Dear Labour – make the hate speech review about regulation of social media NOT a debate about free speech
National Leader Simon Bridges backs hate speech review but warns against limiting free speech
National Leader Simon Bridges is backing the Government’s plans to review New Zealand’s hate speech law but is warning against limiting free speech in the process.
Over the weekend, Justice Minister Andrew Little said he would fast-track a review of the Human Rights Act, which could see a crackdown on hate speech.
He said the current hate speech laws were not strong enough and needed to change.
Bridges said he agreed with Little having a look at the law and told RNZ: “I think he is doing the right thing having a review”.
But he warned against fast-tracking legislation that would change the law.
Bridges said that this type of legislation was “so fundamental to society that it can’t be rushed or fast-tracked”.
“Freedom of speech is so incredibly important to us as a society.”
Labour need to turn this hate speech debate into an issue of regulation of Facebook and not a debate about free speech.
Everyone can agree that Facebook or Twitter or other social media platforms should be forced to adopt the same level of regulation corporate media are forced to operate under in terms of responsible broadcasting standards, and the Government can get vast buy in for that, the very second this starts becoming the actual policing of micro aggressions however and there will be one almighty argument about freedom of speech.
The Government must make this about regulating social media to the same standards of broadcasters, if this becomes a freedom of speech debate they will lose.
The temptation will be to adopt woke standards defining hate speech, that temptation must be resisted or else the Government is inviting a righteous rebellion that can easily turn toxic.
In the wake of this atrocity we have solidarity and a genuine desire to change, regulating social media would be a huge step forward together on that, using an ideological framework over what can and can’t be said by the individual would be a giant leap backwards.
So cabinet wants to look like it cares about the people, fine. So am I the only one who feels Zuckerberg has been cheated? His pre-written answers are low-level bullshit, the kind a student would improvise on the spot when asked why the experiment isn’t working rather than the military-grade kind of bullshit money can buy. And I speak from experience, I’ve seen first-hand what a professional bullshitter can pull without preparation, it’s mind-boggling compared to the amateurish answers given for the stopping of Facebook regulations.
I wonder why ‘Sugar Mountain’ (Zuckerberg) has now banned white nationalists on Fakebook, and not Zionists? Has he got a bias, perhaps?
Well we are talking about a grey area of objectionable content and copywriting military grade institutional knowledge and other objectionable material of that type which shortens the learning time for terrorist / jihadis to complete there murderous education.
The fallout from that terror attack in Christchurch will bring serious consequences to us all, and free speech will be compromised, that is what I fear.
Knee jerk reactions are what we have seen so far, and talk of tightening up human rights laws will possibly lead to many voices being silenced.
One aspect that appears to not have been specifically covered by human rights legislation appears to be religion.
That is where amendments may lead to persons not being allowed to criticise any person for their religion, or the religion as such, stifling any debate about certain merits or otherwise.
When we now have even the Pope of the Catholic Church talk about ‘freedom of religion’, then our times are getting very interesting indeed. The Catholic Church considers itself to be the ONLY true church of Christ on earth, so how can there be any compromises made? Some other churches claim the same, e.g. the Mormons claim they are the only true church.
And Islam itself is claiming that every human is born a Muslim, and needs to be guided back to faith, if not living it.
We have a world of contradictions, so how are they going to resolve so many, by simply passing amendments to the human rights laws, and at the same time ensuring freedom of religion and so forth?
What is the point of so many faiths existing side by side, claiming they are the only true faith, thus competing with each other, when they are all supposed to be the same and all have to follow the law, also being respectful of each other.
Religion is full of contention, I fear, and that is just one aspect that they may want to cover more in human rights legislation.
Some stuff I have heard from Andrew Little makes me worried, we are heading down a slippery slope, I fear.
But without any details of what the government may propose, we are so far left speculating and worrying. I feel some more time needs to pass, before we should consider law changes – after the Christchurch attacks.
Some recent reports to consider:
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope-in-Morocco:-dialogue-between-faiths-to-reject-intolerance-and-violence-in-the-name-of-God-46645.html
https://cruxnow.com/pope-in-uae/2019/02/04/in-heart-of-muslim-world-pope-calls-for-true-religious-freedom/
Stopping live streaming with a delay setting and or title fields to fill in would be simple, schoolboy code could fix it. I’m no expert but writing code gives you control, everything is predicted otherwise error warning. Facebook is doing the barest minimum to shield itself from the heat.