Free Speech, International

The Blair Witch Project: Former Prime Minister Calls for Global Censorship

In the 1999 cult classic The Blair Witch Project, one character tells his friends “I could help you, but I’d rather stand here and record.” For free speech advocates, we often feel that other citizens have become passive observers as an anti-free speech movement grows around us, threatening our “indispensable right.”

One of the most infamous figures in this movement has been former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has long been the smiling face of censorship. As the head of the Labour Party, Blair pushed through some of the early crackdowns on free speech in the United Kingdom. He is now calling for global censorship to expand these efforts.

In an interview on LBC Radio, Blair declared:

“The world is going to have to come together and agree on some rules around social media platforms. It’s not just how people can provoke hostility and hatred but I think… the impact on young people particularly when they’ve got access to mobile phones very young and they are reading a whole lot of stuff and receiving a whole lot of stuff that I think is really messing with their minds in a big way.”

We recently discussed how the UK is already using recent rioting to crackdown further on those with opposing or “toxic” views.

For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”

Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:

“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”

Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.

After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”

Blair’s views have been echoed by Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle who declared:

“Misinformation is dangerous. Social media is good but its also bad when people are using it in a way that could cause a riot, threat, intimidation, suggesting that we should attack somebody, it’s not acceptable. What we’ve got to do is factually correct what’s up there, if not I think the government has to think long and hard about what they are going to do about social media and what are they going to put through parliament as a bill.

“I believe it should be across, it doesn’t matter what country you are in, the fact is that misinformation is dangerous and no misinformation, or threats, or intimidation should be allowed to be carried out on social media platforms.”

As with the effort in Brazil to block X entirely for refusing to censor political opponents of the government, Blair’s call for global censorship is where the movement is going next.

Notably, after Musk purchased Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). Recently, Democratic leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised Brazil for its action to prevent citizens from having access to unfettered news sources.

Interviews like the one with Tony Blair are not just jump scares meant to intimidate or scare others. They reflect a comprehensive campaign from our political elite to enforce censorship on a national and transnational scale. If you think that this latest Blair Witch Project is just another scary production, you have not been paying attention.

211 thoughts on “The Blair Witch Project: Former Prime Minister Calls for Global Censorship”

  1. Censorship – in any nation – targets what is “obscene”. The problem is the definition of “obscene” is highly subjective and changes over time.

    In 1900, it was considered highly “obscene” for women to work as doctors, construction, military combat and to vote. If social media existed, this “obscene” content would likely be censored in the USA and worldwide.

    In the USA prior to 1930, it was viewed as “obscene” for men to appear topless on a public beach. In 1960, it was “obscene” to view an interracial married couple. LGBT-Americans were viewed as “obscene” into the 21st Century.

    That’s why in the 1970’s, Hollywood empowered “parents” [private adult citizens] with censorship authority (parental ratings system), since government officials should never censor and have no such authority under our First Amendment. This same system could easily be applied too social media empowering parents with viewing filters for their children.

  2. It’s way part time for the professor to do like the WSJ and require people to be named. This anonymous thing has gone way too far.

    1. Why would exercising free speech require identification, and exercising a vote in a National election require no identification?

  3. Oliver Reeder, you got all quirky when I referenced Bates vs. the UK Postal Service. You complained it was old news and taken care of despite the fact that those who caused the crime weren’t arrested and jailed and those who were wrongfully incarcerated either remain in jail or weren’t properly handed monetary damages to pay for their losses.

    OK. You need more (instead, you should be horrified), so I will provide it. An American wrote it. Are the British writers all in jail?

    September 9, 2024 at 5:00 am
    “Britain’s new leader, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in the tried-and-true way of Communist dictators, has begun his first term by initiating a great purge of British dissidents.

    British protesters, denounced as “far right thugs,” are being put behind bars faster than the prison services can absorb…. The youngest child arrested and charged is just 11 years old.

    Because the prisons, already overflowing, cannot handle the sudden influx of mass-sentenced wrongthinkers, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced that to make room for the dissidents, it will be freeing early roughly 5,500 criminals… who “will include criminals convicted of violence…”

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20923/uk-starmer-dictatorship

  4. Tony Blair is well recognized as one of the great villains of modern times, esp in Britain. He’s the major villain in Douglas Murray’s famous Bk “The Strange Death Of Europe”. Sell-out Minister Tony Blair absurdly declared that Islam is a religion of peace.

    “Tony Blair’s government oversaw an opening of the borders on a scale unparalleled even in the post-war decades. They abolished the ‘primary purpose rule’, which had attempted to filter out bogus marriage applications. They opened the borders to anyone deemed essential to the British economy – a definition so broad that it included restaurant workers as ‘skilled labourers’….” Under Blair’s minister Roche “everyone entering Britain, whether he or she had a job to go to or not, was turned into an ‘economic migrant’. Wherever there was any criticism of her policy, either internally or externally, Roche dismissed it as racist. Indeed Roche – who criticised colleagues for being too white – insisted that even the mention of immigration policy was racist.” —
    Murray, Douglas. The Strange Death of Europe.

    Following the money, Tony Blair got the contract to sell the Saudis 72 Eurofighter Typhoon Jets worth billions of pounds.
    “The deal including weapons could be worth up to 20 billion pounds to prime contractor BAE Systems and firms spread across Europe as well as in Saudi Arabia:”
    https://www.reuters.com/article/saudi-eurofighter-idUSL1720340020070917/

  5. In today’s world, “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it,” has been consigned to the trash heap of history, and repeating those words may very well send you to prison.

    1. That quote refers to authentic speakers who enter the public square with civility, honor and out-of-the-box thinking.

      It has little relevance to militant infowarriors who use conniving tactics to manipulate, won’t reveal their true identity and purpose, and use falsehoods and deceptions to dupe the gullible for political effect.

      We are at the point in the free speech policy debate where authenticity of the speaker comes to the forefront. If we can’t make this distinction, then the future will be a dystopia of unrestrained infowarfare, where the most compelling liars compete for power, and truth-seekers are pushed to the margins.

      1. Under the umbrella of “free speech”, does that include the freedom to dupe the unsuspecting toward political ends? Does it go that far? If so, what are the consequences of the moral undoing?

        The Founders were clear that only a moral citizenry could enjoy freedom with order. They understood that morality has to be upheld where it is slipping.

        1. “The Founders were clear that only a moral citizenry could enjoy freedom with order. They understood that morality has to be upheld where it is slipping.”

          That is correct, but there is no morality in the Democrat Party that proves to be confirmed with almost every action they take.

        2. As Matt Taibbi has noticed:

          The government never provides “misinformation”.

          All information provided by the government is correct and truthful.

          Only opponents of the government provide misinformation.

          That sums things up for you, pbinca….right?

  7. * Brock’s home was invaded and Professor Turley doesnt know everyone’s home is being invaded and searched. Ah ha, PT still believes in myths like private property and due process even after the invasion of DJT home with U-Haul in tow.

    Cultures when compared and contrasted are more dissimilar than similar. There’s some kind of blind spot and people just can’t see most Chinese live in China and most Africans live in Africa and most Arabs live in the middle east and most East Indians live in India and Norwegians live in….people NATURALLY segregate you Nimrods. It’s hardwired.

    People wonder who is behind this mess. It’s Ted Kocynsky.

  8. If you have time (video is a little long), I suggest watching the whole interview.
    Mike Benz puts it right out there. Free Speech is a weaponized tool to be ‘taken-or-given’ at toward the advantage of the State,
    like Niccolò Machiavelli maneuver.

    Mike Benz: The Deep State’s Step-by-Step Plan to End Free Speech
    Mike Benz joins Tucker to discuss Zuckerberg’s confession about Big Tech censorship, the arrest of Pavel Durov, and how to save free speech.
    By: Tucker Carlson – TCN ~ August 29th 2024
    https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-benz-2

    Video:
    https://iframe.cloudflarestream.com/f4dba3ad3b0d0bd6925ef2b993655575?preload=metadata&autoplay=true

  9. So, here’s a little history lesson on censorship and the people behind it:
    When the COMMUNIST BOLSHEVIK JEWS seized control of Russia after the so-called “Russian Revolution”, the first thing they did was institute “anti-Semitism laws”, punishable by death.

    The same people run it today.

      1. LOL I love it when a JEW calls a FACT (which cannot be disputed, THUS THE JEW DID NOT DISPUTE IT) “psychosis”.
        It’s a historical fact, hook nose.
        Can’t do anything about it, can you?

        1. And so every homicidal action taken by every Christian and others of non-Jewish faith across world history, of which there are countless examples, should be ascribed to THEIR faiths?

        2. If you were to say that to my face, I could do something about it. But you are a keyboard warrior and a coward.

          1. Let me guess. Like any Jew, you would use anything except the TRUTH.
            Violence is what the Jew calls on.
            AS SEEN HERE. AS ADMITTED BY THE JEW IN PERSON.

    2. Downright nasty.
      Look: Communism is an ideology that supports totalitarian control.
      Bolshevism is a subset of communism.
      Judaism is neither.
      Linking them as you do is hateful in the extreme. It also suggests an inability to think clearly.

      1. Here’s a Jew that has a very specific agenda. It wants you to NOT know that communism comes from Judaism.
        Except…it does.
        And nothing you say or do will change that FACT.

        2. That is downright silly. Of course, Marx was a renegade Jew. Even in the 19th century, however, there were plenty of socialists and revolutionaries who were not Jewish. The concept of a state where property is shared may be found in Plato’s Republic and in St. Thomas More’s Utopia. In the primitive Jerusalem church, “all things were held in common.” Many traditional peoples have uncertain concepts of personal property. Out of all these, how is communism a Jewish phenomenon?

          Neither Plato nor St. Thomas More, for your information, were Jewish.

          Racial hatred is always and everywhere a symptom of an inability to think clearly.

    3. So, here’s a little history lesson on censorship and the people behind it: When the COMMUNIST BOLSHEVIK JEWS… The same people run it today.

      Got us another little Hamas supporter, wandering around lost looking for his buddy’s in the Democrats New Hitler Youth Movement.

      I mean… EVERYBODY knows that it’s those filthy Jewz running Obama’s Third Term with Biden now as their puppet. Obama and Biden were just pretending to be anti-Semitic… it’s been the filthy Jewz false flag operation, right from the start.

      1. LOL @ pretending to be “anti-Semitic”.
        Here’s where an IDIOT and an IMBECILE RUNS AWAY and avoids the following FACT:
        OBAMA AND BIDEN HAVE CABINETS THAT ARE 90% JEWISH.
        HOW DOES THAT QUALIFY THEM AS “ANTI-SEMITIC” AGAIN?
        YOU STUPID LITTLE IMBECILE???

        1. OBAMA AND BIDEN HAVE CABINETS THAT ARE 90% JEWISH.

          Well we know no what constitutes a “fact” for you.

      2. And by the way, you child grooming lefty you, the false “Israel” CREATED HAMAS…just like they created ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service).
        YOU IDIOT.

Comments are closed.