by Jeff Davis
Yet another liberal-motivated attempt to censor the Internet has appeared in the Jewish-controlled state of New York.
A ZeroHedge article reports “In a bill aimed at securing a ‘right to be forgotten,’ introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella, liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others…”
“Within 30 days of a request from an individual, ‘all search engines and online speakers shall remove content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive, and without replacing such removed content with any disclaimer or takedown notice.’”
And who would decide what is true? Would websites that list unproven crimes by Hillary Clinton be forced to shut down because our (corrupt) judicial system has failed to drag the corrupt pantsuit into the light to answer for her crimes?
The article continues “Inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive shall mean content which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest, with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or matter that is of significant current public interest and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”
Well who cares about the mysterious death of Vince Foster anymore? That’s completely irrelevant to the modern political situation unless of course you happen to be Seth Rich, that Black UN guy with the barbell or maybe Roger Stone, who appears to have been the target of two assassination attempts since the defeat of Hillary.
Again, who gets to make the above determination? By what standards?
The article notes “Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.”
“As The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh rages, under this bill newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was ‘no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was ‘related to convicted felonies’ or ‘legal matters relating to violence’ in which the subject played a ‘central and substantial’ role).”
It sounds like the whole thing is meant to put money in the pockets of lawyers as well as scrub the records of dirty politicians. After all, the Democrats don’t want people like Juanita Broaddrick popping up accusing their Democrat royalty of things like rape.
The article continues “And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was ‘no longer material to current public debate.’ Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.”
“But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).”
More and more the totalitarians who rule us are becoming frantic to find some way to make the people SHUT UP.
That means censoring or controlling the Internet. Angela Merkel’s Germany just recently announced that Facebook and Twitter must remove what-they-consider “hate speech” or face fines of millions of euros for failure to do so. Pointing out that Muslims are sexually attacking pretty, young White girls and creating “No Go” zones unsafe for White people in their neighborhoods is almost certainly “hate speech” because Merkel doesn’t want any discussion of whether Germany is better off without Muslim and African invaders.
In this country there are still a few minor stumbling blocks for leftist/Jewish restriction of Free Speech, like that pesky Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thankfully Donald Trump is president and our freedoms may last a little while longer. Hopefully we’ll use our time wisely so that we protect the White majority that is so important to having a free Republic so that a non-White majority led by Jewish Marxists doesn’t remove our Rights one by one as is happening in New York and California.