If Kamala wins, we bid farewell to free speech

by

“There are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. They should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence” (Hillary Clinton). “There is no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy” (Tim Walz). “California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country” (Gavin Newsom). These are some of the ominous buzzwords that Democratic Party ramheads in the United States are pursuing in a campaign aimed at threatening online platforms, as indeed declared apertis verbis by Harris during a rally in 2019:

"I will double the civil rights division and direct law enforcement to hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to democracy. And if you profit off of hate, If you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare and don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community."

If Harris wins, Americans will end up like the British....

The American Dems' agenda sounds a lot like that of the Keit Starmer regime in Britain, where convictions for “hate” crimes exceed in severity those imposed for blood crimes and where entire legions of police have been earmarked to monitor what British subjects write on their social media rather than patrol the streets where “diversity” has driven insecurity to unprecedented levels.

After all, the freedom to walk the streets without being stabbed is our problem, while our freedom of speech is a problem for the establishment. No wonder, then, that British subjects are now being abandoned by their government at the mercy of crime while they are clubbed for their dissent to the ethnic replacement policies pursued in recent decades.

An all-purpose allegation

The call to establish laws against “disinformation,” accused of causing riots, foreign influence on democratic processes, or simply “hate,” is a threat to the rule of law because of the patently evanescent nature of the concept: as cartoonist SKS Cartoon icastically depicted, once a law against “disinformation” is passed, the ball is passed to those who can decide how to define this offence. During the pandemic, for example, all those who claimed that there were specific cures for the parainfluenzal syndrome caused by the coronavirus were branded as “misinformers,” only to later acknowledge that the formula anti-inflammatories+vitamins+antibiotics and if necessary antithrombotic drugs was the best way to treat the vast majority of cases. On the contrary, the media supported at the sword the ministerial prescription of “tachypirin and watchful waiting,” which especially in Italy proved to be exacerbating for tens of thousands of patients.

When all is said and done, there is no doubt which of the two pieces of information was bogus. But thanks to the complete control of mainstream media and social media by the establishment, the strategy imposed by the Italian Ministry of Health was touted as “correct” while the other hidden when not openly discouraged. Thousands of patients (including the writer) owe their lives to physicians who have disseminated effective therapies through alternative channels, often suffering media persecution from the mainstream if not from the professional association. In a regime such as that advocated by Harris and her party's mayors they would directly risk criminal prosecution as guilty of “disinformation.”

 The perfect regime, the one dreamed of by Western leftists

The goal, clearly, is to silence any real opposition by fencing off the perimeter of “permissible” in public debate to domesticated arguments only. The wet dream of the Liberal International, from Washington to London to Brussels to, of course, Italian “wide leftist alliances,” is to be able to set the public up with fake debates whose sole purpose is to prove that there is still a “democracy,” while anything that goes off the rails and contradicts it can easily be criminalized and prosecuted by law.

“Disinformation” is thus a truncheon to be waved under the nose of anyone who is inconvenient. After all, its definition is evanescent and allows those who set themselves up as judge, jury and hangman to construct a criminal case tailor-made for their political enemy to be silenced and destroyed.

Indeed, the trauma suffered by the Liberal International over Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016 is still searing. That a handful of kids armed with memes managed to bring down Dem power by spreading news about Clinton's emails and the murky goings-on around her clan turned out to be an unprecedented whiplash in the establishment's face. You will all remember Ms. Bottero's tears as she lamented how voters had not followed the press' lead. Few, however, remember that simultaneously a wave of panic hit the Liberal International and European institutions, setting in motion those processes that led to the current European Media Freedom Act, an Orwellian name for a law that threatens to crush any real freedom of expression on the Internet for the subjects of the European superstate. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that the debate that led to this legal apparatus, fortunately not yet so stringent for the states, began with even a call for a ban on memes.

In Italy, Constitution articles 21 and 3 must be locked down (before it is too late...)

In Italy, the parliamentary debate for the media and publishing reform law has now started. This can be an opportunity to lock down the constitutional freedoms guaranteed by Article 21 - freedom of expression and the press without censorship - and 3 - non -discriminability of individuals even for their political opinions - but also the Trojan horse with which new and treacherous instruments of repression can be introduced. A surplus of shrewdness on the part of our policymakers is therefore needed at this time, particularly to prevent the opposition from implanting the malignant embryos of future repression of free speech, taking care above all not to succumb to the enticements of believing that they can use them, nor to the melancholy rhetoric of “responsibility” with which the leftists try to bend the discourse in their favor. All, of course, by doing it quickly, for from overseas may come four more years of the Wokeist regime, the premises of which are such as to make one's wrists shake.