FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at
Sun Apr 11 10:51:41 PDT 2021

Canada and more politician boots crushing your voicebox...

Canada To Censor "Hurtful" Comments About Politicians, Implement
Internet Kill-Switch

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via,

...but, constituents to remain fair game for abuse from party apparatchiks.

A colleague forwarded me the text of an article from Blackrocks
Reporter, which covers Canadian politics from Ottawa, our capitol.

It’s a report on Federal Heritage Minister Steven Guibeault’s ongoing
vendetta against non-conforming political speech on the internet, in
which he’s calling for censorship of “hurtful” comments against
politicians and implementation of an internet killswitch to facilitate

Federal Heritage Minister Steven Guibeault

Blackrocks is behind a paywall, permit me to quote it here:

    ‘Federal internet censors should target hurtful words against
politicians, says Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault. The Minister
added pending regulations may include an internet kill switch to block
websites deemed hurtful, but called it a “nuclear” option.

    “We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating
from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards
themselves or even their families,” said Guilbeault.  “I have seen
firsthand alongside other Canadians the damaging effects harmful
content has on our families, our values and our institutions. As a dad
and a stepdad to six kids, I know more can and should be done to
create a safer online environment.”

    Guilbeault made his remarks in a podcast sponsored by Canada 2020,
an Ottawa think tank affiliated with the Liberal Party. Legislation to
censor internet content will be introduced shortly, he said.

    “I am confident we can get this adopted,” said Guilbeault. “Once
the legislation is adopted, clearly creating a new body, a new
regulator like that in Canada, would take some time.”’

The same story is covered here by the Post Millienial (the rest of
Canada’s “approved media”, as in the ones who received hundreds of
millions in tax breaks and subsidies from the Federal Government in
the run up to the last election, are not giving it a lot of airtime
for some reason).
The goal is obviously to silence non-conforming analysis

Coincidentally or not Guilbeault has been relentlessly pursuing the
recommendations of the Canada’s Broadband Telecom Legislative Review
(BTLR), which I wrote about last year and tabled a petition to the
House of Commons to kill it. Then the whole pandemic thing broke out,
and we entered this “New Normal”.

After BTLR published, Canada’s “approved media”  joined the chorus
calling for more regulation against unlicensed news outlets.

For a political cabinet minister to seriously push forward new rules
silencing free speech directed against politicians is quite rich,
having just last week been publicly attacked and mocked by a senior
advisor to Premier Doug Ford (my transgression? Raising the issue of
small business bankruptcies under lockdowns with my MPP).

Under this plan, it will still be perfectly fine for political
apparatchiks to hurl insults and ad hominem attacks at constituents
raising legitimate issues with their MPPs. But under these impending
new regulations against “political taunts” and even “unlicensed
internet undertakings” my write up on the entire incident, or even my
commentary on the proposal here, might land me afoul of The New Rules.

(Cue up Jacobs, who will probably come barrelling in here and call me
a moron because Guilbeault is Federal and he’s provincial, so I’ll
save him the trouble to say: it’s all one political class)
These are the last gasps of our political overlords

This global, near ubiquitous ham-fisted reaction to the global
pandemic has ushered us into an era of hypernormalization. That’s
simply defined as when the mental fatigue and psychic stress of
pretending to believe demonstrably false and often contradictory
narratives begins to manifest in a kind of mass neurosis.

Being brainwashed or coerced into accepting ideologies that have been
decided by oligarchs and billionaire Sith Lords are an additional
antagonizing factor.

Sooner or later a tipping point will be reached and the public will
simply abandon what they see as an increasingly non-functional system,
one where the entire might of the state is arrayed against their own

When this happens it can channel into populism, deteriorate into
(arguably deserved) demagoguery, or perhaps more hopefully a type of
mass opt-out of the current system into the next iteration of human
organization and governance.

We’re in the early innings of an inexorable transition from the age of
nation states into network , or crypto states (“crypto populism”?).
How that looks is often the topic of discussion on our AxisOfEasy
podcasts, it can be chilling, as in if the Network State is Facebook,
or Google. Or it can be liberating, like a decentralized mosaic of
Hanseatic Crypto States. That’s a choice we, as people and citizens
actually can participate in, right now, today.

But these cocooned, self-serving elites running these dilapidated
nation states? They’re just rigging a game that’s increasingly
irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter because their era is over.

No matter which trajectory things pursue, one thing is certain: the
next step is a cascading loss of institutional and political
legitimacy, such as what happened in 1989 with the implosion of
communism and the Warsaw Pact states. A year earlier, not one
geo-political strategist, let alone party apparatchik would have
forecasted the coming collapse. Eighteen months later, it was all

I think we’re headed for a similar period over the next few years, and
it’s the current leadership and the incumbent elites who brought us

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list