British P.M Cameroon Considers Expanding Censorship for ELites

I would hate to say that P.M. Cameroon’s desire to rule the free speech of the masses is crude, crass and rash. In the Internet era people are far more threatened by those who would put chains on free speech rather by those who use hateful speech. If Brits can’t say ‘off with the King’s head’ what is the world coming to?

Without free speech could the French have had their revolution or Jacobean reaction to guillotine the rich? Without free speech what kind of protest would reform Wall Street and Footsie financial flummery? If it were illegal to even talk about substantive removal of rich elites from cat-bird seats of opportunity would the masses have any effective means of reform?

Banning political speech in country A would require that Internet speech in country B be censored too. If one has a Sir Queen running for P.M. yet it would be considered hateful to point out that a homosexual politician is queering and blackmailing his, her or its way to the top, but they report that in observant country B-won’t the P.M. need to cut the wire from country B to country A in order to protect the delicate political sensitivity of his country A flock?

British efforts to censor hit Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry a little earlier in history when democracy was just getting started. Sometimes the Brits never change and revert to imperial form. Taming down the hateful masses cannot substitute for poor immigration policy or the right-to-revolt against institutional hatred of the masses whereby every word from the lips of an oppressive ruler is hateful to the oppressed receiving it.

Given the right incentives such as Jacobite correction it is possible for economists and politicians to keep a society in full employment, a good standard of living, conservation and recovery of the ecosphere, a balanced budget and a narrow gap between the most rich and the most poor in a society-without the proper incentives such as decapitating failing leadership classes when economic indexes rise to intolerable pre-set levels the elites just concentrate wealth and let business go on as usual-that’s just the way it is sadly; the human condition has innate greed, corruption and insatiable desire for immortal wealth for a mortal body and of course they should instead be looking toward Jesus Christ.

The United States has for a century been malinfluenced by the Brits. We should never have bailed them out in the First World War. If we had let the war find a natural balance the Nazis and Second World War would never have occurred like as not. American Presidents and Congress too often put themselves into a Master-Blaster role of being the muscle for corrupt British P.M. brains as Brits needed to recover from the loss of their imperial empire with American military power. America should not send free speech down the way of the Buffalo course to oblivion. Free speech should roam free and wild from border to border, sea to BP oil slickened shiny sea.

Across the globe there are nations with censorship in place. Free speech is considered dangerous by establishments that seek to retard change in order to conserve its place of power. The media domination of broadcast media given by government to the wealthy is itself a censorship of free speech of citizen pod cast user a priori-states should use broadcast wavelengths with new technology for citizens pod cast time-slices. A war to conserve free speech needs to be fought that finds new ways to increase access of the masses to express it.

Hate speech lexicons defined by establishment authorities necessarily conserve the power of those authorities. Virtually anything can be marked as hate language with criteria determined by the state or corporate authority and that is quite dangerous. A writer might use one hate word variable per 5000 words of high quality material and find the entire essay deleted-and that retards social development and citizen participation as peers in society. How can neighbor A say to neighbor B ‘I have the right to limit what you say to words that are not hateful?” How may a government implement speech controls through the rubric of hate speech censorship and not be worthy of deletion itself?

The internet reaches more than 180 nations-each with different ideas about what speech is hateful and different constituencies with different opinions about what speech is hateful. Keep in mind that words are just representative symbols with no implicit value as sounds. It is only within a given culture that the meaning of a word can be a referent to a designated object or event-process and be more than noise. Cultural freedom to make noises with referent objects is requisite for a better-than-simian social environment. Prime Minister Cameron is wrong to take Britain down the long and winding road to the chimp heaven of state censorship. Every nation on Earth will need to convene to form a standardized lexicon of hate speech words and phrases with translations into every language in order that one may liberally ban the offending thousands of words and lobotomize public thought effectively enough that the flock is free from programmatic hate-speech by dissenters to hate Britain too.

In the United States the federal judiciary has made something of a mockery of democracy with vetoes of state bans on homosexual marriage-bans that were approved by popular vote in referenda. Democracy was subverted by corporatist judicial appointees and homosexuals to prove the point that the people can’t really have democracy except to be yes-persons to the will of the elites. To change that situation would require changing the constitution-a cumbersome, expensive process easily thwarted by concentrated wealth elites and their corporatist political minions…they want to impose language bans of hate speech too.

A better way that censorship might be to compel diversity of opinion in public forums dedicated to just one side-such as jihadist Britains that want to kill or maim parliament and napalm Windsor Castle etc. It is illegal in most places to advocate crimes or to form a criminal conspiracy to commit crimes, yet that is a long way from just hate speech saying that Tories suck or Labor have their heads up their arses (I don’t know the except British epithets for that sort of expression-to some that want steak and eggs, fish and chips is hate speech). Britain could experiment with compelling extremist web sites to have hyperlinks and windows to opposite opinion sites instead of censorship.

If Saudi Arabia required anti-Jewish web pages to have windows with Jewish women in Professorial robes taking about the dangers of global warming or whatever I imagine that some of the hate speech of Jews would be defrapped (as the French Christine Leguard defrapped things like the world monetary fund that were frapped by Dominique Strauss-Khan). Christine LeGuard should run for Prime Minister of Britain and defrappe that. Plainly free speech should be increase so that Internet troglodytes trolling just a few websites as people tend to do experience the grand vistas of the Internet-maybe Bing’s nice pictures and lose some of the rabidity that Prime Minister Cameron fears might be hateful.

Brits sometimes are impractical in their impecuniary political selections because of greed. The Depr River ought to be a joint Ukraine Russian waterway peacefully facilitating regional and even global trade and commerce with tax-free barge traffic for business large and small. Instead P.M. Cameroon might prefer to have all of the Ukraine and run a British barge line on the Dnepr for use of which the Russians would pay dearly. To be fair and balanced though, American Senator Menendez wants to donate free weapons to the Ukraine P.M. Billionaire Poor-o-shingle. One would think that establishing a new college of Guerilla training for Europe might be in store with the proven success of the American College for Guerilla training in Syria and Iraq. Senator McCain might like to set up a bombing range in the Ukraine area generally. He is a guy good to have on your side when the foe attacks.

Hate speech censorship seems like an anachronistic trick more suitable for Catherine the Great and Radischev or other prior eras before the Internet was invented by Al Gore. Not only may radio talk about droopery in private pictures taken by defunct newspapers such as The Guardian, they report that hackers have got into Apple’s private accounts and taken nude pictures of celebrities and posted them on the Internet. They also said that anyone posting them (such as in Namibia) will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in that jurisdiction of corporatism when the N.S.A. catches them.

Britain may not have the technical power to listen to everyone’s smart phone for hate speech yet the N.S.A. does. Perhaps as a cross-pond reciprocation for a first round political issue draft choice and future considerations the N.S.A. could eves-drop and find out who is saying hateful things about P.M. Cameron or seeking to sabotage his re-election campaign with hate speech. As corporatism concentrates wealth even talk about taxing the rich more could be regarded as hate speech. Censoring words is no substitute for rational political measures, immigration policies and economic justice.

Concentrating wealth through corporatism gradually evolves a stagnant society with wealth given over to uncreative heirs reinvesting in an existing, ossifying establishment. The acceleration of the velocity of money through globalization and networking reinforced with theories in support of market fundamentalism will petrify social liberty, economic innovation and prohibit critical political change to reply to environmental threats in a way satisfactory to the majority of the people with a minority of global capital and political power. Concentration of wealth and political power to prohibit free speech may bring about the end of human life on earth, and I for one, would hate that.