Don’t Israel my Facebook

Actually forget FB,  move to  vk.com  NOW!

 

Mainstream Media Get a Beat-Down

Posted on November 25, 2016

The mainstream media have been dishing it out so long, it’s kind of nice seeing them taking it on the chin these days. According to a poll published last year, only 4 in 10 Americans trust the mainstream media. My guess is that the number has dropped even lower than that with the 2016 election now behind us.

And so you won’t think it’s just a “Russia thing,” comedian Conan O’Brien has also taken some pot shots at the media as well.

Trump’s tweet about the “failing” New York Times” is quite interesting, and the RT commentator poses a question very much worth asking:

“Will the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account now become the number one source for White House news?”

Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe the veracity of a Trump tweet than a news media of the kind we have today. It occurs to me that to such a degree have media owners and Western journalists discredited themselves, they now may well be on their way to putting themselves out of business. What we seem to be headed for is a major shift, a paradigm shift if you will, in the way news and information are conveyed.

Orwell’s 1984: EU Resolution on Russian Media First Step Toward Total Censorship, One of the Harshest Attacks on the Profession of Journalist

george-orwell-1984quote-960x260

orwell-1984-1

Orwell’s 1984: EU Resolution on Russian Media First Step Toward Total Censorship

The resolution adopted by the European Parliament against Russia’s media outlets is the first step towards imposing censorship against all media sources which express different views from those promoted by the EU leadership, Italian journalist Giulietto Chiesa warns.

The European Parliament’s decision to crack down on Russia’s news websites, most notably Sputnik and RT, and considering them alongside terrorist groups like Daesh and Al-Qaeda, has stirred a heated debate among international media pundits and independent observers.

“I write for Sputnik and cooperate with different Russian television broadcasters. So what will they do to me now?” Giulietto Chiesa, an Italian journalist and Director of PandoraTV.it, asks rhetorically.

According to Chiesa, the adoption of the controversial resolution is a step towards imposing censorship not only on Russian news websites but on all media outlets which express a point of view different from that of the EU establishment.

“To put it bluntly: the aim of the resolution, whatever arguments are cited, is to impose censorship against all media — both Russian and non-Russian — which express opinions different from those postulated by Western leaders,” Chiesa writes in his op-ed for Sputnik Italia.


EU Resolution on Russian Media ‘Insult to Daesh Victims’ – Serbian Minister


The Italian journalist calls attention to the fact that in accordance with the criteria cited by the resolution every citizen of the European Union who supports, reproduces or disseminates opinions and critique of the West’s actions can be now branded as “a supporter of the Kremlin propaganda” that poses a “threat” to the sovereignty of this or that EU member state or the bloc in general.

war-slavery-ignorance-4

“It is clear to anyone that this is the way to kick off a ‘witch hunt’, that would ultimately silence all forms of political dissent in Europe,” the Italian journalist warns.

“Therefore what lies at the root of the problem is not just the right to spread the views expressed by the Russian media in the West, but the right of free speech and expression for all journalists, bloggers and media activists who work and live in the West,” Chiesa highlights.


EU Resolution on Sputnik, RT: ‘Media Siege Formulated by the United States’


Commenting on the result of the vote in the European Parliament the Italian journalist notes that the vote showed a change of mind toward Russia among EU lawmakers.

While there is a powerful anti-Russian lobby comprising of a hundred or so MPs, apparently nostalgic of the Cold War times, this time the resolution was passed with 304 votes, while 179 legislators were against and 208 abstained from voting, Chiesa underscores.

De facto, the number of those who did not support the controversial document exceeded the number of those who voted for it, he stresses.

Chiesa asks ironically whether the EU establishment would now label the French presidential candidate Francois Fillon as “a Kremlin propagandist” and a “threat” to the European sovereignty given the fact that during his interview with Radio Europe 1 Fillon urged his audience not to believe that Russia is Europe’s enemy.

Jugoslav Cosic of N1 news channel, CNN International’s local broadcast partner and affiliate in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia, echoes Chiesa.

Citing the resolution’s passage de facto equating Russian media organizations to al-Qaeda and Daesh terrorist groups’ propaganda, the journalist stresses that it is highly inappropriate to paint journalists and terrorists with one and the same brush.

“I don’t think it is right to equate the work of Russian journalists (or any other media workers) and the actions of terrorist groups. I also believe it’s not right to brand mass media of any country as a propaganda tool,” Cosic told Sputnik.

If a media outlet has indeed been spotted disseminating “propaganda” then the evidence needs to be presented to prove this instead of labeling all media as instruments of propaganda, he noted.

“This greatly worries me, as we had a very negative experience of group stigmatizing here in Serbia, when NATO bombed the building of RTS channel in 1999, justifying that as ‘the struggle against the Milosevic propaganda machine.’ The airstrikes killed 16 of our colleagues,” the journalist emphasized.

The resolution adopted by the European Parliament claims that the Sputnik news agency, the RT channel, the Russkiy Mir foundation and the Russian Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Cultural Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) pose a threat to the European Union.

To resist the “Russian propaganda” the document calls on the EU member states to cooperate with NATO to develop common mechanisms to counter “hybrid threats”.


1047807893

EU Resolution One of the Harshest Attacks on the Profession of Journalist

The resolution adopted by the European Parliament that compared Russian media to Daesh propaganda, is one of the harshest attacks on journalism, Director of the Radio Belgrade (Radio Beograda) Milivoje Mihajlovic told Sputnik on Thursday.

Mihajlovic said that the document is directly targeting the freedom of media.

“I am particularly surprised by the comparison of the media with terrorist organizations. It’s a classic self-inflicted mistake of the European Parliament, and it will be remembered as one of the harshest attacks on the profession of journalist,” Mihajlovic said.


Serbian Lawmaker Says EU Media Resolution ‘Rude’ Violation of Human Rights


On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution on countering Russian media outlets, such as the Sputnik news agency and the RT broadcaster. As many as 304 voted in favor the document, 179 voted against and 208 abstained. With a total of 691 officials taking part in the vote, less than half supported the resolution, which draws parallel between Russian media and the propaganda disseminated by the Islamic State, a jihadist group outlawed in Russia.

The resolution said that Sputnik and RT posed a danger to European unity and called for extra European Commission funding for counter-propaganda projects.

Sputnik responded by calling the move a direct violation of media freedom and human rights, while Russian President Vladimir Putin commented on the matter by pointing out that the document indicates a degradation of democracy in the West. Praising Sputnik and RT for their work, the president expressed hope that real media restrictions would not follow.

truth-george-orwell-1984


SOURCES:
SputnikNews
SputnikNews
Submitted by Lone Bear 
War Press Info Network at :
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/eu-orwells-1984/
~

UK: Reading book on Syria is ‘terrorism’!

Rehmat

In the Jewish Occupied Britain, reading a book on Syria is a worse crime than studying Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Last month, UK-born Muslim health worker Faizah Shaheen, 27, found that out while returning from her honeymoon trip to Turkey aboard British Thomson Airways at Doncaster Airport in Finningley, England.

A cabin crew member spotted her reading Malu Halasa’s book, Syria Speaks: Art and Culture from the Frontline on outbound flight a fortnight ago . Thinking her a ‘Muslim terrorist’, the attendant reported her to the South Yorkshire police department.

On arrival, Shaheen was detained for investigation under the recently passed anti-terrorist legislation, authored by BIPAC-Tory government, and now forcefully applied by the ‘Israeli tank commander, Theresa May, country’s new prime minister.

During the interrogation, police asked Shaheen what she did for a living.

I told them I work as a child and adolescent mental health services practitioner for the National Health Service,” she said. “Ironically, a part of my job role is working on anti-radicalization and assessing if vulnerable young people with mental health problems are at risk of being radicalized. I said that to the police. I’m actually part of trying to fight radicalisation and breaking the stereotypes.”

Having now experienced victimization by UK police firsthand, Shaheen will be following up with a formal complaint against the police and Thomson Airways regarding the incident.

Syrian-born Christian Malu Halasa, is an editor, award-wining author and curator in London. She is a well-known critic of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

The Israeli occupied United States is not much different. On August 4, 2016, the British newspaper Guardian reported that two American Muslim women who work for the US government, were told to leave an American Airline plane when one of them talked to a ‘civilized White passenger’ about lack of water and food on board. The terrified fool complained to a flight attendant about his personal safety from the two ‘Muzzlooms’. Both Muslim women were taken-off the flight and put on the next flight with $200 as ‘holocaust compensation’.

Israeli Official Called for World Internet Censorship in January…’Hate Speech’ Controls Announced by Social Media Giants Today

Posted on May 31, 2016

erdan

Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan

[ Ed. note – If you’re a critic of Israel and suddenly one day find your Facebook page or Twitter account deleted…well…there may be a reason for that…

Below are two articles, the first published in January in the Times of Israel concerning efforts to put together an “international coalition” to force social media companies to delete posts containing “hate” or “incitement”…the otherpublished today, at RT, on an agreement reached between four US tech giants and the EU Commission to “tackle the spread of illegal hate speech online.”

“This is a perfectly logical and just project,” said a spokesperson for Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan as quoted in the Times of Israel article. “If a hotel was being used as a venue for a hate group, we would demand that the hotel break its contract, and we would lean on other hotels to abstain from hosting them, so that the hate group would not be able to hold its event. This is no different.”

The article includes links to material allegedly posted by Hamas officials or individual Palestinian activists, including an anatomical chart designed to show which parts of the body to aim for in order to fatally stab someone, but as one commenter here notes, postings of this nature are “tiny in comparison to the volume of material going up on the Internet, and there are already more than sufficient methods in place to deal with such incidents and get them removed.

This would indeed seem the case at least if we go by the many reports we hear of Facebook posts getting deleted or videos pulled from YouTube. The above-mentioned commenter additionally opines:

Although the Israelis are attempting to disguise the project as a counter to Palestinians posting “violence promoting material” on the Internet, it is clear that the extension of this “coalition” has a far wider scope.

Zionists not only are out to destroy the BDS movement, but it seems they are aiming to kill freedom of speech on the Internet as well, or at least any free speech critical of Israel. How close are they to succeeding?

“There is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate,” says Karen White, a Twitter official quoted in the RT story. She additionally insists that the company is “committed to letting the Tweets flow”.

But as an article in Bloomberg recently noted,

“Pressure is on from governments from Israel to Germany to step up the fight against hate speech as Internet platforms become center stage for everything from political activism to promoting terror.”

One thing you may note as well from the article below is that the terror attacks in Europe now conveniently seem to be providing justification for the new measures. ]

***

Israel Eyes World Coalition to Force Social Media Platforms to Block Incitement

By David Shamah | January 19, 2016

Israel is aiming to build an international coalition to force the world’s leading social media giants to prevent their platforms from being abused to peddle incitement to terrorism.

The move, which was unveiled by Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan at Sunday’s cabinet meeting, aims at requiring Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and other social networks to take greater responsibility for such content.

While some experts consider the idea unworkable — arguing that the terms of service of such platforms protect them from any legal threat, and that the preventative measures Erdan wants to see introduced are not possible technologically, others say a coalition pushing for change could be effective, and certainly stands more of a chance than an effort led by Israel alone.

The social media giants “make millions but claim they are not responsible for content, and that they only provide a platform,” a spokesperson for Erdan told The Times of Israel. “That is not going to wash. We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility, and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behavior as well.”

On Sunday, Erdan introduced the idea of building an international legal coalition to take action against social media platforms if they do not proactively prevent the use of their systems to upload videos, songs, photos, and other content that inspire would-be terrorists to pick up knives, guns, rocks, and other weapons to attack Israelis.

At the weekly cabinet meeting, Erdan presented ministers with an “index of incitement,” showing a correlation between instances of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic content posted by Palestinians, and the level of violence by Palestinians against Israelis.

Innumerable posts, videos and tweets have extolled the virtues of attacking Israelis in the ongoing terror wave, with terror groups andprivate individualsposting incitement, songs hailing the terrorists, and instructional videos telling them how best to attack. In several cases, attackers have posted their own messages ahead of such attacks.

There were numerous things Israel could do to combat the phenomenon, said Erdan. In a statement Sunday, Erdan said that he “intended to methodically expose the Palestinian culture of incitement among relevant communities around the world.”

Among Erdan’s proposals for action: Linking a reduction in incitement to assistance provided by Israel or other parties to the Palestinian Authority; publicizing the link between incitement, both by individual Palestinians and the Authority itself, to violence against Israelis; and developing legislation in Israel and abroad to prosecute social media platforms for failing to keep calls for violence and hateful materials off their platforms.

Erdan’s plan, said his spokesperson, calls for developing legislation in conjunction with European countries, most of which “are very interested in this idea. The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are. Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty.”

The participating countries would be part of a loose coalition that would keep an eye on content and where it was being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content that was posted in any of their countries at the request of members.

“This is a perfectly logical and just project,” Erdan’s spokesperson said. “If a hotel was being used as a venue for a hate group, we would demand that the hotel break its contract, and we would lean on other hotels to abstain from hosting them, so that the hate group would not be able to hold its event. This is no different.”

Erdan’s proposal came weeks after the son of a Jerusalem man killed in a terror attack urged lawmakers to do more to quash social media incitement. Richard Lakin, a US-born teacher and peace activist, was shot and seriously wounded on October 13, and died of his injuries two weeks later. His son, Micah Avni, has been campaigning against social media incitement, with Lakin named as lead plaintiff in a 20,000-complainant-strong lawsuit against Facebook.

At a Knesset hearing in November, Avni argued that social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, virtually inhabited by millions of people every day, should be thought of as countries or continents. It would follow, he said, that it is necessary to regulate social media in the same way that nations regulate other areas such as finance, transportation, communication, broadcast, healthcare, and food.

LAWYERS RESPOND

Reaction to Erdan proposal from attorneys who spoke to The Times of Israel was mixed. One attorney involved in the highest echelons of the Internet business in Israel asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of her position. She said the terms of service of social media platforms protect them from prosecution.

“The point of social media platforms is to provide a forum for users to express themselves,” said the attorney. “We wouldn’t want them to micromanage every bit of data that we post, and we probably don’t want the admins at Facebook and Twitter reading or looking at all the images we post, either,” she added.

“In addition, this would be next to impossible to pull off technologically,” the attorney continued. “How would the site know when something negative was uploaded? And even if such a law were passed, the platform might decide that it is just not worth the trouble to do business in the country where they are being prosecuted – like Israel – and just shut off access to their platform altogether. Is that what we really want?”

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Israel Law Center disagreed, however. Actually, she said, “that is exactly why Erdan is seeking a coalition.”

It turns out that Israel already has in place the legislation needed to prosecute Facebook and other social media sites for anti-Semitic content; a law that allows Israel to prosecute anti-Semites who threaten the existence or welfare of the Jewish people has been on the books for decades. That law, she said, could be used to prosecute social media networks that do not do enough to prevent anti-Israel or anti-Jewish incitement.

But if Israel goes it alone, “then they might decide to cut off ties with us,” said Darshan-Leitner. “That is why Erdan is seeking to build this international coalition. There’s safety in numbers; if Facebook et al. know they are going to have to face the music in a dozen countries, they will be much more amenable to being proactive on this matter than if they were just contending with Israel.”

Darshan-Leitner said she thinks Erdan’s idea will succeed. “While we are perhaps the biggest sufferers of Arab incitement, we are not the only ones. The Europeans, after all, have in recent years been given devastating tastes of what that incitement can lead to — in the terror attacks in Marseille, Paris, Toulouse; in the stream of Muslims in Sweden identifying with IS, and many other incidents and attacks, large and small.

“This is not about freedom of speech,” said Darshan-Leitner. “It’s long ago been established that yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater is a prosecutable offense. You are free to say what you want, but when what you say leads to damages – much less murder – that’s a different story altogether.”

Twitter and Youtube could not be reached for comment for this piece. In a statement, Facebook said that “we regularly work with safety organisations and policy makers around the world to ensure that people know how to keep safe when using Facebook. There is no place for content encouraging violence, direct threats, terrorism or hate speech on our platform.

“This is a community of over 1.5 billion people, including more than 4 million people in Israel, with clear rules. We have a set of Community Standards to help people understand what is allowed on Facebook, and we urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates these standards, so we can investigate and take swift action. We look forward to continuing dialogue with the government about these issues,” the statement added.

***

Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and YouTube Adopt EU Hate Speech Rules

RT | 31 May, 2016 20:01

US tech giants have signed an agreement with the European Commission to tackle the spread of illegal hate speech online that requires them to address complaints within 24 hours.

Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and YouTube adopted the code of conduct on Tuesday, committing to crackdown on the use of online hate speech swiftly by putting in place internal procedures to respond to the majority of notifications of abuse within 24 hours and remove the offending content if necessary.

The guidelines are aimed at combatting the use of social media by terrorists, according to a joint statement issued by the EC and the IT companies.

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred,” said Vĕra Jourová, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.

The IT companies also agreed to educate their users about the types of content banned under their rules and to encourage them to flag material violating the “code of conduct.”

The measures are based on the Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia, which criminalizes public incitement to violence or hatred and forms the legal basis for defining online content as illegal.

The European Court of Human Rights distinguishes between content that “offends, shocks, or disturbs the State or any sector of the population” and content genuinely intended to incite people to violence or hatred.

All of the companies said “hate speech” has no place on their platforms and promised to continue to take measures to combat it.

Twitter’s Head of Public Policy for Europe, Karen White, said the microblogging site remains “committed to letting the Tweets flow”.

“There is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.

“In tandem with actioning hateful conduct that breaches Twitter’s Rules, we also leverage the platform’s incredible capabilities to empower positive voices, to challenge prejudice and to tackle the deeper root causes of intolerance,” she said.

Microsoft noted that it had recently announced additional steps to specifically prohibit the posting of terrorist content.

Twitter, Facebook, and Google were sued by a French Jewish youth group this month after only a small number of posts containing hate speech that they had flagged were deleted, and only after a lengthy period – an average 15 days in the case of YouTube and Twitter.

However, two civil society groups involved in the discussions announced on Tuesday that they would not take part in future talks after they were excluded from final negotiations.

European Digital Rights (EDRi) and Access Now say they do not have confidence in the “ill considered” code of conduct, saying that there had been a lack of transparency and public input during the creation of the document.

The groups claim that the “‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service.”

They have also pointed out the possibility that the agreement could be in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In addition, concerns are being raised that the agreement could damage freedom of expression by allowing private companies to define what constitutes hate speech and what does not.

Some Anti-Israel ‘Incitement’ (still legal under the US Constitution)

A good song that possibly would be illegal for Europeans to share on social media sites if Gilad Erdan, Israel’s Public Security Minister, has his way. If you haven’t yet read my article, Zionists Push for Multi-National Firing Squad Aimed at Internet ‘Hate Speech,’ you might check it out.

Zionists Push for Multi-National Firing Squad Aimed at Internet ‘Hate Speech’

Posted on June 1, 2016

firingsquad

By Richard Edmondson

The European Commission has reached an agreement with four major Internet tech companies on the terms of a “code of conduct” governing “illegal hate speech” on social media platforms. The companies are Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft.

The announcement was made May 31 and comes just four months after a high-ranking Israeli official called for an “international coalition” to force social media outlets to eliminate “hate” or “incitement” in user posts and threatening legal action against those who fail to comply.

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online,” says the European Commission’s formal announcement. “This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

“Hateful conduct has no place on Twitter and we will continue to tackle this issue head on alongside our partners in industry and civil society,” said Karen White, Twitter’s Head of Public Policy for Europe.

“We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate,” she added.

The Code of Conduct adopts the definition of hate speech incorporated into aFramework Decision on racism that had been previously adopted in 2008. Under that framework, “public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin” would be considered a criminal offense, as would “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes…when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred” against such a group or individual.

It is impossible to glean from the EC press release what part Israel or its European lobbies may have played in advocating for the new measures, but we do know that at a cabinet meeting in January, Gilad Erdan, Israeli Public Security Minister, discussed plans to form an “international legal coalition” of countries with the objective of pressuring social media companies to remove “incitement” from their platforms.

erdan

Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan

Erdan’s views on the matter are discussed in a January 19, 2016Times of Israel article that even names three of the four companies–Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube–who signed on to the European Commission’s code of conduct this week. The coalition would “take action against social media platforms if they do not proactively prevent the use of their systems to upload videos, songs, photos, and other content that inspire would-be terrorists to pick up knives, guns, rocks, and other weapons to attack Israelis,” says the report.

Apparently under the scheme envisioned by Erdan, one does not actually need to advocate an act of violence to be guilty of an offense; one might simply post a song, video or photo that might conceivably “inspire” someone else. The ultimate goal would be “developing legislation in Israel and abroad to prosecute social media platforms for failing to keep calls for violence and hateful materials off their platforms,” as the article puts it.

The Internet companies “make millions but claim they are not responsible for content, and that they only provide a platform,” commented an Erdan spokesperson quoted in the story. “That is not going to wash. We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility, and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behavior as well.”

The spokesperson described unnamed European countries as being “very interested in this idea,” and went on to add:

“The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are. Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty.”

The article also includes links to material allegedly posted by Hamas officials or individual Palestinian activists, including an anatomical chart designed to show which parts of the body to aim for in order to fatally stab someone, but as one commenter here notes, postings of this nature are “tiny in comparison to the volume of material going up on the Internet, and there are already more than sufficient methods in place to deal with such incidents and get them removed.”

That would seem to be the case judging by the sheer number of reports we hear of Facebook pages getting deleted or videos being pulled from YouTube. However, a study published by a French Jewish group, the UEJF, or Jewish Students Union of France, alleges that more than 90 percent of posts they viewed as objectionable on Twitter and YouTube remained online an average of 15 days after requests for removal had been filed. Facebook is said to have been somewhat more obliging to the demands, deleting a third of the posts.

According to Bloomberg, the study was conducted by UEJF in conjunction with two other groups, SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie, and a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook and Google was filed in a Paris court earlier this month.

According to the report, the content still online includes a comment on Facebook saying that “homosexuals are disgusting;” a YouTube video that uses a derogatory term for black people and said “go back home you apes;” and a Twitter post that applauded the Brussels attacks and stated “Death to the Jews.”

Conveniently, the terror attacks in Europe seem to be providing a good bit of the justification for the measures. The attacks are cited in both the Times of Israel report and the European Commission’s press release as well.

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” said Vera Jourová, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality. “Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred.”

“While we are perhaps the biggest sufferers of Arab incitement, we are not the only ones,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Israel Law Center. “The Europeans, after all, have in recent years been given devastating tastes of what that incitement can lead to — in the terror attacks in Marseille, Paris, Toulouse; in the stream of Muslims in Sweden identifying with IS, and many other incidents and attacks, large and small.”

The Times of Israel article notes that Israel already has on its books “the legislation needed to prosecute Facebook and other social media sites for anti-Semitic content,” but as Darshan-Leitner points out the big companies could simply cut off services to the Jewish state should it attempt enforcement on its on.

“That is why Erdan is seeking to build this international coalition. There’s safety in numbers; if Facebook et al. know they are going to have to face the music in a dozen countries, they will be much more amenable to being proactive on this matter than if they were just contending with Israel.”

The code of conduct agreed to this week provides a mechanism of “self-enforcement,” as it were, under which the companies will be “taking the lead” insofar as reviewing notifications of material deemed objectionable–an exercise that in all likelihood will require the hiring of additional employees–and deleting those which presumably cross the line. Just exactly where “the line” will be seems to be rather subjective, however.

For now this determination is left to the companies–surely a disappointment to the hardliners in Israel–but that could change. A few more terrorist attacks in Europe and we could well see the emergence of an EU-wide censorship regime imposed on social media, a regime whose regulations pro-Israel lobbies likely would have a large hand in crafting.

This could of course supply a motive for a false flag attack–a tactic Israel has not been averse to using in the past.

%d bloggers like this: