The Highwire with Del Bigtree - UK DESCENDS INTO CENSORSHIP STATE

Episode Date: August 25, 2024

UK DESCENDS INTO CENSORSHIP STATEBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Del, last week we sat down on air and watched a video that you said was the scariest video you've ever seen. And this was the director of prosecutions for England and Wales over in the UK, and he went on the corporate media over there and was behaving like an authoritarian, but pretending to be a Liberty Beacon, and it sounded like this. The offense of incitement to racial hatred involves publishing or distributing material, which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred. So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that, and then potentially you're committing that offence. And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media.

Their job is to look for this material and then follow up with identification arrests and so forth. So it's really, really serious. People might think they're not. doing anything harmful they are and the consequences will be visited upon them. I mean it's still chilling as ever this idea that by sharing a tweet which and we've looked at some of these with people being arrested for check out this photo of the riots and what's going on just down the street from me by sharing images of riots now all of a sudden apparently that's supposed to be hush hush you're not allowed to show what's happening

outside the window of your own home police or whatever beating on people or whatever the case, you now live in a government where pointing out what's actually happening in your streets could incite violence, like the violence you're pointing to outside your window and people are being arrested. Really, really scary stuff, clearly. And I brought up, I talked to Aaron Siri about this as we've had in meetings. He's like, yeah, England doesn't have a right to free speech. And so, wow, I forgot that point. I guess that was one of the things that our founding fathers were running from, but really still a very chilling video. And people around the world are not, they're used to seeing things like this, say, out of China.

They'll see maybe some head police officer in China saying, you know what, to all our citizens, if you post something, we're going to arrest you and arrest your family. And you know, people's reaction is, well, it's terrible. I feel really bad for the people in China. Their government is really, really stepping on them and they should probably move. But now it's the UK. And it's interesting because the UK has went from basically the height of the COVID response where censorship

was arguably this worst has ever been in several countries in the world to COVID's response is over. And now within a week, we're back at that height in the UK. But it's not just within those borders now. So this is why we're talking about this. The Met police chief, the head police chief there in England and the UK just came out and said this. We will throw the false force of the law at people.

And whether you're in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you. Talk to me about that because we have seen some high-profile figures whipping up the hatred. You talked about it in there with the officers, in fact, about this being added to by online commentary. I mean, I'm even thinking of the likes of Elon Musk getting involved. What are you considering when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behaviour from behind a keyboard and maybe in a different country? Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.

You can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred. There are numerous terrorist offences regarding the sort of publishing of material. All of those offences are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets. And we will come after those individuals, just as we will physically confront on the streets, the thugs and the obbs who are taking, who are causing the problems for communities. I mean, if that does, I feel like, I feel like there's like a, well, a red dot on my head right now, as I'm speaking coming over from the UK, because let's be clear, I want people to hate being lied to. I want people to hate products that aren't properly tested that then injure their family

members. I want people to hate hospital systems that let their relatives die instead of let them go, take whatever risk there was going to be between them and their loved one and hug them and hold them on their deathbed. And so is that hate speech? That you dislike an authoritarian government regime? We are supposed to be, supposed to be democracies we're talking about. And now this chucklehead over in England is going to try and threaten me and Elon Musk and everybody else that wants to speak the truth to power, which is what our Constitution demands. You're going to override our Constitution? And by the way, Jeffrey, what happens if we elect someone that happens to agree with this moron? Are they going to just extradite, hey, oh, you want Del Big Tree? Here he is. We've got

him and we're sending him over like Julian Assange. Go ahead and lock him up for, you know, speaking of truth that we find really uncomfortable. By the way, we prefer if you just use the term malinformation, which is true information, but makes our government look bad. I mean, this is really, we are on the precipice, and what I said to the audience is high-wired, do you see how close is to hang in the balance. For all of you in England right now that are watching, how much longer do you think you're going to be able to watch the high wire there? And all of you all around the world, Australia just had some Australians in town telling us how scary it is there. And Canada, you know, this is an international show. We have an international problem. And we were

calling out the international authoritarian fascists, really, that are, you know, being driven by corporate interests like the pharmaceutical industry, the most powerful industry in the world. Yeah, I'm saying all that while I can, Jeffrey, while I can. And I think many would have hoped that the U.S. government and the officials in the U.S. government would have came out with a stronger statement and said something like, you have no jurisdiction here. This is ridiculous, maybe laughed it off. But you're talking about extraditing U.S. citizens. I mean, what is the new, Julius Assange just was released.

Is the new Julian Assange going to be a Facebook? Someone that posts a thing on Facebook? I mean, this bar is getting lower and lower. But one of the reasons is we're seeing this ill-defined. hate speech law coming in everywhere. We've reported on this in Ireland, you've seen it in England as well, in Canada. And it's guilty until proven innocent. It's these steep fines. And then when people are asked, when the government has asked, well, what's harm, what's hate? Well, we'll let you know, but just know that we're watching you. We're going to throw you in jail if you say it,

but we're not going to really tell you exactly what it is. So by doing this, the UK is attempting to control speech and debate outside its borders. And this is, I mean, literally, if you break it down, it's a threat to the sovereignty of other nations. And what we're seeing here is the disillusion of the borders of countries. And you're seeing a global digital control grid. We're seeing the first kind of peeking out of this where it's not about a founding document for a country that guides its speech. It's about an idea.

And the list of ideas keeps growing. It's hate, it's race, it's vaccines, it's medical freedom. And once that door is open, it will never stop. and whittling away of conversation and debate and whatever we can talk about will be in the government's hands. So in the UK is not kidding here. So this is the BBC first jail terms handed down for social media posts during unrest.

I mean, we didn't even see this during the COVID response. And we thought that was bad. And so the overreach, again, is just, it's not just UK citizens. So just a couple days ago here at the beginning of the week, Elon Musk interviewed Donald Trump, a presidential candidate. on his platform X.

It was estimated to have about a billion views of this conversation when it was all said and done. But before that happened, the European Union reached out to Elon Musk on a public post on his own platform and said this. EU's Breton says Musk must comply with EU law ahead of Trump interview. This is Theory Brenton. He's a top EU commissioner. And he wrote a letter and posted it on X. It's a lengthy letter. It's basically a threat. Every paragraph says is a threatening stance. Digital Service Act will be applied to him. But here's one of the paragraphs, just to give you a taste.

As the relevant content, this is about literally a conversation he's going to have. As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdictions, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU. Again, a conversation. Therefore, we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence. hate and racism in conjunction with major political or societal events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections, American elections. And so it doesn't just stop there because it bleeds over into the U.S. here. We had a Washington Post reporter during a White House press briefing suggesting to censor misinformation from the Trump-Musk interview. That was before

it even happened. So there's this idea that this is becoming okay. And I've- worse than that, the arbiters of freedom of speech is supposed to be journalists, and now they're calling for censorship of a presidential candidate being candid with his perspectives. And by the way, whatever you think of those perspectives, go ahead and fact-check them yourself. I thought we were supposed to want you interviewed. I want you to spew every dumb thought you have, you know, and your good ones, your bad ones, whatever it is, so that I can see what you actually believe. I mean, this is absolutely insane

that you want to block the man from speaking. And meanwhile, we have the other candidate that won't talk to any reporters at all. I guess that's better. Let's just not have any idea what any of these people think and let them just run the free world and we'll see how free it remains.

I mean, really, this is, I will say, Jeffrey, this has been one of the most terrifying weeks for the First Amendment in my lifetime. And we have talked a lot. But this right now, we are really watching a degradation of the idea of freedom of speech. And your right to call out your political adversaries, to call out your government, to call out the corporate institutions. And by the way, hate, I mean, if we have a fragile, sensitive society, which is what we're becoming,

disagreement could likely cause, you know, revolt in the streets. Because people can't handle the truth anymore. They can't handle a debate. handle the discussion. So now if I disagree, if I'm putting out information, I actually, I disagree with the government. I disagree with your approach to freedom. I disagree with how you're handling the border. I mean, and so is that calling for hate? Hatred the people? I mean, there's no definition that you're safe from now. The lack of definition is what is going to get us imprisoned. And a lot of people are asking why the UK, why now? And there's, you know, it could just be,

a set of unfortunate circumstances that has boiled over and the government is using a heavy-handed response and it's going across borders now, sure. But there's also this run-up that has happened because the cultural differences at the heart of what's going on in the UK have been there for years. Sadly, the crimes that are being committed have been going on for years. This has been a powder keg for years that the government has allowed to expand and to grow. And so one of the things that I noticed when I was looking at the media, just the headlines and the things that were being implemented, just a couple months before these UK protests kicked off and the government really put their hammer down were things like this. You saw this, again, this digital AI control grid starting to be erected.

And this is for train stations, for traveling. This was in June, just a couple months ago, Amazon powered AI cameras used to detect emotions of unwitting UK train passengers. Now, again, you'd think this happened after the riots, but notice it before. It says thousands of people catching trains in the UK likely had their faces scanned by Amazon software as part of a widespread RAPS. official intelligence trials, new documents reveal. Herford, he is the head of research investigations at Big Brother Watch. He says the most concerning element of the trials focused on passenger demographics. According to the documents, this setup could use images from the cameras to produce a,

quote, statistical analysis of age range in male and female demographics and is also able to analyze for emotion such as happy, sad, and angry. This is super dangerous, clearly. And this was warned about just a couple of years ago by the UK's office of information. This is the Information Commissioner's Office. And they put out basically a white paper and they said this, immature. They're calling it immature biometric technologies could be discriminating against people. And in that, their deputy commissioner said this,

developments in biometrics and emotion AI markets are immature. They may not work yet or indeed ever. So they're saying that these things are, they're witchcraft basically. He says, while there are opportunities present, the risks are currently greater. At the ICO, we are concerned that incorrect analysis of data could result in assumptions and judgments about a person that are inaccurate and lead to discrimination. So they're saying, don't roll these out. The risks outweigh any benefit.

These things may never be rolled out. We're still in its infancy. And now we have a private company, massive global private company, Amazon coming in and saying, we're going to trial this on your citizens at the train stations. How the heck did that happen? But okay, so it gets, let's just keep following this, this, this, like, train of information thought here. So in May of this year, here's another headline. France warns of civil unrest over new EU eGates that will require UK holiday makers to have their photograph and fingerwritten taken before they enter the block.

So remember, the UK, because of Brexit has exited the European Union block. So they're using that as an excuse to say, well, they're no longer, they no longer get free travel in the EU. So we're going to have to put them through the ringers. So what are they going to do? From October, British and non-EU passport holders will have to go through fingerprint checks and face scans under the new EU entry-exit system, EES. The system will check each passenger's name and biometric data when they enter an EU country. And then for the cherry on top, just two months go in June, outrage as British tourists going away to EU countries could face lie detector tests carried out by artificial intelligence before being granted entry. We've officially hit rock bottom in authoritarianism.

It says as the EU tightens its borders, post-Brexit, new Orwellian-style checks have been trialed. They analyze a person's facial movement and body gestures as they fill in their application form online or at an airport or ferry port. And if the AI software deems someone to be lying or acting suspiciously, their file is flagged up to an immigration officer who could do further checks and refuse entry.

This is dark stuff. I mean, and in a world where you're guilty until proven innocent once the computer AI and it's never wrong and it just said that you have ill intentions. I don't. I don't know what you're talking about. Well, that's what they would all, it's like which trials, right? Well, if you're defending yourself, you must be guilty. Yeah. And this, I mean, what I'm seeing here is just a failure of leadership at several levels, not being able to keep up with this new information space that we're in. People are learning for themselves. People are having conversations with other like-minded people in learning good speech, bad speech, whatever speech. We're

having more of it. And these are leaders that really can't handle that and are looking for, I mean, these are old-fashioned paradigms that are trying to be applied to really a new world that we're in. And they're laughable and they're scary. And, you know, I really don't think they're going to last because people will shrug this off. And they're starting to do that already. So Google, when we talk about social media and these conversations, none of this could be possible without Google's search engine manipulation and the monopolies of big tech. So it's really Google search engines and these monopolies that allow society to have certain conversations. If they decide you can't have that conversation,

it's not going to happen on a wide scale, and it won't affect change. And we've covered this already with the vaccine conversation, with glyphosate. They were hiding search engine results during those trials, even presidential elections. We've seen that as well. So here's the headline. Google loses antitrust trial in major blow to big tech.

This suit was brought by the Justice Department in eight other states, And the judge found that Google's general search and ad businesses violated antitrust laws. So what does this do? Let's read some of the quotes from this article. How big is Google? What kind of monopoly has it? As of June 2023, Google controlled 91% of the global search engine market across all computing platforms, according to stat count on mobile. Google's market share was even higher at 95%.

And it says Google is a monopolist. This is the judge. Google is a monopolist. and it acted as one to maintain its monopoly meta road. So what this ruling paves the way for is a trial. What are the odds is that judge's name is meta? I swear. I know.

It's just little moments like this. I'm like, am I in jelly somewhere in a computer program and somebody's saying, catch the signals, Del. Catch the signals. There's no way a judge's name meta, man, in a case against Google. Just weird. All right.

Okay. Back to this reality. Whatever reality we're in here. So what this is doing is going to pave the way for legal remedies for so a judge can actually up into order the breakup of Alphabet, which is the parent company of Google. So that's a big deal. And this is, court case has been going on for years. And so we're seeing rays of hope.

We're seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel here. And, you know, it's obviously difficult for our brothers and sisters over there in the UK. But it's a signal to the world that a lot of people don't want this. A lot of people think it's on a scale from laughable to disgust. but it's not palatable and people are not having this. Well, you know what's amazing about it, Jeffrey? I mean, it would be really easy for Google right now to like favor a political candidate

and get them in office while they're under review for having their company broken up. And if that said, you know, president or leader was to get in and do bidding for them, we could see all of this sort of disappear. I mean, the incentive there, you know, I hope Google doesn't think of that. I probably just let that out.

Well, I think they know there's valid research showing that Google can sway election results. That has been published.