UNITED NATIONS AND EXTREMIST FEMINISTS TEAM UP TO REDEFINE HARASSMENT, END FREE INTERNET
(INTELLIHUB) — Fresh off the utter embarrassment of naming Saudi Arabia as the head of a key human rights panel, the United Nations is this time taking aim at the free internet with a plan released Thursday by the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development that, if implemented, would literally end the internet as we know it.
The report, supposedly commissioned to study and find ways to deter harassment of women online, is chalked full of purposeful misrepresentations and included at least two prominent hard left “feminists” speaking about the horrible harassment they have received on the internet. (see being called out for fraud)
In an article for the Washington Post, Caitlin Dewey reveals some of the stunning censorship plans being pushed by the UN, all to save women from being harassed online, an issue itself that has been unbelievably blown out of proportion.
Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.
“The respect for and security of girls and women must at all times be front and center,” the report reads, not only for those “producing and providing the content,” but also everyone with any role in shaping the “technical backbone and enabling environment of our digital society.”
How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.
At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”
Basically, in what would be a drastic change, the United Nations wants websites to be responsible for what all their users do as well as to be specifically responsible for enforcing draconian anti harassment measures under the threat of government action.
What this essentially means is that the United Nations wants to drastically change U.S. law and censor the free internet in order to save feminists from having their feelings hurt online.
While any sane person understands that online harassment is a real issue (for both females and males), the idea that we should then change the entire internet to attempt to stop it is ludicrous and frankly highly dangerous to free speech and democracy worldwide.
The fact that two hard left feminist frauds are the ones consulting with the UN on how to implement their planned censorship completely destroys any legitimacy the report may have had and unmasks it for what it really is which is yet another silo in the ongoing culture war waged by political correct zealots who openly want anyone that disagrees with them to be censored. Again, this is literally American feminists going to the United Nations and helping craft a plan for full-scale control over the internet, all in the name of saving woman from harassment.
As Milo Yiannopoulos detailed in an article on breitbart.com, the two “leading” feminists who spoke at the release of the report are well-known for wanting those that call them out for their corrupt actions to be censored and who use accusations of threats against woman online to silence their critics.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.
Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.
In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.
Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.
Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.
That’s right folks, the United Nations wants governments across the world to end the free internet and license speech so hucksters like Anita Sarkeesian don’t have to be told they suck on a daily basis.
And those videos Quinn talks about that abuse her and Anita? Considering the fact that YouTube already removes videos that contain real harassment, one can only assume that Quinn is speaking about the dozens of factual videos that expose the lies and misrepresentations that her and Antia have peddled for years.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.
The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)
Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.
“A cyber-touch is recognized as equally as harmful as a physical touch”
In perhaps the most absurd portion of this anti free speech UN plan, the authors literally equate Tweets to real life harassment, further revealing that yes this is a plan to censor anyone that disagrees with the hard left thought police.
The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”
It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lackingdespite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?
This report confirms yet again that cultural Marxists are extremely dedicated to rooting out ANY and ALL criticism of their extreme agenda and are willing to destroy the free internet in order to do so.
Whether it be labeling those they disagree with as anti-women, racist, sexist, or any other PC buzz word, the fact remains that these are authoritarians who have no regard for the American Constitution or even the basic right of free speech.
About the Author:
Alex Thomas is a reporter and opinion journalist who has worked in the alternative media for over three years. His work has been featured on numerous news outlets including Infowars and RT. You can contact him here. Alex is an exclusive weapon of Intellihub.