taliban leadership has also barred girls from attending school after the sixth grade, reversing previous promises by Taliban officials that girls of all ages would be allowed an education.’https://www.cp24.com/world/taliban-enforcing-face-cover-order-for-female-tv-anchors-1.5914315
No, the feminist’s only have a problem with Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
 | Elise on NY Times Warns Companies From… |
 | Martin on School Boards, Hot Mics &… |
 | pacanter7 on Creation News and Views Januar… |
 | Scriptural Vision on Climate Change & Community… |
 | crisscross767 on Prophetic Signs in the He… |
whatyareckon 