And so it begins . . .

An ominous indication of how freedom of speech, always and forever under threat everywhere, will gradually but inexorably be strangled in Europe.  According to a report at Zero Hedge, the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) has just laid down an order that any decision by any national court in the EU ordering the likes of 'Facebook' to remove what it considers to be 'defamatory material', need not be confined just to that one country but should apply to all of Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.  Thus, if a court in, say, Bulgaria, a nation whose legal heritage and defence of free speech is 'legendary' (by which I mean it's mostly a legend!) decides that a post on 'Facebook' stating that the Head of the Bulgarian Police is a total ratbag for sundry reasons, then 'Facebook' must remove it from their worldwide net.  Thus, we ardent followers of the latest 'news 'n' views' of Bulgarian affairs will never know!

OK, I can live without that particular speck of detritus but what about the very much bigger reports on the bully boys of Brussels?  Are they, so to speak, to have their messy bottoms wiped clean and sprayed with perfume everytime they fart?  Are we not to learn exactly how much booze 'Junck the Drunk' tips down his throat everyday at our expense?  There is only one response to this creepy injunction - PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED! - or be sued but let us know about it!

 

 

 

Comments

[Bob]

It's impossible to have any sympathy for Facebook. That greedy, Peeping Tom parasite Mark Zuckerberg is trying to get away with broadcasting political ads without checking accuracy at all. He wants to make money acting as a media outlet with none of the responsibilities. In contrast, Twitter has done the right thing by not running any political ads. To quote the old adage: The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

[Loz]

You think that's bad, just wait and see what Dad's Army and the Bolsheviks have got in store for Blighty.

The only upside is DA & the B's are so bumblingly incompetent they'll likely not get round to it as their own chaos consumes them and us.

Consider Capt Mainwaring himself: unable to understand his own deal ...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-50352678

Expect more of that, to the point of it being "the new normal" (check 1975 for details).

SoD

[David Duff]

"broadcasting political ads without checking accuracy at all"

Exactly, Bob, and guess what, most/lots (you choose) will tell 'porkies'* irrespective of which side of the aisle they come. Consequently, should they gain power, they will be found out and revenge will be yours! Do you want to be held by the hand all of your life? And are you so ill-informed you can't spot a political 'porkie' from ten paces?

*"Porkie: Brit rhyming slang for 'lie', as in 'porkie pie = lie!

[Bob]

It's starting to seem that BoJo is essentially a show man. There's a lot of that going around lately.

And are you so ill-informed you can't spot a political 'porkie' from ten paces? ... asks the conspiracy theory believer. I hope you have a more developed sense of irony than I give you credit for, David.

[David Duff]

Bob,
I like "greedy, Peeping Tom parasites" like Mark Zuckerberg. 'Over here' we used to refer to them as "down at heel, dandruff-ridden Fleet Street rats with bad breath" - or something like that.

Of course, I so not believe them without some verification from other sources and if they are perpetually wrong then I ignore what they say. The point is, Bob, that unlike you, I do not require some pecksniff judge to tell me what I can read or not! 'Who judges the judges'?

[Bob]

David,

So you imagine that if the law holds media outlets responsible for disseminating outright lies, that equals a judge telling you what you can read. You're taking things a bit too personally.

[David Duff]

Bob, who decides what is truth and what is lies in your part of the universe? When your former President, a true Democrat, said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" did you require a judge to rule on whether of not he was a 'lyin' liar'?

[Bob]

David,

The Clintons are such a great comfort for righties. Some day Trump will serve that function for everyone else. As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives acted as judges in that case. Other judges revoked his law license.

Billy Boy parsed the meaning of the word "sex". To many people over here its only meaning is intercourse. Unfortunately for him it did not amuse the court.

[David Duff]

Bob, you really must try and free yourself from the Right/Left divide you inhabit. I have no particular interest in that minor sexual scandal, I simply used it as a litmus test.

What I want to know is what YOU think. You give the impression that judges, and only judges, may rule on truth or lies (or the myriad in-betweens!) and thus, so to speak, lay down the law for the rest of us.

I say, publish and be damned - or not - and I will decide for myself!

[Bob]

David,

Do I seem like an especially orthodox or gullible man to you? If so, you wound me, sir. Of course I can make up my own mind. Of course Clinton is a liar. All politicians lie. It's part of the job. What they lie about does make a difference, though.

Now I'm off to the symphony to hear some Debussy. Good night, y'all.

[Whitewall]

The Court of Justice of the European Union.
I assume people laugh out loud when they read/hear that?

[Glesga]

Facebook is just chatter and a source to replace reality in the minds of those who do not have the time to read and examine. It is no wonder Facebook make a lot of money from the mugs.