Mark Collett
The Online Safety Bill
Will Kill Free Speech
Fri, Jan 20, 2023
[Mark Collett discusses harmful effects of the proposed UK Online Safety Bill:
“The Conservatives have attempted to pass the most draconian bill that any British Government has ever been put before Parliament, a bill designed to completely kill free speech online. This bill aimed to criminalise completely legal speech and still aims to heavily censor the internet and jail ‘offenders’ for up to TWO years.”
– KATANA]
https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6/20230120—The-Online-Safety-Bill-Will-KILL-Free-Speech:4
Published on Fri, Jan 20, 2023
Description
The Online Safety Bill will KILL Free Speech
January 20, 2023
2,581 views
286
4
Support
Save
3 Reposts
Share
Mark Collett
@MarkCollett
13K followers
Join
Following
The Conservatives have attempted to pass the most draconian bill that any British Government has ever been put before Parliament, a bill designed to completely kill free speech online. This bill aimed to criminalise completely legal speech and still aims to heavily censor the internet and jail ‘offenders’ for up to TWO years.
Non-Crime Hate Incidents
https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6/exposed-britain-s-soviet-style-hate:7
Reclaim the Net
https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-online-safety-bill-explained-summary/
Government ‘Fact Sheet’ on Online Safety Bill
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-bill-supporting-documents/online-safety-bill-factsheet
Ways you can help contribute to my work:
BitCoin: bc1qzgjz953f4gznway0hvz6lx360yd2autdkwf6nu
Etherium: 0xb44739a8f2c57Cad38F96Aab8F2a0cA18258A7bA
BitCoin Cash: qpaaukrttfvq0j99gfl43hhs5q0tmhzfevkhp3r2c9
Monero: 42qypZQGMzNfFa5yXBxkqxL4iDw5cmzbtCC81dKcQbMrhLrsJUYAFSsLs9Um4hG32R5GfaqfgGj7oR6ZJ7pGyaY3FFu9HKD
You can also donate to my work via Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett
My book, The Fall of Western Man is now available. It is available as a FREE eBook and also in hardback and paperback editions.
The Official Website:
http://www.thefallofwesternman.com/
FREE eBook download:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3cctZ95PDYZTnRjSUd5VUtRR2c/view
Hardback Edition:
https://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-collett/the-fall-of-western-man/hardcover/product-23388841.html
Paperback Edition:
http://amzn.eu/9LaS7HN
PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to debate with me in the comments about anything I have said, I welcome that. However please listen to the complete podcast and ensure you argue with the points I have made. Arguments that simply consist of nonsense such as “what gives you the right to judge” or “I’m a [insert religious affiliation] and you should be ashamed of yourself” or other such vacuous non-arguments will simply be ridiculed.
free speech; human rights; online censorship; online safety bill
URL
lbry://@MarkCollett#6/20230120—The-Online-Safety-Bill-Will-KILL-Free-Speech#4
Claim ID
45b51ed3da42e3a097bdceeede4c0d81bbacf057
104.52 MB
_____________
TRANSCRIPT QUALITY = 5 Stars
1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.
NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section. Thanks.
TRANSCRIPT
(11:56 mins)
The Conservative Government – supported by the other establishment parties in Parliament – were, and arguably still are, attempting to bring in the most restrictive and draconian legislation that the United Kingdom has ever seen. This legislation, which has been misleadingly titled the “Online Safety Bill”, is nothing to do with keeping children or adults safe – either online or offline. It won’t ban hardcore pornography, or attempt to crack down on the sharing of illegal images of child or animal abuse.
Instead, the aim of this Bill was to effectively criminalize completely legal speech, and do so in a way that could see social networks and other platforms forced to remove content which does not break the law. And platforms that didn’t comply would have faced the prospect of crippling fines or even blanket bans within the UK.
The Government website has the following to say in their introduction to the bill. And I quote:
“The Online Safety Bill delivers the Government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression. The Bill has been strengthened and clarified since it was published in draft in May 2021, and reflects the outcome of extensive Parliamentary scrutiny.”
End quote. Whilst this waffle includes buzzwords like “safest” and then goes on to reassure readers that “free expression” will be defended, reading a little further down the page reveals the following. And I quote:
“The Bill introduces new rules for firms which host user generated content, i.e., those which allow users to post their own content online, or interact with each other, and for search engines, which will have tailored duties focused on minimising the presentation of harmful search results to users. Those platforms which fail to protect people will need to answer to the regulator, and could face fines of up to ten percent of their revenues or, in the most serious cases, being blocked. The largest, highest-risk platforms will have to address named categories of legal but harmful material accessed by adults.”
End quote. And if you missed it, the phrase that should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who values freedom of expression is “legal but harmful”.
The aim of this Bill was to change the law to create a situation where saying something online that was totally legal could well have landed you in hot water, if that totally legal statement had caused somebody else “harm”. But what is “harm”?
And here we are presented with the first major problem with this Orwellian Bill. The Bill not only intended to place restrictions upon completely legal speech, but it intended to do this by using the vaguest of metrics.
You see, the term “harm”, when used in this bill, isn’t something quantifiable like physical harm, but in fact extends to what the Bill calls “psychological harm”.
And if you think that’s vague, well, we are not done yet. As the Bill also states that “risk” or the “potential of harm” should be treated in the same way as harm itself. And to make this easier to understand, let me give you an example of how this was all intended to work.
Person A writes a post online about their opinion on an issue. This post is totally legal, and the opinions expressed within the post fall within the law. Person B reads that legal post, but the nature of the opinion within the post offends Person B, and causes them to feel upset. Person B then reports Person A’s post as it has caused them “psychological harm”. Person A’s post must then be removed from the site on which it is posted, despite it being completely legal.
However, if you think that’s bad, it’s only the tip of the iceberg, as the Bill talks about both risk and the potential of harm, meaning that the following scenario could also play out.
Person A writes a post online about their opinion on an issue. This post is totally legal, and the opinions expressed in the post fall within the law. Person C reads that completely legal post, but feels that the post may offend or cause psychological harm to Person B. Person B has not even seen the post in question, let alone been harmed in any quantifiable way by the post. However, Person C believes that the post may pose risk or potential harm to Person B, and then reports Person A’s post. Person A’s post must then be removed from the site, despite the fact that the post is not only completely legal, but also that no one has actually even stated that the post has caused them harm. Yet the post would still have to be removed as someone decided that it posed a potential harm to another person.
These vague definitions would have created extremely far reaching legislation under which members of the public would have found it impossible to safely draught a post on social media without falling foul of the law. A law that, if broken, was intended to carry a maximum penalty of two years in prison. And yes, you heard that right. This Bill intended to bring about a situation where posting something on a social network that someone else felt might cause psychological harm to another person who hadn’t even seen said post could have ended up landing you a jail sentence!
And before anyone starts to say that this sounds a little far fetched, please remember that the Online Safety Bill is being brought to you by the same government who created the “Non-crime Hate Incident”. And for those of you who don’t know, a Non-crime Hate Incident is an act that is not in any way criminal, but is perceived by the victim, or anybody else for that matter, as being motivated by “hate”. This famously resulted in a White pensioner being interviewed by the police after she beeped her car horn at a black man, an act which was then reported by a third party. I have already covered this issue, and the video on this topic is linked in the description below.
But just before you think it couldn’t get any worse, it does!
The Online Safety Bill still aims to give the government the right to censor what you see on the Internet. The government intends to grant itself a wide range of new powers over every aspect of what you can do and see online, including the power to dictate to search engine providers what results are returned for a variety of searches.
Are you searching for information on something that the government doesn’t want you to read or hear about? Well, now you won’t be able to find it. In fact, the search is returned will now at best give you the government’s propaganda on that issue, or at worst, serve you with a warning about your conduct.
And if users have complied with the identity verification measures mentioned in the Bill, searching for the wrong information, or seeking out the wrong opinions, may soon result in you getting a visit from the police.
And all of this will be implemented and carefully monitored by the Office of Communication, OFCOM. Under this new legislation, OFCOM would be required to set up an “Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation”. A committee that sounds like it comes straight from the pages of 1984. OFCOM are already well experienced with extreme censorship measures, as during the Covid pandemic, they issued an order to all broadcasting outlets forbidding them from airing what was termed as “contrary narratives”.
This new advisory committee would be placed in charge of monitoring the internet, including search engine providers and social networks, in order to ensure that information deemed as “misinformation” is not being spread.
If OFCOM decides that a platform is not removing “misinformation”, then UK residents can either be restricted from accessing that platform, or the platform can be fined up to £18 million, or 10% of their revenue, whichever is higher. This will embolden social media sites to heavily censor their users to an even greater degree and will give the UK Government a pathway to shut down any smaller social media sites that still uphold the values of freedom of speech, and refuse to censor their users.
Now, there is some good news here. As thanks to pressure from free speech activists, the Government has pledged to remove the term “legal but harmful” from the Bill. But at the time of writing, that statement is still used on the Government website. And whether that phrase is completely removed or instead replaced with something new is yet to be seen.
Ultimately, this Bill was designed to not only restrict freedom of speech in ways never seen before, but it was also intended to usher in an era of unprecedented internet censorship, where the government decides what you can see and hear, and any individual or any organisation that dares to push back against this censorship could end up bankrupt, or even in prison.
To call this legislation “Orwellian” is a massive understatement. This is the most draconian and wider reaching legislation aimed at attacking our freedom of speech that any British government has ever attempted to pass! Legislation that attempted to criminalise totally legal speech on the basis that said speech may hurt the feelings of others without any quantifiable harm ever being caused.
But it gets worse. The Bill still aims to give the government the right to decide what is the accepted truth and then restrict and criminalize what it deems as misinformation. In short, this Bill was designed as a central plank of the transition toward a technocratic police state governed by those who seek to impose Cultural Marxism in all its forms upon the British people.
If you want to read more about this Bill, please see the links below to Reclaim the Net and to the Bill itself.
[11:56]
END
============================================
Odysee Comments
John Kotarsky
1 month ago
This bill is harmful to me.
32
0
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
Not as harmful as the White idiots who have a) put them into office; and b) will try to do so again -regardless of this bill and your suffering. Hope this public service announcement helps.
2
0
@Dune
1 month ago
Dying societies accumulates laws like a dying man accumulates remedies.
30
0
Hide replies
Matt Hammond
1 month ago
That’s a good one.
3
0
Htrac
1 month ago
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
1
0
TheEndOfEverything
1 month ago
We lived for thousands of years without the internet and reached our greatest achievements within that reality. Looks like we’re going to have to do it again!
27
1
Hide replies
Politics Philosophy
1 month ago
I don’t think you want to let this bill go into law. This bill should be fought until it is thrown out. The UK government will do whatever you let them do. People didn’t stand for COVID in the UK, and they definitely shouldn’t stand for this.
3
0
@Truth-Addict
1 month ago
The communication network known as “internet” has been around longer than they say. Its all 100% under sea cables that began being laid in the early/mid 1800s. Germany was using face time technology in the 1930s. YES….REALLY
Question initial bell curves
1 month ago
This is not the removing of internet. It’s spinning it to the favour of one side. The side that wants to enslave you. It’s like a war without modern weapons. On the one side.
Information via internet is the one way to teach dissidents and to red pill the masses. They know that. And you must be a fool if you believe you can stand a chance without modern ways of communication. This bill, if it stays, will without a doubt be extended to any form of communication, like telephone, public speech, books.
.
3
0
VapourLynx
1 month ago
The internet is a societal cancer, I’m almost completely certain of that. I can think of a hundred different ways in which it’s harmful. Only good thing it has done is opened up informational flow, even with all the censorship & more crackdowns in the pipeline.
John Palmer’s Awesome Channel, Bitches
1 month ago
And then one day, for no reason at all…
22
0
Hide replies
@FurorSegusiavii
1 month ago
… A certain Austrian painter came to power.
8
0
Hide replies
@EndJewishPrivilege
1 month ago
Uncle Addie
Hitler was a hero
1 month ago
this should not surprise anyone, this is to be expected of the enemy
19
0
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
An enemy consistently voted for by Whites.
1
0
Hide replies
Hitler was a hero
1 month ago
by deception and systematic brainwash, and who even know if the electoral process is rigged, that remain to be an open question
2
0
Hide replies
Tick
1 month ago
the political system is rigged. read Nineteen EIghty-Four
@Grumpole
1 month ago
That’s the idea, to silence those that disagree with the tyranny’s narrative.
15
0
Matt Hammond
1 month ago
Don’t be dismayed. Just keep on keeping on until the end of this historical battle between good and evil. Let’s get it done. The criminal parasites are on the back foot so everything to fight for.
12
0
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
And yet the partisan collaborator guilty-of the-present-and-future-hell electorate will keep voting for the Lib-Lab-Con -all of whom are invested in this bill. This is NOT a Tory bill, but a Regime bill.
The majority of this electorate are our own tribe. I say we start calling them out as the such mentioned above. For too long has the Movement made excuses for them and excused them dragging us all down into their private hell on the basis that they are sacrosanct victims by default of being White.
Let’s have a poll: should the electorate be called out for perpetuating the System and bringing hell upon us all?
Like this comment = yes; dislike =no.
Poll runs until the end of the month. I’ll discuss the results thereafter.
Thanks.
Less
13
1
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
Oops, I forgot the poll will disappear if slimed too much. With that said, feel free to reply instead with your vote. Why not explain why? As Nationalists we have Honour, right? Let’s get a much-needed debate going on this pivotal issue: pivotal because by the electorate voting for the Lib-Lab-Con (even after all these years and evidence they are voting for the enemy) they are still insistent on giving the Regime their permission and are thus guilty as sin. Any position to the contrary due to their muh victimhood is to me simply intellectual dishonesty.
2
0
Hide replies
@boyksno1
1 month ago
I don’t think your going to have to worry about that.
@VicTomised
1 month ago
Murky waters indeed.
Whilst I sympathise with your point, should we really be turning on our own people?
Particularly when they are so frightened and vulnerable?
Perhaps a “none of the above” campaign, against LibLabCon candidates, would involve the sheeple, begin to break their apathy, whilst handing a bloody nose to the LibLabCon?
It also protects our people from “racist” etc slurs. (The longest journey begins with the smallest step etc).
For the politicians, when more ballots are destroyed than they receive, the reduced majorities might be a wake up call, and the fact that people rock up to vote might encourage “our parties” and independents to stand.
Anything to end the LibLabCon’s grip.
Ultimately, what will calling our own people out, even for acting against us, going to achieve?
Revenge is poor compensation. How few will suddenly stand to?
Just my 2c.
Less
3
0
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
Thanks for your comment and your Honour in making it.
I’m not saying “turn against our own” but I am calling for them to be called out. For too long (since WW2) has the Movement excused them, satiated them, and made excuses for them. It is sad and pathetic. I say they now need to be at least told they are guilty in voting for and giving the enemy their permission. Sure, let’s go on a boycott/spoil your ballot campaign -anything is better than just putting up with and allowing them to sell us out.
To put this into perspective, most don’t vote -that is sensible workers, primarily from the north. However, you get down deep into to the shires and they fkn love the System. Why? Comfort and money.
Nats don’t like to hear this: hurts their fee fees. Guess what? Your own tribe is fkn you over. They thus need to be told, shamed, discouraged.
Never has this been tried and so at this 11th Hour it should. Either that or we continue to piss around with the same old excuses and every electoral cycle say to ourselves, “Ah well, they just keep voting -but we can save them with a few more leaflets!”
I say to this, bullshit. Either they suffer and endure pain, shame, and resent from those who don’t vote, or they will continue to do so and it will be yet another 4 years after 4 years after 4 years until we are finished -courtesy of prissy, monied, bourgeois NPCs doing their “muh civic duty”.
This is exactly why I reject reactionaryism.
Cheers,
Less
3
0
@VicTomised
1 month ago
Thanks for your reply, and please know that I’m not trying to be contrary, but I don’t see how calling our own people out for essentially being too dull to understand basic politics will be positive optics or attractive to them if that’s their level of political functioning to begin with.
I do see how our enemies will try to capitalise on it though.
As I see it, to call them out would need a “neutral” organisation so it is not seen as being a self interest issue.
That’s why I’d start with a “none of the above” campaign as a first step just to get the apathetic into the voting station and build it up from there.
Then again, what do I know about it?
All the best anyway. 👍🏻
1
0
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
Yes, I’m certainly not calling for PA leaflets calling them out for the reasons you stated. However, I see no harm in PA putting out leaflets detailing all the political crimes (with juicy hard-hitting images to show the results). The Heading should be “What YOU are voting for”. Finish off with a little statement: “Ever wondered why these things are happening and who is giving our political enemies their permission to do so? Some say the electorate should look in the mirror for the answer”.
Similarly, I guess what I am calling for initially is articles on this issue along the lines of “What YOU are Voting For” and other such articles that start to at least raise the points I’ve made. On Twitter we can all get in Joe Public, Lib-Lab-Con groups and be more hardline with statements. Let’s have some memes along the lines of retarded emojis or faces with lines such as: “I keep voting Lib-Lab-Con and think everything will change. Then I moan when it doesn’t. Then I get mad when the party I voted for fks me over. But I’ll vote again next election.” -The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Ultimately, I’m calling for this issue to no longer be ignored. Perhaps we are in the state we because we previously have ignored it? Folk not shamed, called out, ridiculed will carry on regardless safe in the knowledge they are good little doggies doing their civic duty and that Nanny State will be oh-so happy with that. They are WEAK -and weak people do not like to be ridiculed. So let it commence…
Less
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
I did an article on this back in June last year. My call comes in two parts: 1) ridicule, shame, deter the electorate from voting Lib-Lab-Con; 2) This in turn could massively reduce the Regime’s percentage down to a laughable amount (more than it already is), further delegitimising it and upsetting the whole System. They DEPEND on votes as permission. Withhold your vote; withhold your permission. #AttackTheSystem
https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/wakefield_by_election_nobody_wins_again
1
0
@VicTomised
1 month ago
Very good article sir. I wholeheartedly agree with it.
From your initial posts, the shaming comment sounded very high risk strategy, which clearly sent alarm bells ringing.
In consideration of subsequent evidence, I’d vote yes to your proposal, as it is essentially the same mine.
(How easy was that to win my vote 😁).
Have a great day and thank you for your hard work. 👍🏻
30WD
1 month ago
Free speech offline is equally at risk….NSC 131 is being charged with civil rights violations, fine for $15,000 for a banner that reads…KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE”
story is below, if anyone wants to help with their impending court case, they plan on counter sueing the State of New Hampshire, they have set up Givesendgo and crypto to donate.
https://givesendgo.com/G9R8K?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=G9R8K
Monero/XMR Address:
48ysWB3wQcZ2cJriwNj1px7YRDesFtDwrPdMhPC8arPJ629pb5dmoszUuaYrRgXV6ADTwzX9qjaDi81Sq7shVz7qM8E3y3n
Bitcoin Address:
bc1q27rwkdmpftujgsnqw8ey202p47w6sv2g0dghhg
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/national-socialist-club-banner-portsmouth-new-hampshire-christopher-hood-leo-anthony-cullinan/
Less
7
0
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
Good point. Seems we might need to go underground and make ‘home-made’ leaflets, flyers, banners (Samizdat) that are not official to an organisation and can thus be denied by said organisation?
But this allows for far-more radical material that can then be plastered on walls, phone boxes, etc without any comeback. Win-win. I’ve said for years now that agitprop on the streets, ramming it in the faces of the public, is far-more effective than putting it through their doors.
4
0
Andrew2.0
1 month ago
This very much sounds like FEMALE inspired ‘feelings based’, legislation…women will always be the first problem.
10
3
@VicTomised
1 month ago
I bet it won’t kill CRT or Cultural Marxism being promoted on line though!!! Grrrr!!!
7
0
Hide replies
@boyksno1
1 month ago
Of course not. Everybody who hates that shite could complain till we were blue in face, and a not single thing would be done about it and the sites pushing it would never have to worry about those fines.
2
0
italix
1 month ago
When they finally shut down the legacy internet for the average user we’ll be going to VPN over dialup BBS, for example. That’s when the internet will become ‘free’ again … until the powers-that-be figure it out. It’s always a moving target. The trick is for technical minds to be a step ahead.
5
0
Hide replies
@Heinrich
1 month ago
It was before my time, but I remember reading about the German state raiding homes back in the 80s/90s (before the Internet became widespread) for operating dialup BBS’s hosting wrong-think.
1
0
Hide replies
italix
1 month ago
True, but there are a lot more protocols and encryption technology to run TCP/IP over practically undetected. You can create a network over bluetooth, as an example. I think that is where we are headed, the end of the internet as we know it. Platforms like twitter will be inaccessible to the average user. So, the tech guys will figure it out all over again. That’s my belief.
2
0
@Luther
1 month ago
Does it criminalise VPN’s?
4
0
Hide replies
@boyksno1
1 month ago
VPN’s are not as safe as you may think, at the end of the day all of the data that arrives at your computer still has to be sent across the same infrastructure that you use when not running a VPN. Which means that it’s still possible to intercept it, it still has to use the IP addresses of all the routers leading to your computer, and more than likely will have your mac address as an reference.
VPN’s only really protect you from current regional restrictions and your run of the mill hacker/snooper. But trust me when I say that if an ISP, pressured by a government, wants to know what you are up to they can.
2
0
Hide replies
@Luther
1 month ago
So the VPN does not protect anonymity? I specifically use VPN to remain anonymous against the state, is this not effective?
@Luther
1 month ago
Reference pressuring the ISP, all the ISP will see is my computer connected to some server in x country, they will not be able to see what I am doing beyond that. So unless they make VPN illegal none of this online harms bill will make any difference. Content will have to be created outside the UK but can still be viewed from the UK without them being able to stop it.
Hide replies
Error 909 Not Found
1 month ago
That’s where the (European) Digital Identity comes in: where every major social media platform is required to tie this government-issued identifier to your accounts, so it all leads back to you personally (not just your IP-address or device-identifier), isn’t that exciting! Luckily projects like I2P, Freenet (or their new project: Locutus), or any other censorship-combating peer-to-peer networks exist, and might provide refuge when this spooky dystopia does become reality.
Hide replies
@Luther
1 month ago
Yes I see it, online harms bill first, people think “I just use a VPN no big deal”, followed by implementing a digital ID to access the internet. If they did it the other way around it wouldn’t pass. But this way around, hiding the end game, its easy.
1
0
Hide replies
Error 909 Not Found
1 month ago
You got it, the sneaky bastards… 🙂
Error 909 Not Found
20 days ago
It’s happening 🙂
@WhiteLightKnight
1 month ago
You don’t kniw what you are talking about.
CecilleC
1 month ago
VPN is a waste of money. Does anyone really think there is a way to hide your identity if the controllers want your head? I use the internet fully understanding I have no privacy whatsoever. I will not waste my money paying someone for a pretend security.
whitewood
1 month ago
It comes down to this with Vpns. Do you have trust in your Internet provider, or the VPN service?
Hide replies
@Luther
1 month ago
I trust a VPN provider outside my nations jurisdiction and they have slightly more self interest than an ISP when it comes to privacy of its customer, but yes you are right, its third party risk in either direction.
MichaelB
1 month ago
Keep growing PA!
3
0
@Ba-Ba
1 month ago
We are witnessing a war on truth.
3
0
Hide replies
@EndJewishPrivilege
1 month ago
Nothing is more insulting and disempowering to the JewishSupremacist than the truth.
whitewood
1 month ago
Because truth always reveals itself, it’s like they are building over and trying to cover all the access points to new and true information.
Genetics 101
1 month ago
You should get twitter blue and start uploading these videos to Twitter. Twitter Blue allows videos up to 10 minutes. You could get a massive audience over there.
3
0
Hide replies
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
Good point.
Tick
1 month ago
this sounds like Reddit x 6000000.
2
0
@DerGoldsaft2
1 month ago
Hmmm reminds me of NetzDG… thank you for inspiring this kind of messures around the world, Germany >:(
2
0
Clown Hugger 69
1 month ago
neggerfaggotrapepenisalicious
Someone now just had a seizure apparently. Onward with the march to 1984.
1
0
Tick
1 month ago
“in my mind it was harmful.”
1
0
@EndJewishPrivilege
1 month ago
You can bet your dollar that certain (((pressure groups))) are behind this
1
0
@Scotty14
1 month ago
Happy to ban different political views
but won’t ban or restrict pornography and other freakish things kids can find online
1
0
Htrac
1 month ago
We’re reaching the point where Pakistani men can gang rape hundreds of thousands of underage English girls and the authorities ignore it or even arrest the girls, but if you speak out against the rape of children you can be prosecuted for hate speech.
How much more dystopian does it have to get for normies to wake up? I guess if they’re misled by the propaganda and only interact in their echo chambers, with any dissent censored, then they simply don’t know what’s going on.
1
0
Hide replies
@EndJewishPrivilege
1 month ago
If Whites (European Gentiles) disobey, en-masse, these draconian laws formulated by certain (((lobbying groups/pressure groups))), then there is nothing (((they))) can do. (((their))) power stranglehold relies on the Gentile being frightened, compliant and cowered. Either we be brave and stand up for ourselves, or we succumb to JewishSupremacistTyranny. It’s as simple as that.
Hobbit Habit
1 month ago
The video has no “call to action” so what is its point exactly?
0
1
Politics Philosophy
1 month ago
The harm bill is essentially the Discord TOS as a bill used for the entire internet in the UK. If this bill is allowed into law it will effect the speech of daily life in the UK in the not to distance future. Don’t allow this bill to be passed, or stay in existence for long.
1
0
Truthspoon
1 month ago
We had free speech until the Hitler lot showed up and pissed all over our free speech party by being stupidly provocative.
1
4
Hide replies
Htrac
1 month ago
“We had free speech until people used it”?!
You don’t have free speech if there are things you can’t say.
2
0
Hide replies
Truthspoon
1 month ago
It’s called agent provocateurism and is a well known Commie trick. I consider Andrew Anglin, who I knew when he was a leftie fag called Andre, to be a suspicious character who was drafted in for this very purpose.
1
1
Tick
1 month ago
can anybody hear Mossad troll team knuckles cracking? bet they are chomping at the bit.
Tick
1 month ago
wonder who decides what’s harmful?
@cantori
1 month ago
fuck them
@WeWuzScythianz
1 month ago
they want a complete commie takeover
HydraulicHydra
1 month ago
I find the term “draconian” to be extremely offensive. It is only a matter of time before scientists genetically engineer dragons and then only a matter of time before they get made sentient. It may be hundreds of years but God damnit I am offended on behalf of an organism that may exist at some point in the future and be offended by something said on a niche platform hundreds of years ago. If dragons ever do get created they may even take the term as a complement but I am still offended on their behalf!
HydraulicHydra
1 month ago
I cannot believe people still think libertarianism is incompatible with white nationalism.
Crystal Cortex
1 month ago
True.
This is scary af.
Vamp Chick
1 month ago
What is the difference between the Consercuck Party and Labor Commie Party? They are the same but different in name
Hide replies
@EndJewishPrivilege
1 month ago
The same (they are the same, but different in name) can be said for any other ‘democratic’ parties you can ‘vote’ for in Europe (Irish Republic, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, etc), the USA and Australia. You see, all parties answer to Jewish Money Power. The heavily-financed Jewish Lobbying/Pressure Groups and Jew-owned central banks.
Htrac
1 month ago
Almost everything the mainstream media produces causes me psychological harm, but they won’t be prosecuted under this bill. It’s intentionally written to be open to interpretation as just another anti-white law. Any non-crime a white person does will be punished, any actual crimes done to white people by non-whites will be ignored or encouraged.
Beer Hall Pooch
1 month ago
The goddess Tonia Buxton is on this issue. Fk me, how fit is she at 50+?
Dead Internet Theory
1 month ago
David D was right about the government issued CDBC. Sorry Mark!
Hide replies
Mark Collett
1 month ago
No, he’s not. CBDCs would be built on the block chain in order to attach smart contracts and conditions to the wallets held by disidents.
==========================
See Also
Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT
Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT
Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT
Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT
Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT
Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT
============================================
PDF Download
- Total words in post = 5,697
- Total words in transcript = xxx
- Total images = xx
- Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)
Version History
Version 5:
Version 4:
Version 3:
Version 2:
Version 1: Thu, Mar 16, 2023 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments (81).