Here we go.
The United Nations has just released a report detailing their plan to curb online speech in an effort to “fight misinformation.”
But there’s just one problem:
In the United States, we have a little thing we like to call Free Speech.
And yes, that includes “misinformation.”
The problem with misinformation is that everyone will have different view points on what is considered “truth.”
That’s the beauty of free speech.
People should be able to decide for themselves.
After all, wasn’t the internet meant to be an open exchange of ideas?
Instead, a global authority that has nothing to do with the United States is threatening to censor our right to free speech!
We are living under global government. Wake up and make it stop.
Inside the UN Plan to Control Speech Onlinehttps://t.co/k3GINOjYq6
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) November 25, 2023
Speaking at the UN, WEF Young Global Leader and former PM of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, declares free speech a "weapon of war", in the globalist war against so-called "disinformation"―i.e. any information that exposes the agenda for global control by unelected globalist… pic.twitter.com/b0pdfWuytq
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) November 24, 2023
Inside the UN Plan to Control Speech Onlinehttps://t.co/67HhHUVkCd
— Larry Elder (@larryelder) November 25, 2023
The scary thing is that once regulations are passed, they are very difficult to remove.
The most important part is prevention.
We must prevent this from happening – or else the way we use and access the internet will be changed forever.
According to the Epoch Times:
A powerful United Nations agency has unveiled a plan to regulate social media and online communication while cracking down on what it describes as “false information” and “conspiracy theories,” sparking alarm among free-speech advocates and top U.S. lawmakers.Advertisement
In its 59-page report released this month, the U.N. Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) outlined a series of “concrete measures which must be implemented by all stakeholders: governments, regulatory authorities, civil society, and the platforms themselves.”
This approach includes the imposition of global policies, through institutions such as governments and businesses, designed to stop the spread of various forms of speech while promoting objectives such as “cultural diversity” and “gender equality.”
In particular, the U.N. agency aims to create an “Internet of Trust” by targeting what it calls “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and “conspiracy theories.”
Examples of expression flagged to be stopped or restricted include concerns about elections, public health measures, and advocacy that could constitute “incitement to discrimination.”
The problem is that mainstream media is often used to determine what’s true or not.
And as we know, the mainstream media tends to get a lot of things wrong.
From Trayvon Martin to George Floyd to the 2020 election, the mainstream media has been on the wrong side of history.
Yet, it’s the mainstream media that’s used to “fact check” anything posted online.
A powerful UN agency has unveiled a plan to regulate social media and online communication while cracking down on what it describes as “false information” and “conspiracy theories,” sparking alarm among free-speech advocates and top U.S. lawmakers. https://t.co/Ooq7FcipXH
— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) November 25, 2023
🚨UNESCO (a UN Agency) has a plan to control speech online 👇🏼…. Why don’t we have avenues to resist these global organizations that are funded by our tax dollars? https://t.co/Bt4LXk0ROC
— 爪aɀe ㄥoꪜe (@MazeLove14) November 25, 2023
Once you start censoring speech, the world will never be the same.
It’ll be the “beginning of the end,” as they say.
Even the ACLU, which is notoriously liberal, is against this UN plan:
Given the importance of protecting political speech by political figures, the biggest platforms should strive to allow as much political speech as possible and avoid account-level punishments. And, if they decide to censor candidates, they should have a consistent plan in place for preserving the offending speech for transparency, research, and historical record purposes.
In addition, all platforms should publicly explain their rules for removing posts and accounts of political figures and all users, and explain the penalties that can apply. Those rules must take into account the needs of human rights advocates, researchers, journalists, and others to access rule-violating content. And — contrary to what we’ve seen from most if not all of the companies — penalties should not be imposed on an ad-hoc or political basis.
We recognize that the major platforms are private entities with their own First Amendment rights to control the content they publish. But the largest platforms’ central role in online speech also means they should err on the side of preserving political speech — and, given their scale, they must also offer clarity upfront, at a minimum stick to their own rules, and offer opportunities for appeals when they (inevitably) get things wrong.
So what do you think?
Do you support this move by the UN?
If so, let us know in the comments below.
But if you don’t, be sure to share this article.
Information, not censorship, is key to fighting authoritarianism!