Jacinda Ardern may no longer be Prime Minister of New Zealand, but she was back at the United Nations continuing her call for international censorship. Ardern is now one of the leading anti-free speech figures in the world and continues to draw support from political and academic establishments. In her latest attack on free speech, Ardean declared free speech as a virtual weapon of war. She is demanding that the world join her in battling free speech as part of its own war against “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Her views, of course, were not only enthusiastically embraced by authoritarian countries, but the government and academic elite.
In her speech, she notes that we cannot allow free speech to get in the way of fighting things like climate change. She notes that they cannot win the war on climate change if people do not believe them about the underlying problem. The solution is to silence those with opposing views. It is that simple.
While some of us have denounced her views as an attack on free expression, Harvard rushed to give her not one but two fellowships. While the free speech community denounced her for unrelenting attacks on this human right, Harvard praised her for “strong and empathetic political leadership” and specifically enlisted her to help “improve content standards and platform accountability for extremist content online.”
I actually have no objection to the inclusion of Ardern as a Harvard fellow. She is a former world leader who is leading the movement against free speech. It is a view that students should consider in looking at these controversies. However, Harvard has heralded her views with no acknowledgment of her extreme antagonism toward free speech principles. There is also little countervailing balance at the school with fellows supporting free speech as a human right. Rather, Harvard (which ranks dead last on the recent free speech survey) has become a virtual clearinghouse for anti-free speech academics and advocates.
Free speech is now commonly treated on campuses as harmful. Rather than the right that defines us, it is treated as an existential threat.
What is so chilling is to hear Ardean express her fealty to free speech as she calls on the nations of the world to severely curtail it to prevent people from undermining their policies and priorities. She remains the “empathetic” face of raw censorship and intolerance. She is now the virtual ambassador-at-large for global speech regulation and criminalization.
How childish afe these people to say they can’t win an argument unless they are allowed to use the force of government to do so. “Give me your wallet and your wrist watch or I will shoot you.”
Is it intentional to mis-spell her name or just a typo?
So she has deserted ‘her people’ in the search for more money. Perhaps Tony Blair just wants her to keep the grass in their garden short.
Free speech is an interesting topic. In New Zealand we have the birth of the Labour Government inspired Disinformation Project where disinformation, misinformation and malformation (means information that is true but said with bad intent) are actively monitored on social media and elsewhere.
Our present Labour Government has spent $200,000 on ‘social media listening reports’. They have compiled 52 reports and refuse to make them public.
I’m no lawyer however common sense suggests that:
To be prosecuted for telling ‘lies’ intentionally or unintentionally or telling the ‘truth’ with bad intent, I would have thought both intent and motive need to be proved. For example; how do you prove intent when the ‘naughty’ writer may say it was meant as sarcasm or a joke. Also, how could motive be proved when comments on any controversial post on X (Twitter is much more appropriate name) always includes those that agree, those that disagree and likely, everything in-between. There is rarely any consensus of opinion. So what exactly was the motivation? Maybe to create controversy?
In summary its a load of nonsense however, as long as it keeps our ex (speak with kindness, be transparent and honest – her words) totalitarian leader Ardern’s jackboot well away from the necks of us Kiwis, it could be considered a bonus for us Kiwis.
Aa a final comment, this joke may resonate with Kiwis.
Reporter to Ardern: What is your favourite lie?
Ardern: I never lie. (she actually said that!)
Reporter: Yes! thats also my favourite lie.
As a citizen of the country she formerly ruled (as opposed to governed) I have found that the best thing to do is the opposite of what she prescribes.
She was so far behind the science on Covid – not that she would have understood a jot of it. And her infanilising the nation with her daily blathering from the “podium of truth” was vomit inducing. When she forced the vaccine on people (after the Israelis had clearly demonstrated it didn’t work) I was fortunate to not be mandated to have to have it. A 24 hour bout of fever and covid was over for me, unlike those who took the jab and have had multiple bouts, and still take precautions to avoid it.
I agree with Ardean we must be intolerant and crack down on speech we don’t agree with. Therefore, Ardean must be silenced and not permitted to speak in public or at Harvard.
yep Agree
WHat Else do expect in CHINA – They lock you up – Brain Dead
https://www.facebook.com/100006616066495/posts/315350677811114/?vh=e&extid=MSG-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C
Sure it is not the pathetic face of of leftist shiiteholism that she is wearing?
The significant typo in Jacinda’s last name is rather something here.