Commentary
When tools are available to suppress, punish, and intimidate speech, there are always individuals ready to utilize them.
An example of this was the warning issued by a French European Commission member to Elon Musk on Aug. 12. The letter reminded Musk, the richest man in the world and owner of X, of his “due diligence obligations” under the Commission’s Digital Services Act and the potential amplification of “harmful content.” This warning came on the eve of Musk’s planned livestream conversation with Donald Trump, the former president of the USA and current Republican candidate for the presidency in the upcoming elections.
Thierry Breton wrote, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the (European Union) associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate, and racism in conjunction with major political or societal events.”
It could be inferred that Breton was attempting to intimidate Musk and Trump. Musk responded by sharing a profanity-laced meme that he claimed he wanted to send but refrained from doing so. However, he indirectly conveyed the message.
Related Stories
There will always be individuals willing to utilize such tools. What sets today’s world apart is the presence of a new array of digital policing tools at their disposal.
Following the completion of their event, where most media outlets deemed it insignificant, charges were filed against Trump and Musk by the union for allegedly attempting to “intimidate and threaten” workers when discussing the firing of employees on strike in a hypothetical scenario where Trump was president again and Musk held a position in a government efficiency commission.
Currently, in the USA, it is illegal to terminate striking workers under the National Labor Relations Act.
Trump’s campaign dismissed the complaint as a “shameless political stunt.”
Nevertheless, the union conveyed a message to all candidates and politicians that they are prepared to utilize all available tools to safeguard their interests.
Shortly after the Olympics, Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, a renowned gold medalist, filed a lawsuit against Musk and others, including author J.K. Rowling, for “cyberbullying.”
Khelif, who was assigned female at birth, emerged victorious despite being barred from competing in the world championships by the sport’s governing body after failing a gender test in 2023. This incident sparked significant online discourse, prompting Khelif to seek financial retribution, despite reports indicating that French penal laws do not apply to actions committed outside of France against non-citizens.
Then there is the United Kingdom.
There, individuals can be imprisoned not only for their actions but also for the comments they make or share on social media, underscoring the value of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
While some individuals may deserve consequences, a section of the UK’s Communications Act criminalizes sending messages deemed “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.”
This broad terminology has resulted in arrests and imprisonment for merely being offensive. Many British citizens are comfortable alerting the authorities when they encounter content on platforms like Facebook or X that they find “grossly offensive,” leading to police involvement.
Once the UK’s Online Safety Act takes full effect before the year concludes, the police may have a less direct role in such matters.
Canada’s Online Harms Act is also slated for passage before the year ends.
This legislation will empower a new Digital Safety Commission, police, and Human Rights Commission with enhanced authority to monitor and regulate speech, determining what is permissible and the consequences for violations.
Anticipate the utilization of these tools with great enthusiasm.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Can you please rewrite this sentence?
Source link
