May Calls For Free Speech Controls on the Internet In Response To London Attacks

Theresa_MayWe have previously discussed how politicians often attack free speech and other rights to show that they are “tough” on terror after attacks.  Prime Minister Theresa May however may have set a record.  May did not hesitate in immediately blaming the Internet and calling for government regulation of free speech to combat attacks like the one in London.  Of course, if these terrorists were connected to ISIS (or inspired by ISIS), their extremism was not caused by free speech on the Internet.  Indeed, the Internet often allows security to track extremists on the web.

May wants new rules for cyberspace would “deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online” and impose new controls over such speech.  Governments have long sought to regulate the Internet, which remains the single greatest invention for free speech since the emergence of the printing press.  Government naturally gravitate toward more and more control over communications.  China has taken the lead in curtailing free speech on the Internet but Western nations often run into free speech principles when officials demand control over the web.  Thus, governments often wait for an attack to try to get people to surrender their free speech willingly.  There is nothing like fear to get a free people to give up part of their freedom.

The only thing missing was May saying “England Prevails”:


England of course has been a free fall for free speech.  We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.

The combination of the increasing English criminalization of speech with new Internet controls could be a deadly combination for free speech.  It is alarming how many citizens will dismiss free speech principles when told that less freedom will make them more safe. It is the ancient Siren’s Call of all governments.  May is only the latest government official to blame free speech – an easy target for governments who long for greater control over communications.  However, the United Kingdom shows that it is easy to surrender rights but it is very hard to regain those rights.  Citizens should tell May that her job is to make Britain safe while preserving the freedoms that define Britain.

60 thoughts on “May Calls For Free Speech Controls on the Internet In Response To London Attacks”

  1. Eric understands the internet very well. He knows how to control it and uses it relentlessly in the pursuit of more money and power. He sells those services to the IC, working hand in glove with them.

    There are people trying to recreate the internet so that people like Eric can no longer have the kind of control they do have over it. I hope they succeed.

  2. The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn’t understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.

    Eric Schmidt

  3. I have been watching a lot of documentaries on the Italian and Irish mafia. You really want them to be able to talk. That is where you get all the good info.

    1. Paul,

      You think and believe exactly like some of the faculty members at Evergreen. While they are authoritarians of the left, you are an authoritarian of the right.

      Torture is against our law. If you advocate torture you advocate renouncing the rights innumerated in our Constitution. One of the Evergreen professors agrees about this entirely with you. She also does not support the rule of law. She stated that certain people do not have rights. That is exactly your argument here. Certain people, those people you don’t like, don’t have rights. You are in essential agreement over a profound idea–that rights only apply sometimes, to people whom we like, and otherwise, they do not apply.

      I think the govt. has done very well in encouraging people, both right and left, to end their support for the rule of law and to join with the oligarchy in supporting a police state. They have done a very good job. I’m sorry that you are willing to allow the violations of the rights of others. Someday, that person who has no rights may be you or a friend.

      1. Jill – I went to college in the early 60s when students were taking over colleges and one of things I learned was that only a small portion of the student body was involved. Most just wanted to go to class and get their degree. They could care less who took over the President’s office or ROTC, etc. Actually, they were a big joke on campus, nobody respected them, except the faculty that were directing their movements.

        I do not thing students have a right to slander other students or faculty on campus, nor shut down their ability to speak. And I think if they do, they lose their right to speak. Speech on college campuses in not absolute.

        1. Paul,

          We agree that it is wrong to slander other students or faculty as well as shut down their ability to speak.

          I was responding to your recommendation of torture, even though torture is against our law and even against the law in the UK,.

  4. Look what else Ms. May has suppressed:

    Clearly, her actions are about the control of the population, not keeping people safe from terrorism. If you want to stop terrorists here is a plan: 1. stop creating them by bombing 2. stop funding them 3. stop training them using your nation’s special forces 4. stop passing along intelligence to them 5. quit ignoring warning, that just looks like you may have wanted it to go down and don’t care about civilian deaths (which you don’t) 6. stop arming known supporters of terrorists (See Ken Roger’s post above)

    A robust internet is a threat to repressive govts. It is necessary to curb free speech because that govt. and ours is doing great evil in the world. Neither govt. wants their own citizens to know what they are doing or to oppose them. Human life means nothing to either govt. That is the truth, a truth they wish suppressed at all costs.

  5. Here’s a very good example of why Theresa May wants to control information on the Internet:

    “Terror in Britain: What Did the Prime Minister Know?
    “By John Pilger, John Pilger’s Website, 01 June 17

    “The unsayable in Britain’s general election campaign is this.The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy.
    “Critical questions – such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist ‘assets’ in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst – remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal ‘review.’

    “The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.
    The LIFG is described by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a ‘hardline Islamic state’ in Libya and ‘is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida.’
    [Emphasis added]

    “The ‘smoking gun’ is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in ‘battle:’ first to remove Mu’ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

    “Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a ‘terrorist watch list’ and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a ‘political target’ in Britain. Why wasn’t he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?

    “These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the ‘lone wolf’ spin in the wake of the 22 May attack – thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump’s apology.

    “The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain’s biggest weapons customer. [Emphasis added]

    1. “By John Pilger,

      Have you considered retailing the National Inquirer. ?

  6. I will again point out, the leaders of the UK, Italy, France and Germany are all childless. That is a visceral problem.

    1. The American/European/Australian birthrates are in a “death spiral.” It will be impossible “…to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” as soon there will be no posterity. The true misogyny is that which is engaged in by women who absolutely hate the “natural” birth process and the “natural” imperative of a lifetime of bearing and nurturing offspring – women who reject the “natural” physical requirement of women to perpetuate the family/race/species. Merkel is a barren woman who was raised in East Germany, indoctrinated and trained by radical communists, which cannot be considered “mainstream” or “normal.” The President of France married “his mother” who criminally abused him in school.

      1. No, they’re not. Total fertility rates in the United States, Ireland, France, Britain, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and 3 of the 5 Scandinavian states are adequate. Russia’s has been depressed for a generation, but has been improving at a considerable clip the last 15 years or so.

        1. Let’s see.

          A population of 760 million and falling, on a planet with 7 billion.

          Doesn’t exactly sound like hegemony.

          Looks like foreign women have been working very hard.

          Are population levels natural evolution or intelligent design?

  7. Here’s what is scaring elitists in government. Their primary and in my thoughts, ONLY duty, is to keep its people safe. They can’t do that. Fine. Then LET US keep ourselves safe. Let us defend ourselves. Those poor bloaks in the UK can’t own a gun and now their govt. wants to take away MORE of their speech rights. The tipping point is coming. People are starting to realize more PERSONAL freedom and LESS govt. is what our current situation is screaming. Churchill is spinning in his grave.

    1. Is Trump trying to provoke a terrorist attack to take personal freedoms ? Would not put it past him.

      1. Good question Joe. Please tell us what prompted you to ask it and we can analyze it to provide a reasonable answer.

  8. T. May wants some controls on free speech. In England religious schools get government money. All major religions get government money for their schools.

    1. May is trying to get elected. Now she is barely ahead of the far left Corbyn.

  9. Theresa May spends too much time in the powder room.

    She paints her finger nails bloody red & lipstick is bloody red. Notice the jewelry she wears. Necklace, rings & bracelets say something. High maintenance is top priority.

    1. Shall we extrapolate then that Hillary in the gutter, literally, is “low maintenance”

      and therefore ironically “attractive?”

  10. OT, but extremely coincidental.
    I read a couple of reviews for David Horowitz’s books today on Amazon.
    I go to Salon to read an article by Bill Moyers,.
    In the middle of the article a video pops up from the WaPo:
    “David Horowitz’s charity ties to the White House”
    All I can say is:

  11. I should really read what Ms May actually proposed.
    In war there is censorship till the war is over. I am not advocating this, I am just putting it out there. Ms May, I guess, is going beyond war type censorship as its is not a old style war.
    We have this crazy civil war in Syria. In case you haven’t noticed much chaos is spreading. The US is not exactly neutral in this endeavor. Its picked a side. Its not even a winning side. Its like build-a-side-workshop.

  12. Um, England doesn’t have a First Amendment. It’s a monarchy. They have a Queen.

    1. England is part of the United Kingdom, a constitutional monarchy

      in which power is exercised by a Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament.

      The United Kingdom may use the English language to effect, through

      translation, understanding of the universal language of freedom

      coined by the American Founders to hold dominion in perpetuity.

      The American Founders considered every possible freedom to be “natural,”

      “God-given,” inalienable and universal.

  13. Yes, let’s drive ISIS off the open web and force them to use VPNs and dark web onion sites. That will help!

    1. Conversations that cannot take place in open society will take place in the dark hidden places where reasonable people have no chance to refute the dangerous arguments and less chance to inform themselves of dangerous forces organizing in our midst.

      Let them talk openly. That way we have a chance to learn their values, their strategy, how they recruit, who they recruit, and maybe lean enough thwart their next attack.

  14. 1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I think we can all understand that.

    It means that the SOVEREIGN, the People, will direct the SUBJECT of the SOVEREIGN, the government,

    to effect security using means and methods other than those which violate the Constitution.

    Since the welfare state is funded through unconstitutional redistribution, American must shut it all down

    and fund security appropriately and to the level necessary with the proceeds.

    The United Kingdom may use the English language to effect translation of the universal language of

    freedom coined by the American Founders to hold dominion in perpetuity.

  15. “It is alarming how many citizens will dismiss free speech principles when told that less freedom will make them more safe.”

    It was inevitable that May would exploit the London Terrorist Attacks as an excuse to propose censoring the internet. The Oligarchy is terrified that we’re able to investigate many issues instead of swallowing the propaganda-pap fed to us via their corporate-MSM shills.

    The Oligarchy needs a tame, subservient population willing to nod our heads compliantly–any deviation from their agenda (Wars 4 Profit, Monsanto land grabs, Corporate-take-all control) is upsetting to their accumulation of wealth. Brexit surprised them. Hillary’s loss shocked them. Now they’ve got to find a way to isolate us from communicating with each other.

    Hillary also barked hints at censoring the internet during her CodeCon screed last week. She’s blaming Russia–but what she didn’t bet on, was that many progressives, including many feminists would spend time studying the backgrounds; track-records; and inconsistencies in what the candidates said versus their actions. Many decent people, Democrat & Republican, don’t like a cheat. Bernie Sanders was cheated–and Hillary’s attempt to re-write history won’t alter that fact.

    But, if they can censor the internet–here, Trump’s lackeys are already doing it by trampling on Net Neutrality. Well, it’s coming. The UK uses processes and procedures: their people comply. Here, our politicos will use sophistry–they control US via money: ergo, they’ll claim that the internet is still free & open–but in truth, the rich will be able to access anything they want–whilst the rest of us won’t be able to afford the costs to access many sources of information: That’s the worst kind of betrayal of Freedom of Speech.

    1. I still want to know what dirt did Hillary have on Bernie that she got him to campaign for her after she shafted him in the primaries. I would have told her to kiss a duck. However, one of the Podesta emails mentions that they have something and I would love to know what it was.

        1. Those who oppose the Clintons usually go POOF one way or another. Hillary plays hard-ball. Tho’ I suspect that she “advised” Bernie Sanders that if he didn’t support her, that she’d destroy him politically or even worse. She’s out for herself–with no concern for our nation–ergo, we have Trump.

          “Hitch” had her number:–

        2. CV Brown – it wasn’t covered in the MSM, so I don’t know what implant he had. What was it?

    1. How very astute. The Founders made it clear that this experiment would require “good men.”

Comments are closed.