Rumble could be banned in the UK under new online safety laws

a reply to: Daughter2

Look at China giving a life sentence to someone talking about their culture.

It was done under the guise of safety. Protecting children too.

And I said and mentioned China, but your to quick to accuse me of wanting to shut down free speech, when Ive said there's a fine line to walk...

We are seeing the start of this when children can be taken away from parents and the child's penis can be removed by the State. This is only the start.

Now who's streaching the truth till it disappears???

Under communism, parents could not provide religious information - to protect them.

So Great Britain is now a communist dictatorship trying to shut down free speech?

In some Muslim countries, you can't talk about female castration (a common practice) because talking about banning this horrific practice is considered obscene.

And the God fearing right wing Americans aren't falling down this rabbit hoie with it's ban on abortion or talking about gay or trans subjects?

a reply to: Kurokage

There is nothing in this act that defines what is "harmful" to children.

Anything can be considered harmful to children. If you really think something is harmful than specific laws can be passed on that specific behavior - no reason to give blanket authority.

It really wasn't that long ago any information on being gay was considered harmful to children.
This was in the UK and US - common mainstream values.

On the other extreme, right now anything less than complete affirmation of the physical and emotional transition of children is considered harmful to children too.

A parent posting they don't like children being taken by the State so they can have their penis removed would be considered harmful to children.

Don't like that children were kept out of school for years. Want to share statistics showing this reduced test scores, caused depression and suicides in children? You and any service which hosts this information can be banned.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

You think the UK Government is not after him or after Rumble?! Are you denying reality??

I didn't say the government isn't trying to shut him down. IF he's a rapist and possible sexual predator then they should go after him. He's like a less stabby Charles Manson pushing for Helter Skelter, but Brand is doing it for money and clicks, and I think anyone pushing an unproven conspiricy purely for money should be de-monetized.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that these people can still post their drivel but they realise they aren't getting the money they so desperately want, they aren't being shut down.

The justice system will go after him and not the government. The government has no businesses in interfering with the legal process, dictate what the courts or the police will have to do, or pressure them to find something against Brand to indict him.
Same with asking private companies to demonetize citizens for whatever reasons.

Brand isn't getting monetized for creating 'conspiracy' theories but for creating content views by his viewers and there are adverts for it.
What is a conspiracy theory nobody from the Government can decide on this issue. They're not the arbiters of truth. Amy reasonable platform such as Rumble will dismiss these demands by any Government.

originally posted by: Kurokage

And I said and mentioned China, bnut your to quick to aquse me of wanting to shut down free speech, when Ive said there's a fine line to walk...

And you are stupid enough to trust the Government to walk this fine line?
Do you really think they are going to pass on the ability to have complete control over information?


Want specific things banned - pass a specific law - no need for blanket authority.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

Look at China giving a life sentence to someone talking about their culture.

It was done under the guise of safety. Protecting children too.

And I said and mentioned China, but your to quick to accuse me of wanting to shut down free speech, when Ive said there's a fine line to walk...

We are seeing the start of this when children can be taken away from parents and the child's penis can be removed by the State. This is only the start.

Now who's streaching the truth till it disappears???

Under communism, parents could not provide religious information - to protect them.

So Great Britain is now a communist dictatorship trying to shut down free speech?

In some Muslim countries, you can't talk about female castration (a common practice) because talking about banning this horrific practice is considered obscene.

And the God fearing right wing Americans aren't falling down this rabbit hoie with it's ban on abortion or talking about gay or trans subjects?

That's what you trying to argue.
To shut down free speech based on your understanding or the government's understanding of what constitutes 'harmful' content.

Why anyone will trust you or the government on this issue??

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: ancientlight

It is your responsiblity ,as a parent, to protect your child from harmful online content. You can't expect sites to be blocked/banned , or for free speech to be banned, because 'potentially' someone could say something bad to your child.

So you become the controller of free speech. Should you watch all content that your child sees? Should your ISP protect your children and thus control free speech?

How , what?!! You must be getting a rise out of this, I won't bother replying to you anymore. You are clearly delusional.

Agree very much with this!

a reply to: Daughter2

There is nothing in this act that defines what is "harmful" to children.

Thats why we have groups like ofcom here in the UK. Its us the general puplic that decides and complains. If you want to blame anyone then blame the sheeple for believing the extreme rubbish that's posted for clicks or the MSM for attempting to keep up.

a reply to: Muldar

To shut down free speech based on your understanding or the government's understanding of what constitutes 'harmful' content.

Why anyone will trust you or the government on this issue??

I think my understanding is better than an Alienborgs interpretation, but you're free to think and discuss, I'm not the one attempting to shut people down who disagree with me, or think certain subjects shouldn't be allowed to spoken about unless they conform with their ideas??

originally posted by: Kurokage

Thats why we have groups like ofcom here in the UK. Its us the general puplic that decides and complains. If you want to blame anyone then blame the sheeple for believing the extreme rubbish that's posted for clicks or the MSM for attempting to keep up.

General public - nope. The board of ofcom is chosen by the Government!

This board gets to choose what complaints they will act on and how they want to act.

It's like giving elected politicians the ability to decide what's legal, who to prosecute, whether they are guilty and the sentence.

Worse than judge, jury and executioner. It's legislator, police, judge, jury and executioner. Absolute power.

a reply to: Daughter2

And you obviously didn't look at the link I provided.
People go and complain, I linked the complaint form, and also linked to the board.
So yes it's the general public...

www.ofcom.org.uk...

ETA
also The obcene publication act.
lordslibrary.parliament.uk...

Whilst the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has subsequently been amended, it still makes it a punishable offence to distribute, circulate, sell, hire, lend or give away obscene material. It defines obscene material as that which is likely to “deprave and corrupt” the intended audience when taken as a whole. This includes not only sexually explicit material, but also that relating to violence and drug taking. It has been argued that material which simply shocks or disgusts, however, will not tend to fall under this definition. As a result, prosecutors have tended not to take action against the written word, but rather focus almost entirely on sexually explicit pictorial material, including: photographs; magazines; films; or websites. Although the Act applies to material broadcast on televisions, stricter tests relating to harms and offence are available under the Communications Act 2003 and the Ofcom broadcasting code.

The Act also includes sections relating to search and seizure and available defences. It creates a power where, in accordance with a warrant, police can seize obscene materials. The Act also offers the defence of ‘public good’. This means that a court would not convict a person if they can justify the publication of the material as being for the public good. For example, that it has scientific, literary or artistic merit. In relation to any film or soundtrack, the individual must justify the material on the grounds that it is in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, literature or learning. Consequently, prosecutions tend to focus on material which can have little claim to artistic or other merit, where an individual has produced material explicitly to excite the viewer.

edit on 27-9-2023 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

And you obviously didn't look at the link I provided.
People go and complain, I linked the complaint form, and also linked to the board.
So yes it's the general public...

www.ofcom.org.uk...

The board IS NOT directly elected by the public.

Sure they receive public complaints but nothing they get to decide which complaints to act on, how to interpret the laws, who to punish and the punishment.

They have more powers than the police.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

To shut down free speech based on your understanding or the government's understanding of what constitutes 'harmful' content.

Why anyone will trust you or the government on this issue??

I think my understanding is better than an Alienborgs interpretation, but you're free to think and discuss, I'm not the one attempting to shut people down who disagree with me, or think certain subjects shouldn't be allowed to spoken about unless they conform with their ideas??

Your understanding is rather flawed and you can't possibly expect free speech to be subject of a thought police or what the government thinks is 'hateful' content and :conspiracy' theories. This way everything can be branded a conspiracy theory and censored.

a reply to: Muldar

UK does a zero tolerance for racism thing now. Will even stop a football match to tell West Ham fans to stop calling Chelsea fans gay male prostitutes. If there's ANYTHING that promotes hate, intolerance, or anti-vax it is gonna get scrutiny.

pornography and material that promotes self-harm, suicide, or eating disorders. Violent content and material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation...

Rumble will also have to take down material that is illegal, such as videos that incite violence or race hate.

From the UK people I know, they are mostly behind the anti-hate status quo. No room for it, as the mantra goes.

Rumble may be in the crosshairs because of this:

A previous June 2022 review of posts from Rumble's 200 most prominent accounts found that 49 percent had posted about guns or gun rights, 48 percent had posted about abortion, 44 percent had posted about LGBT topics, 42 percent had posted about the January 6 Capitol attack, and 26 percent had posted about vaccines.

Maybe the UK doesn't want any American drama?

May be Canada based and soon banned in UK, but it's prominent users are US conservatives (20% banned from other apps). And its largely driven by US topics.

I don't think the American conservative movement gravitating to Rumble will be hampered by the loss of the UK.

The USA is still a really free internet, regardless of what some publicly traded companies do monitoring and even liberally policing their own platform.

What I think needs to be brought up is the applicability of free speech to businesses. It doesn't apply. I don't have free speech here, I would have been banned long ago without self-censorship.

Sites like ATS are usually a business first and foremost. There wouldn't be a long legal terms and conditions contract authorizing, among other things, I sign all rights to my posted content over to TAN if it wasn't. I post my music, I give ATS the right to profit off it. That doesn't sound like free press, that sounds like a contractual agreement to use a platform to post content I no longer own after posting.

While a network like ATS or YouTube can regulate its content without regard to free speech, and not violate the first ammendment, nothing stops a person creating their own site and saying whatever they want.

Pretty much the only you can't do in the USA is advocate violence.

You can say:

"I think trannies are a horrible disease, a godless abomination, degenerate evil sickos that need to be dealt the swift hand of divine retribution."

You just CANT add...

"And I think someone should take an assault rifle to a California pride festival and open fire."

Then it becomes non-applicable to free speech.

A site can ban you or block both, but NOTHING can stop ANYONE from self-posting the first part.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Daughter2

And you obviously didn't look at the link I provided.
People go and complain, I linked the complaint form, and also linked to the board.
So yes it's the general public...

www.ofcom.org.uk...

ETA
also The obcene publication act.
lordslibrary.parliament.uk...

Whilst the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has subsequently been amended, it still makes it a punishable offence to distribute, circulate, sell, hire, lend or give away obscene material. It defines obscene material as that which is likely to “deprave and corrupt” the intended audience when taken as a whole. This includes not only sexually explicit material, but also that relating to violence and drug taking. It has been argued that material which simply shocks or disgusts, however, will not tend to fall under this definition. As a result, prosecutors have tended not to take action against the written word, but rather focus almost entirely on sexually explicit pictorial material, including: photographs; magazines; films; or websites. Although the Act applies to material broadcast on televisions, stricter tests relating to harms and offence are available under the Communications Act 2003 and the Ofcom broadcasting code.

The Act also includes sections relating to search and seizure and available defences. It creates a power where, in accordance with a warrant, police can seize obscene materials. The Act also offers the defence of ‘public good’. This means that a court would not convict a person if they can justify the publication of the material as being for the public good. For example, that it has scientific, literary or artistic merit. In relation to any film or soundtrack, the individual must justify the material on the grounds that it is in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, literature or learning. Consequently, prosecutions tend to focus on material which can have little claim to artistic or other merit, where an individual has produced material explicitly to excite the viewer.

It's just irrelevant to the conversation I am afraid.

edit on 27-9-2023 by Muldar because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: Kurokage

Thats why we have groups like ofcom here in the UK. Its us the general puplic that decides and complains. If you want to blame anyone then blame the sheeple for believing the extreme rubbish that's posted for clicks or the MSM for attempting to keep up.

General public - nope. The board of ofcom is chosen by the Government!

This board gets to choose what complaints they will act on and how they want to act.

It's like giving elected politicians the ability to decide what's legal, who to prosecute, whether they are guilty and the sentence.

Worse than judge, jury and executioner. It's legislator, police, judge, jury and executioner. Absolute power.

It's clear the government wants to be judge, jury, and executioner. The Ofcom conversation is just a joke and a distraction from the actual conversation we have.

Only those who support censorship of free speech will try to excuse and defend the actions by the UK Government. It looks like many on the left support this censorship in the UK as well as right wing Government acting on their behalf. It's very absurd.

a reply to: Daughter2

The board IS NOT directly elected by the public.

Sure they receive public complaints but nothing they get to decide which complaints to act on, how to interpret the laws, who to punish and the punishment.

They have more powers than the police.

If Ofcom thought criminal laws were being broken then they would inform the police who also have laws to follow.
There's also things like broadcasting laws and standards.
Ofcom also has to publish Annual reports and plans, but it does tend to be the general public that sway the trends.
www.ofcom.org.uk...

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

To shut down free speech based on your understanding or the government's understanding of what constitutes 'harmful' content.

Why anyone will trust you or the government on this issue??

I think my understanding is better than an Alienborgs interpretation, but you're free to think and discuss, I'm not the one attempting to shut people down who disagree with me, or think certain subjects shouldn't be allowed to spoken about unless they conform with their ideas??

Your understanding is rather flawed and you can't possibly expect free speech to be subject of a thought police or what the government thinks is 'hateful' content and :conspiracy' theories. This way everything can be branded a conspiracy theory and censored.

Here we go with the insults, very alienborgesque??
It might be your understanding thats flawed here, who said anything about thought police??

a reply to: Kurokage

"Tends to be the general public that sway trends"

Ok, by your own statement you are admitting the following:

-The general public does not have a direct say in actions taken.
-Sometimes they go against the trend in the general public
-This non-elected board gets to decide issues

Nothing is stopping this organization from ignoring a million complaints but acting on just one specific complaint!

Their actions (which act essentially as laws) are not voted on and there are no due process controls.

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: Kurokage

"Tends to be the general public that sway trends"

Ok, by your own statement you are admitting the following:

-The general public does not have a direct say in actions taken.
-Sometimes they go against the trend in the general public
-This non-elected board gets to decide issues

Nothing is stopping this organization from ignoring a million complaints but acting on just one specific complaint!

Their actions (which act essentially as laws) are not voted on and there are no due process controls.

Thats the very opposite of what I said??

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Muldar

To shut down free speech based on your understanding or the government's understanding of what constitutes 'harmful' content.

Why anyone will trust you or the government on this issue??

I think my understanding is better than an Alienborgs interpretation, but you're free to think and discuss, I'm not the one attempting to shut people down who disagree with me, or think certain subjects shouldn't be allowed to spoken about unless they conform with their ideas??

Your understanding is rather flawed and you can't possibly expect free speech to be subject of a thought police or what the government thinks is 'hateful' content and :conspiracy' theories. This way everything can be branded a conspiracy theory and censored.

Here we go with the insults, very alienborgesque??
It might be your understanding thats flawed here, who said anything about thought police??

I can't see any insults but I can see your argument being flawed. According to what you're saying anyone can be targeted about anything at any given time because the thought police and the Government/officials have branded his/her speech as 'hate speech', 'hateful content' and 'conspiracy'.
theories.

You see the issue with it?

And the issue free speech platforms are facing?