UK’s “Online Safety Act” OFFICIALLY Grants MSM Permission to Publish Lies
PATRICIA HARRITY for THE EXPOSE
Welcome to the UK where it’s now official government policy that you CAN’T publish “misinformation”, but The Guardian, the BBC, Disney and Netflix CAN, say Off Guardian. As we reported in September 2023, the Bill is a piece of legislation that comes under the guise of being predominantly for the safety of children in an attempt to protect them from online grooming and abuse and also to limit the reach of terrorist propaganda.
This is the use of a propaganda technique known as “card-stacking.” The government has presented something everyone can agree upon, for example, child abuse is evil and children need protecting, to induce people, including our representatives in Parliament, to believe that the legislation is necessary. Source
This is not the real objective of the bill, this is simply a tactic used to deter people from fighting against the bill, which really has the primary focus of narrative control.
The bill is essentially a direct attack on social media platforms, or more specifically the content that can be seen and shared on them and will enable the government to blackmail social media companies to reduce their reach, de-platform, and criminalise views that disagree with the government narrative. Read More
The Expose reported the parallels with Orwell’s dystopian 1984 and also the danger to our freedom of speech, which has already been steadily eroding. Source
Off Guardian furthers this and says that the
“UK’s “Online Safety Act” OFFICIALLY Grants MSM Permission to Publish Lies.”
Originally published at Off Guardian
Yes, it’s true – the recently signed “Online Safety Act” brands the publication of “false information” a criminal offense punishable by up to a year in prison……unless you’re an MSM outlet, when it’s totally fine.
Think even the corrupt & bloated criminal class that rules over us would never dare be that blatant?
Take a look at section 179 making it illegal to publish false information with intent to cause harm:
…and then look at section 180, which exempts all MSM outlets from this new law :
…and that’s without even getting into OfCom’s “select committee”, or how they choose to define “misinformation” (s. 152)
Welcome to the modern definition of “freedom of speech”, where the MSM are directly and explicitly permitted to “knowingly publish false information with intent to cause non-trivial harm”, and you can be sent to jail for a year for calling out their lies.
Oh, and it looks like our friends across the pond might not be far behind. The Big Tech Senate hearings started yesterday, and social media executives are already throwing their support behind the new “Kids Online Safety Act”.
With the EU’s own Digital Services Act coming into force later this month, and all the focus on “misinformation and disinformation” at Davos two weeks ago, we can see the real crackdown on internet free speech is about to kick into gear.
FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH BREAK DOWN OF WHAT EXACTLY THE “ONLINE SAFETY ACT” IS AND HOW IT WORKS, YOU CAN READ OUR ARTICLE FROM LAST SEPTEMBER.
UK quietly passes “Online Safety Bill” into law
BY KIT KNIGHTLY
Buried behind the Brand-related headlines yesterday, the British House of Lords voted to pass the controversial “Online Safety Bill” into law. All that’s needed now is Royal assent, which Charles will obviously provide.
The bill’s (very catchy) long-form title is…
A Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by OFCOM of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes.
…and that’s essentially it, it hands the duty of “regulating” certain online content to the UK’s Office of Communications (OfCom).
Ofcom Chief Executive Dame Melanie Dawes could barely contain her excitement in a statement to the press:
“Today is a major milestone in the mission to create a safer life online for children and adults in the UK. Everyone at Ofcom feels privileged to be entrusted with this important role, and we’re ready to start implementing these new laws.”
As always with these things, the bill’s text is a challenging and rather dull read, deliberately obscure in its language and difficult to navigate.
Of some note is the “information offenses” clause, which empowers OfCom to demand “information” from users, companies and employees, and makes it a crime to withhold it. The nature of this “information” is never specified, nor does it appear to be qualified. Meaning it could be anything, and will most likely be used to get private account information about users from social media platforms.
In one of the more worrying clauses, the Bill outlines what they call “communications offenses”. Section 10 details crimes of transmitting “Harmful, false and threatening communications”.
It should be noted that sending threats is already illegal in the UK, so the only new ground covered here is “harmful” and/or “false” information, and the fact they feel the need to differentiate between those two things should worry you.
After all, the truth can definitely be “harmful”…Especially to a power-hungry elite barely controlling an angry populace through dishonest propaganda.
Rather amusingly, the bill makes it a crime to “send a message” containing false information in clause 156…then immediately grants immunity to every newspaper, television channel and streaming service in clause 157.
Apparently it’s OK for the mainstream media to be harmful and dishonest.
But the primary purpose of the new law is a transfer of responsibility to enable and incentivize censorship.
Search engines (“regulated search services”, to quote the bill) and social media companies (“regulated user-to-user services”) will now be held accountable for how people use their platform.
For example: If I were to google “Is it safe to drink bleach?”, find some website that says yes, and then drink bleach, OfCom would not hold me responsible. They would hold Google responsible for letting me read that website. Likewise, if someone tweets @ me telling me to drink bleach, and I do so, Twitter would be held responsible for permitting that communication to take place.
This could result in hefty fines, or even potentially criminal charges, to companies and/or executives of those companies. It could even open them up to massively expensive civil suits (don’t be surprised if such a legal drama hits the headlines soon).
That’s all window dressing, of course, what this is really about is “misinformation” and “hate speech”. Which is to say, fact-checking mainstream lies and calling out mainstream liars.
Section 7 (135) is entirely dedicated to the creation of a new “Advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation”, which will be expected to submit regular reports to OfCom and the Secretary of State on how best to “counter misinformation on regulated services“.
This is clearly a response to Covid, or rather the failure of Covid.
Essentially, the pandemic narrative broke because the current mechanisms of censorship didn’t work well enough. In response, the government has just legalised and out-sourced their silencing of dissent.
ER: This late timing (being Covid-related, for example) is odd because the media cat has been thoroughly let out of the bag with respect to these bogus narratives, including Ukraine, Israel, Uncle Tom Cobbly ‘n all. Musk opening up Twitter (undeniable, even though some people such as Dr. Mike Yeadon are still being censored) has made all the difference. Is this legislation just another way of demonstrating, ‘look what the elites had planned’?
See, the government isn’t going to actually censor anyone themselves, protecting it from pro-free speech criticism. Rather, huge financial pressure will be applied on tech giants to be “responsible” and “protect the vulnerable”. Meaning de-platforming and cancelling independent media via increasingly opaque “terms of service violations”
These companies will be cheered on by the vast crowd of jabbed-and-masked NPCs who have been so successfully brainwashed into believing the “they are a private company and can do that they want” argument.
This has been going on for years already, of course, but that was covert stuff. Now it’s legal in the UK, and is about to get a lot worse.
YOU CAN READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE ONLINE SAFETY BILL HERE.
The Expose – The Online Safety Bill – Welcome to the New World Order https://expose-news.com/2023/09/23/the-online-safety-bill-welcome-to-the-new-world-order/
The Expose -The Online Safety Bill: A Certainty of Safety or a Descent into Orwellian Dystopia? – https://expose-news.com/2023/10/04/online-safety-bill-certainty-of-safety-or-descent-into-orwellian-dystopia/
– Off Guardian- “UK’s “Online Safety Act” OFFICIALLY grants MSM permission to publish lies” https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/02/uks-online-safety-act-officially-grants-msm-permission-to-publish-lies/
Kit Knightly – Off Guardian – UK quietly passes “Online Safety Bill” into law – https://off-guardian.org/2023/09/20/uk-quietly-passes-online-safety-bill-into-law/
Featured image credit: iStock, Nomadsoul1
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.