London Mayor Joins Call For Censoring and Fining Internet Companies

England flagThe mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, used the annual SXSW festival in Austin to join other European leaders in calling for tech companies to censor hate speech and be subject to government regulations for fines for violations.  Khan read hateful messages against him to support the need for a crackdown — ignoring the free speech implications of such government regulation.


Instead, Khan insisted that censorship is the only way to protect the children: “But ask yourself this, what happens when young boys and girls from minority backgrounds see this kind of thing on their timelines or experience this themselves?”Of course, civil libertarians have much greater fear of raising children in an environment of regulated speech and forums.  Nevertheless, Kahn insisted that “social media platforms [must] live up to their promises to connect, unify, and democratize the sharing of information and be places where everyone feels welcomed and valued.” Or face fines.

Both France and Germany are pursuing new laws that would take it upon themselves to police the Internet.

Khan insisted “This isn’t about depriving people of free speech — this is about inciting hatred. This is about things that divide our community.”

Khan is an example of how the greatest threats to free speech seems to be coming from the left as politicians and activists seek to eliminate “harmful speech” while leaving to their government to define what meets that ambiguous definition.

Khan did not mention English laws that have expanded steadily in the criminalization of speech to cover insults and objectionable statements.  His desire to take that level of speech regulation to the Internet is chilling.  The fact that he has found a forum in the United States to try to convince people to embrace speech regulation is glacially chilling.

44 thoughts on “London Mayor Joins Call For Censoring and Fining Internet Companies”

  1. Khan we have a rational discussion about this?

    Khan of worms,it seems.

  2. Seems there is quite the free speech problem in the UK. The Englishwoman who wrote this post: has been questioned by police for using Twitter to criticize Susie Green, the leader of the “Mermaids” transgender children’s charity, for taking her son to Thailand at age 16 for castration and sexual reassignment surgery. Sexual reassignment surgery is not legal for those under 18 in the UK, so Green took her son to Thailand, where it was legal at that time (Thailand has since raised the age to 18). The woman questioned by police for criticizing Green also described Mermaids’ practice of placing tables of cookies and candy at gay pride events as “preying on gay teenagers” and described Mermaids’ lobbying the medical community to lower the age limit for sexual reassignment surgeries from 18 to 16 or younger as “mass child abuse.”

    Green complained about the tweets to police; Twitter handed over the woman’s name and contact information to the police, who then questioned the woman under caution and told her she is a “test case.”

    The woman was told that the term “castration” was Green’s main objection, yet, it is a known and well publicized fact that Green’s son was castrated at age 16 in Thailand. Therefore, it appears that at least in this case, stating facts can get a person in England questioned by police for possible hate crime.

  3. Khan of Londistan – globalist using PC “hate” rhetoric to cobble together the unthinking Left who continue to shore up the hopes for Brexit failure.

    Between him and foolish May stirring up unfounded stuff about the Russians the UK is looking bleak.

  4. It seems everything the Left advocates these days is related to “protecting” people from life. What comes next? Killing everyone to save them from the vagaries of the human condition? Aborting them before birth to spare them a lifetime of hardship? Why don’t we just get rid of all the human beings as a way to end all pain, suffering, and strife? Yes, the Nanny Left will save us from ourselves.

    “The only good human being is a dead one.” ~ George Orwell.

  5. If some Parliamentarian utters an ugly word like S___, or F___, or N______ then the government needs to be fined.

  6. The best protection of free speech is that censorship does not work! It never accomplishes its goals, and the internet gives many weapons to those who refuse to be censored. The social media will impose “robots-filters” that will make for some hilarious party material, but do nothing to protect the precious children. Courts and juries will be totally at sea about what qualifies as “hate language”. They’ll also despair at “fake news” because it’s often an intentional misinterpretation of undisputed facts – which will be protected, no matter how outrageous – and not outright lies. Afterwards, real people, not bots, will re-share the “hate” stuff by the millions. The government will have done the “haters” a favor by publicly identifying it so they can deluge the media with it later.

  7. If Sadiq Khan has his way, we would not even be reading this article about Sadiq Khan advocating what he is. Because the very act of writing about him makes him feel un-welcomed and un-valued.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  8. He’s preaching to the choir at SXSW, Silicon Valley are virtually Marxist royalty at this point. There are even some (Neoreactionaries) that would love to reinstate the monarchy. To whit – they are f******* loonies. I doubt he’d have many people’s ear outside of the confines of that millieu.

  9. We get these stories and then inevitably the blame game begins. It’s the Left I tell you, or it’s the Right. Democrats are to blame but then so are the Republicans. Liberals, Conservatives. Oligarchs. Etc. Etc. One thing is for certain, we as a people will all lose if we do not align on the principles in our Declaration of Independence. We are all created equal with natural and unalienable rights. This does not demand we all believe those rights come from God to make them real; just that we have them because of our existence. They do not come from government. And the one true purpose for government that every other thing government is supposed to do is to secure those rights.

    We won’t ever all agree on policy. That’s a normal part of our democracy. But the security of rights should never be something we compromise on. That should be our own Red Line with our government. If that’s not agreeable then I don’t know the point of these discussions. Is it to fight over who holds power when it comes to infringing the rights of others? This won’t end well. We are stacking up our own list of grievances that if we don’t resolve them peacefully will at some point require us to do so forcefully.

  10. The line that divides freedom of speech and inciting violence or harm on innocents is what defines the difference between these so called threats to ‘our way of life’. The difference is that both the US and these countries censor stuff. But, for the most part the US lets the results happen: gun violence, minority persecution, etc.; where other countries attempt to head off the violence. Compare the results and understand that the US is an oligarchy not governed by the best of the best. These other countries outlaw oligarchs funding elections. Sometimes the flag does not represent those flying the flag.

    1. @issacsbasonkavich

      I would respect you more if you just openly admitted that you support Canadian/European style hate speech laws for the US. And I would bet that you do not favor such laws when the radical or unpopular opinion comes from the left. Just admit it.


  11. Khan read hateful messages against him to support the need for a crackdown —
    Translation:. Stop offending me. Kahn. Also insisted that “social media platforms be places where everyone feels welcomed and valued.” Or face fines. NEWS FLASH
    This is PRIVATE business. If you or the government want everyone to feel welcomed,. Spend the money to start YOUR OWN internet company.

  12. England has always been noted for its censorship. Really this is just a continuation of centuries of abuse. Nothing new here.

      1. David Benson – censorship goes back to the Elizabethan period (maybe earlier) when the Lord Chamberlain had to approve all plays and books. That continued well into the mid-20th century. Once the Lord Chamberlain approved a play or a version of a play, you could not add to it. You could subtract though. You could delete lines or scenes, but not add them. And the Lord Chamberlain had men who checked on you.

        For instance, we know the original production of Macbeth (or Hamlet) was probably shortened by at least 15 minutes, maybe a little more. This is because we know that an uncut version of Macbeth (or Hamlet) runs slightly over 3 hours, but given the date, and time, the play opened and the time of sunset that day, they could not have done a 3-hour show, the last 15 minutes would have been in the dark. So Shakespeare and/or the Lord Chamberlain’s Men chopped 15 minutes from the play. The diary entry we have about the play does not mention seeing the end in the dark.

                  1. David Benson – It is the area of my expertise. My thesis was on Ben Jonson’s Epicoene, or The Silent Woman. The play falls under the Lord Chamberlain and has to be approved by his office before it can be produced. I know far more about this than I want. 😉

      2. “Centuries? Exceedingly doubtful.”

        I think we can trace censorship back as far as the mind can see,

        Socrates is a name that should come to mind. Plato’s Republic advocates censorship. Wasn’t there Roman censorship? The Romans conquered England.

  13. If they pass laws like that, I would no longer be able to go around hollering about the 77% Illegitimate Black Birth Rate, or the black criminal violence stats. I would probably be prevented from calling illegal aliens, illegal. I could no longer say that American women have pretty much become a group of money grubbing, promiscuous, twits.

    Start thinking of the things that you could no longer say on a personal level.

    This stuff is already occurring on youtube, where people like Colin Flaherty and Tommy Sotomayor have had their channels taken down.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. Because Google (which owns YouTube) and other West Coast tech companies largely line up with you, ideologically. The next wave of censorship, however, may come from those who are incensed by women wearing pants.

  14. How dare he! Threats to freedom always come from the left: free speech might force them to face reality.

    ‘Hate speech’ is the expression of any point of view that is not theirs – which is why the term is nebulous.

    1. No, threats to freedom come equally from the far right; witness Poland.

      1. I haven’t heard that they’re rounding up thought criminals in Poland as they do in Britain, France and Germany.

        1. You haven’t heard of their new laws criminalizing any suggestion of Polish complicity in the Holocaust?

      2. @ David B. Benson

        God bless Poland, Hungary and Slovakia for not wanting their countries to become like London, Paris, Hamburg, Berlin, Brussels, etc. Plus you can get arrested for noticing and complaining of the invasion on social media.

    2. Threats to freedom always come from the left:

      Except as concerns religious indoctrination in schools, flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, homosexuality, pornography, immigration, drugs, police tactics, reproductive choice, transgenderism… just jump in any time if you feel I’ve left something out.

      1. I don’t think you have put “something in”. Like why opposing immigration is opposing freedom. Or, why not giving in to the mental illness of transgenderism is opposing freedom. Or, how NOT burning a flag in public really just tramples all over ones individual freedom.

        Crap, dude, haven’t you ever noticed these little thingies called LAWS??? Which prevent us from doing all sorts of things. Like having a pig farm in a neighborhood. Or catching more fish than is permitted, or killing more deer than is permitted. Or, not dumping our fecal matter out in the streets. Or, not driving as fast as we want to in a school zone.

        But no, leave it to a Leftist to conflate not wishing to pretend that a couple of Sodomites are really the same as a man and a woman to an assault on freedom.

        You are a perfect example of a person without a sense of perspective.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. It’s pretty self-evident that moving across imaginary lines on a map without let or hindrance is a form of freedom. That you think such hindrance is justified does not change that.

          Likewise, to do with one’s body as one pleases, to call oneself by a name of one’s own choosing, dress as one chooses, etc. are also clearly a form of freedom. That you think some of these choices to be disordered doesn’t change that.

          Not burning a flag isn’t necessarily a trampling of one’s freedom, if it is that person’s choice not to burn it, as opposed to being compelled under penalty of law not do to it. The latter is clearly an infringement of freedom. That it is a form of freedom you despise does not change that.

          Of course there are forms of restrictions on freedom that are justified. Indeed, the Left has its arguments for every restriction they would place on your freedom, as you have your arguments for restricting theirs. Some of them have merit, many do not. That’s the point. Threats to freedom come from the left AND the right. Understanding what is an unjustifiable threat to freedom, versus what is a necessary concession to the rights of others, requires an evaluation of those arguments.

            1. Certainly, that’s currently a phenomenon of the Left. However, that’s only one threat to freedom among many. For instance, dragging children out of their seats for refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance seems to be a Right Wing thing.

              But I guess being able to look at things from more than one narrow viewpoint would count as “lacking a sense of perspective” in your book.

              1. Yes, Dave, one kid getting drug out of his chair is the equivalent of numerous left wing attacks on Conservative Speakers. Because kids get drug out of their chairs all the time in America. Sooo, is that one kid getting drug out of his chair “currently a phenomenon of the Right”, to use your own words?


                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. My reply has been held up in moderation due to links. You’ll notice I have two examples, not one. If my links ever get out of moderation, that’ll make four more.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: