Free Speech & Cancel Culture

TV censor Ofcom has launched an investigation into GB News over Laurence Fox's rant about a female journalist, Ava Evans after receiving around 7,300 complaints.

Fox was suspended on Wednesday after he was condemned for saying 'Who would want to shag that?

The complaints followed Tuesday night's episode of Dan Wootton Tonight, prompting its investigation. Dan Wootton has been suspended from GB News seemingly as he smiled or smirked at Fox's comments rather than opposing them.

Wootton said in an apology that he regretted the interview and should have intervened to challenge Fox. Meanwhile Fox has said he stands by every word of what I said.

Fox, who also hosts on GB News, made the comments discussing political journalist Evans' views on creating a minister for men to tackle a mental health crisis. Speaking on BBC Politics Live on Monday, the PoliticsJOE political correspondent said the idea would make an enemy out of women and that mental illness was not specific to men. Addressing the comments on Dan Wootton Tonight on Tuesday, Fox said:

We're past the watershed so I can say this. Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman - ever, ever... That little woman has been fed, spoon-fed oppression day after day after day... We need powerful, strong, amazing women who make great points for themselves, we don't need these sort of feminist 4.0... they're pathetic and embarrassing. Who would want to shag that? Media caption,

Melanie Dawes, Ofcom chief executive, said:

Over the last few days there has been speculation and commentary about our role as the independent broadcast regulator. These are important issues and I wanted to be clear about our rules.

Parliament sets objectives on how the broadcast sector should be regulated. We set and enforce rules to achieve these objectives. Contrary to some claims, these rules remain unchanged.

They are designed to protect audiences from offensive and harmful material, and to uphold the integrity of broadcast news and current affairs programming, while always ensuring that freedom of expression is front and centre in every decision we take. This is highly valued by audiences and central to our democracy.

The decisions we take, always based on facts and evidence once a programme has aired, are vital if we are to protect our vibrant media landscape. We continue to apply and enforce these rules without fear or favour.

 

Offsite Comment: The establishment campaign to shut down GB News

25th September 2023. See article from spiked-online.com by Fraser Myers

Adam Boulton has said the quiet part out loud: the elites want to defend their cosy media club.

Preparing to enforce Humza Yousaf's latest law attacking free speech, a specialized hate crime unit has been announced by Police Scotland. With the unit scheduled to be operational by November, a comprehensive training of about 16,400 police will follow in December.

This is all in anticipation of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, expected to be ratified early in 2024. This Act expands upon the existing law, offering a wider definition of 'vulnerable' groups and introduces the notion of stirring up hatred.

The Act allows for more severe sentencing if prejudice is based on factors such as age, race, disability, religion, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics. No doubt it will be used to police 'wrong think' eg in the increasingly toxic culture wars surrounding gender issues.

Critics argue that a significant portion of police time may now be geared towards a subjective concept of hate crime, such as misgendering, instead of dealing with tangible violent acts.

Police Scotland remains tight-lipped about the size of the proposed unit plus the financial implications of the new laws -- a cause for concern for many.

Last week, The Times and Channel 4's Dispatches covered serious allegations of assault against Russell Brand. While the comedian has yet to be convicted of any wrongdoing and whether the anonymous accusers are victims is yet to be determined, several major platforms, including YouTube, Netflix, and BBC iPlayer, took swift action, either demonetizing or removing Brand's content.

A senior Tory politician has taken it onboard to take the lynch mob position of declaring that the accuser is always right, and that without needing to bother with due process, police investigation or judicial trial, she has demanded the standard PC punishment of loss of career.

Caroline Dinenage, the chair of chair of Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee has written to bully the free speech friendly social media website Rumble into banning or demonetising Brand's video content which seems to have about 1.5 million followers. Dineage wrote that she is concerned that Brand may be able to profit from his work online:

We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.

We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.

Rumble, however, has chosen a different route from the other platforms. In response to an inquiry by the UK's Culture, Media and Sport Committee regarding Brand's monetization on the platform, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski issued a statement emphasizing the company's commitment to a free internet. In a clear stance against cancel culture and rushes to judgement, Pavlovski responded, stressing that allegations against Brand have no connection with his content on Rumble. He pointed out the importance of a free internet, where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard.

From Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski:

Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament. While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform. Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet -- meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.

We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.

Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands.
 

Offsite Comment: The casual authoritarianism of Caroline Dinenage

21st September 2023. See article from spiked-online.com by Laurie Wastell

Why is the head of parliament's culture committee calling on tech firms to unperson Russell Brand?

Update: Politicians and Media Heap Pressure on Rumble After it Defends Principle of Neutrality

26th September 2023.See article from reclaimthenet.org

Rumble has stood up to censorship pressure and rejected the UK Parliament's request to cut off Brand's monetization, with CEO Chris Pavlovski noting that the allegations against Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform.

Now several media outlets have joined the lynch mob and are targeting Rumble's stance.

Lord Allan of Hallam, a former Facebook executive who advised on the Online Safety Bill, branded Rumble a crazy American platform and expressed disdain at Rumble's philosophy of allowing free expression.

He and internet academic  Professor Lorna Woods also complained about Rumble's refusal to bow down to pressure from UK officials and framed it as grandstand[ing] before the press.

The Times also took aim at Rumble by noting that under the Online Safety Bill, Rumble will have to prevent children from seeing pornography...material that promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders...violent content...material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation and take down material that is illegal, such as videos that incite violence or race hate.

However, Bryn Harris, the Chief Legal Council for The Free Speech Union, pointed out that The Times' article doesn't actually provide examples of any of the alleged illegal or harmful to kids content on Rumble.

Additionally, the Associated Press piled in on Rumble after it stood up to the demands of UK officials by claiming that Rumble is a haven for disinformation and extremism.

A pro independence poster featuring an image of king Charles has been banned in Scotland.

The design by Alex Salmond's Alba Party was rejected by the media billboard company Global, which controls more than 250,000 UK advertising sites, lest it could cause offence.

The poster depicts the official image of the King, as he appears on postage stamps, crossed out by a red prohibition sign. The image is below the message: It's time for an Independent Republic of Scotland.

It is the second time this month that Global has rejected one of Alba's poster designs, after a cartoon image of Rishi Sunak, depicted as a vampire sucking Scotland's oil, was also refused. Global explained that it was slanderous toward the Prime Minister.

The Alba Party claimed that a media company should not be able to control the political messages the public sees.Chris McEleny, the general secretary of Alba said:

We have a potential general election next year and the current situation is that media giants will get to decide which messages the public get to see and which messages they don't.

Linda Yaccarino, CEO  of X, previously known as Twitter, has been speaking on TV about how the company will be censoring tweets.

During a CNBC interview, Yaccarino discussed the demarcation of duties between herself and ELon Musk, however, it is her stance on the website's content policies that has raised eyebrows.

In clarifying X's approach to moderation, Yaccarino introduced the concept of freedom of speech, not freedom of reach, a policy where users, when posting narratives that are not in line with approved speech, are labeled, possibly demonetized for that content, and have their visibility reduced on the platform.

She remarked: If it is lawful but it's awful, it's extraordinarily difficult for you to see it. insinuating that even legally permissible content might be obscured if deemed undesirable by the company.

The decisions and comments made by Yaccarino might seem like a strict stance against divisive or hurtful rhetoric but critics may see it as an alarming move away from the ethos of open dialogue and free speech.