By this May means, as Pamela Geller has pointed out, that “the fight against jihad and those who oppose jihad is a joint one.” This is because opposition to jihad terror is routinely characterized by Theresa May and her colleagues as “hate speech.” It has been a years-long chess game: first came the charge, ridiculous on its face but relentlessly and indefatigably repeated, that to speak honestly about how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims constituted “hate.” Then came the likewise specious charge that “hate speech” was not “free speech,” and was capable of being identified by neutral, impartial observers, and that it did not deserve the protection that various governments gave to the freedom of speech.
None of that is true. In reality, hate speech is a subjective judgment based on the political perspectives of the one doing the evaluating, and freedom of speech protections were first instituted in order to ensure that speech that was hated by the party in power could still be aired: the freedom of speech is our fundamental bulwark against tyranny, and prevents tyrants from declaring opposition to their will to be “hate speech” and thereby outlaw it.
But I never was any good at chess, and now Facebook and Twitter have blocked 90% of their daily referrals from Jihad Watch, and the site is blocked by many Internet service providers in the UK and Europe. Soon, apparently, Google will follow suit.
Google, Facebook and other internet companies could be prosecuted if they do not stop extremist videos from being seen on their websites by people in Britain, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Ministers are considering a new law which would mean Google – which owns YouTube – and other social media sites like Facebook and Twitter can be prosecuted if they allow such videos to be disseminated.
Theresa May, the Prime Minister, made clear her displeasure at internet companies that publish extremist content on Friday, saying “the ball is in their court” over taking action.
Google publicly apologised this week after the growing scandal over extremist videos on YouTube led to a series of companies pulling their adverts from the internet giant.
Google, which owns the video sharing website YouTube, and other social media sites have an agreement to take down extremist content within 24 hours when they are alerted to it.
But ministers are worried that this still allows the videos to be viewed thousands of times before they are taken down.
However ministers in the Home Office are now looking at a new law to force the websites to take down content immediately or face court action.
Officials are trying to work out how the law can be enforced in the UK given that many films that can be seen in the UK are hosted on foreign websites.
One source said: “We want to see them take on their responsibility. The problem with the law is in itself we can do what we can but these are global companies.”
The Home Office’s talks with the internet companies are being led by Baroness Shields, who as Joanna Shields was a former Facebook executive.
The news came as Mrs May’s spokesman said that “social media companies can and must do more”.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “The fight against terrorism and hate speech has to be a joint one. The government and security services are doing everything they can and it is clear that social media companies can and must do more.
“Social media companies have a responsibility when it comes to making sure this material is not disseminated and we have been clear repeatedly that we think that they can and must do more. We are always talking with them on how to achieve that
“The ball is now in their court. We will see how they respond.”…