The High Court ruled the UK Government acted unlawfully and disproportionately in using terrorism legislation against protestors. Civil liberties, free speech and the right to peaceful protest matter. Protecting them protects everyone. Cllr Anthony Flynn explains.
A win for free speech and human rights - join the Greens to keep standing for peaceful protest and accountability on Palestine: https://greenpartyni.org/join.
Choosing a single person to represent all Australian Jews is problematic.
It was, nonetheless, obvious from the outset that choosing the President of Israel was a decision that increased dissent, disharmony, division and social conflict.
The right for Australians to express a political opinion and assert the implied right to free speech is being suppressed with a frightening rapidity.
A cynic might argue that Herzog was asked to visit in order to justify laws designed to suppress political expression. A goal of the Zionist lobby.
I understand where they are coming from but that is way too much of a technological framing. Even an encrypted open source Internet can be super unsafe to exist in.
Safety comes from social and political structures and decisions that technology can support.
And that responsibility is something #techbros have shirked by moving goalposts of how much freedom users have while extracting from users. They do this because they can buy influence in a nation where #freespeech is measured in dollars.
Next up will be a VPN ban. Many tech-y people will see that and think “lol yeah well that’s not going to stop me from using a VPN”
A VPN ban isn’t really meant stop you from using one. It means when they catch you doing so, they’ll use the fact you’re using this harmless technology itself as a pretense to lock you up without needing to do any “hard work” (i.e. an investigator’s job) like actually confirming whether you committed a real crime.
Don’t think you won’t be impacted just because you know how to outsmart an ISP filter! This is not a plan to protect children or stop you from consuming adult media. It is a ploy to eventually eliminate ALL freedom of expression and free access to information in the UK.
And the same goes for Chat Control and encrypted messengers, btw
One of the most conservative and anti-#LGBTQIA+ judges in America just upheld a #Texas university's campus ban on #drag performances. In the process he compared drag to blackface, an increasingly popular right-wing talking point. He also claimed that drag has no first amendment protection because it's devoid of artistic value: https://thebarbedwire.com/2026/01/20/west-texas-am-drag-show-lawsuit/
Italy fined Cloudflare 14.2 million euros for refusing to block access to pirate sites on its 1.1.1.1 DNS service, the country’s communications regulatory agency, AGCOM, announced yesterday. Cloudflare said it will fight the penalty and threatened to remove all of its servers from Italian cities.
Yesterday a quasi-judicial body in Italy fined @Cloudflare $17 million for failing to go along with their scheme to censor the Internet. The scheme, which even the EU has called concerning, required us within a mere 30 minutes of notification to fully censor from the Internet any sites a shadowy cabal of European media elites deemed against their interests. No judicial oversight. No due process. No appeal. No transparency. It required us to not just remove customers, but also censor our 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver meaning it risked blacking out any site on the Internet. And it required us not just to censor the content in Italy but globally. In other words, Italy insists a shadowy, European media cabal should be able to dictate what is and is not allowed online.
That, of course, is DISGUSTING and even before yesterday’s fine we had multiple legal challenges pending against the underlying scheme. We, of course, will now fight the unjust fine. Not just because it’s wrong for us but because it is wrong for democratic values.
In addition, we are considering the following actions: 1) discontinuing the millions of dollars in pro bono cyber security services we are providing the upcoming Milano-Cortina Olympics; 2) discontinuing Cloudflare’s Free cyber security services for any Italy-based users; 3) removing all servers from Italian cities; and 4) terminating all plans to build an Italian Cloudflare office or make any investments in the country.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. While there are things I would handle differently than the current U.S. administration, I appreciate @JDVance taking a leadership role in recognizing this type of regulation is a fundamental unfair trade issue that also threatens democratic values. And in this case is right: #FreeSpeech is critical and under attack from an out-of-touch cabal of very disturbed European policy makers.
I will be in DC first thing next week to discuss this with U.S. administration officials and I’ll be meeting with the IOC in Lausanne shortly after to outline the risk to the Olympic Games if @Cloudflare withdraws our cyber security protection.
In the meantime, we remain happy to discuss this with Italian government officials who, so far, have been unwilling to engage beyond issuing fines. We believe Italy, like all countries, has a right to regulate the content on networks inside its borders. But they must do so following the Rule of Law and principles of Due Process. And Italy certainly has no right to regulate what is and is not allowed on the Internet in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, China, Brazil, India or anywhere outside its borders.
Great moments in history. Stephen Colbert lists the reasons HE was a bad president season 1. Many are quaint compared to the murderous trainwreck in Season 2.
All this crap, and he got elected again. It still makes me ill.
still more reasons I am sorry I do not have the time or the patience to list them out. There has to be like 100 of them, most of which are quaint compared with now.
Yesterday a quasi-judicial body in Italy fined @Cloudflare $17 million for failing to go along with their scheme to censor the Internet. The scheme, which even the EU has called concerning, required us within a mere 30 minutes of notification to fully censor from the Internet any sites a shadowy cabal of European media elites deemed against their interests. No judicial oversight. No due process. No appeal. No transparency. It required us to not just remove customers, but also censor our 1.1.1.1 DNS resolver meaning it risked blacking out any site on the Internet. And it required us not just to censor the content in Italy but globally. In other words, Italy insists a shadowy, European media cabal should be able to dictate what is and is not allowed online.
That, of course, is DISGUSTING and even before yesterday’s fine we had multiple legal challenges pending against the underlying scheme. We, of course, will now fight the unjust fine. Not just because it’s wrong for us but because it is wrong for democratic values.
In addition, we are considering the following actions: 1) discontinuing the millions of dollars in pro bono cyber security services we are providing the upcoming Milano-Cortina Olympics; 2) discontinuing Cloudflare’s Free cyber security services for any Italy-based users; 3) removing all servers from Italian cities; and 4) terminating all plans to build an Italian Cloudflare office or make any investments in the country.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. While there are things I would handle differently than the current U.S. administration, I appreciate @JDVance taking a leadership role in recognizing this type of regulation is a fundamental unfair trade issue that also threatens democratic values. And in this case is right: #FreeSpeech is critical and under attack from an out-of-touch cabal of very disturbed European policy makers.
I will be in DC first thing next week to discuss this with U.S. administration officials and I’ll be meeting with the IOC in Lausanne shortly after to outline the risk to the Olympic Games if @Cloudflare withdraws our cyber security protection.
In the meantime, we remain happy to discuss this with Italian government officials who, so far, have been unwilling to engage beyond issuing fines. We believe Italy, like all countries, has a right to regulate the content on networks inside its borders. But they must do so following the Rule of Law and principles of Due Process. And Italy certainly has no right to regulate what is and is not allowed on the Internet in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, China, Brazil, India or anywhere outside its borders.
When so-called Free Speech Absolutists begin to work hard to protect the free speech of their opponents (rather than seek political and legal means to shut them down) I'll be more inclined to believe their support for free speech in principle & not merely the attempt of the powerful to have their say while denying others their's.... until then lets be clear these supporters of free speech are not what they claim to be (which is no news to most of you, I realise).
Greta Thunberg was arrested under the Terrorism Act for displaying a sign that read: "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS".
The police allege she was displaying support for a proscribed (banned) organization. However, a linguistic analysis reveals a critical distinction. The police are reading keywords; grammar dictates she was supporting people, not an organization.
Here is how Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)—a tool used to analyse how language functions in real contexts—deconstructs the sign to show why the arrest is linguistically flawed.
In English, when we group words together to name something (like "Red delicious apple" or "Palestine Action Prisoners"), there is always one word that anchors the meaning. We call this the Head or the Thing. Everything else is just decoration or categorization.
Let's look at Greta's object of support: "Palestine Action Prisoners"
The Head (The Thing): PRISONERS
This is the core reality of the sentence. The physical beings she is referencing are incarcerated people.
The Classifier: PALESTINE ACTION
In grammar, this functions as a Classifier. Its only job is to tell us which type of prisoners we are talking about. It restricts the category.
To prove this, we can swap the classifier for something else. This is called the commutation test.
If she wrote "I support [remand] prisoners," she is not saying she "supports remand" (keeping people in jail). She is supporting the people subject to that condition.
If a lawyer says "I defend [murder] suspects," they are not "defending murder." They are defending the suspects.
The police have conflated the Classifier (the label) with the Thing (the people). Linguistically, you cannot simply lift the modifier "Palestine Action" out of the phrase and claim it is the object of her support. It is glued to the word "Prisoners."
Linguists use a system called Transitivity to map "who does what to whom." It traces the energy of the verb.
The Actor (Doer): "I" (Greta)
The Process (Verb): "Support"
The Goal (Target): "Prisoners"
Imagine the sentence as an arrow. The arrow of "Support" is fired by Greta. It flies over the words "Palestine Action" and lands squarely on "Prisoners."
Grammatical Reading: Greta → Support → Prisoners (who happen to be associated with Palestine Action).
Police Reading: Greta → Support → Palestine Action (the organization).
By ignoring the word "Prisoners," the legal interpretation creates a new sentence that Greta did not write. She is validating the human rights of the individuals (the Goal), not the manifesto of the group (the Classifier).
Language doesn't happen in a vacuum. We must look at the second line of the sign to understand the first. This is called Appraisal Analysis—how we judge value and stance.
The sign reads:
"I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS"
"I OPPOSE GENOCIDE"
The second line acts as a "decoder key" for the first.
"Oppose Genocide" sets a moral framework. It is a statement about humanitarian law and saving lives.
Because the bottom line is about human rights (opposing death/genocide), the top line must be read in the same context.
She is not supporting "Palestine Action" because she loves their logo or their specific tactics; she is supporting the prisoners because she views them as victims of the same system she is critiquing in line two. The sign frames the prisoners as humanitarian subjects (people suffering), not political agents (people acting).
The Verdict
The arrest relies on "Keyword Searching"—seeing a banned word and acting on it. But grammar relies on structure.
Greta Thunberg sits cross-legged on the ground, holding a handwritten sign that reads "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS" and "I OPPOSE GENOCIDE". A police officer in a black uniform and peaked cap kneels directly in front of her, appearing to speak to her. Behind them are grey metal crowd control barriers and other police officers standing in the background.
2/2
If I hold a sign that says: "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION; I DON'T SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION"
...do I support the proscribed group?
Under a basic "Keyword Search" approach (the method effectively used in the arrest), the answer is a confused "Yes and No." The machine sees the banned word count = 2.
But under Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), this sentence creates a Logical Paradox that renders the statement legally unanswerable. Here is the logic sequence of why this sentence breaks the "Guilty" verdict.
If we read "Palestine Action" as a Proper Noun (The specific banned organization) in both halves of the sentence, the statement is nonsense.
Clause A: I support [The Group].
Clause B: I do not support [The Group].
This results in a logical nullity (A and Not-A). A court cannot rely on a statement that cancels itself out. To find meaning, the human brain, and the law, looks for a way to resolve the conflict.
To make the sentence make sense, we instinctively shift the meaning of one of the phrases. We stop reading it as a Name, and start reading it as a description.
This is called Nominalisation.
"Palestine Action" (Proper Noun): The corporate entity/group.
"Palestine Action" (Common Noun Phrase): The process of taking political action for Palestine.
Because "Action" is a word derived from a verb (to act), it is linguistically fluid. It can slide between being a "Thing" (the group) and a "Process" (the deed).
Once we allow that shift, the sentence suddenly has a valid, non-criminal reading:
"I support [the political act of resistance]; I don't support [the proscribed group]."
Or, depending on which clause you assign the value to:
"I support [the group]; I don't support [the specific acts]."
The Result: Semantic Erosion By placing these identical phrases side-by-side with opposite polarity (Support vs. Don't Support), the text muddies the water. The capitalized letters lose their authority. You can no longer prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the speaker is referencing the group, because the sentence structure itself suggests they are distinguishing between the Entity and the Concept.
The Verdict
The police rely on Lexical Rigidity—assuming a word always means the same thing. This defence relies on Functional Ambiguity.
If a sign creates a "Zone of Indeterminacy"—where a legal reading is just as grammatically likely as an illegal one—the text cannot serve as a confession. The grammar itself provides the reasonable doubt.
So, if you feel bold, go get yourself a t-shirt reading "I DON'T SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION; I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION", and make the police fucking explain its meaning to you.
They won't be able to. They will still pick you up for "Reasonable Suspicion", but that is where the fun may begin.
You see, as we have illustrated, the "unreadability" creates a conundrum, where an offence may or may not have been committed, and they don't really know. The defence is already baked-in grammatically.
And the definition there is piss-weak:
"A person in a public place commits an offence if he wears an item of clothing... in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation."
It would be for a legal defence team to defend the position, but the ready baked in defence, perhaps, gives credence that any arrest would constitute Illegal Detainment, as:
The arresting officer lacked objective reasonable grounds to suspect I was a supporter of a proscribed group, because the text on my clothing explicitly contained a negation of that support ('I don't support...'). The officer relied on a selective reading of keywords rather than the full semantic context, rendering the suspicion irrational and the arrest unlawful.
This from the same nation who pulled a documentary on one of it's concentration camps on foreign soil on Sunday?
That and thousand other things.
Sit down you Yankee clown! 😡
Secretary Marco Rubio & @ @SecR...- 18 xe. X
3 For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led
organized efforts to coerce American platforms
to punish American viewpoints they oppose. The
Trump Administration will no longer tolerate
these egregious acts of extraterritorial
censorship.
Today, @StateDept will take steps to bar leading
figures of the global censorship-industrial
complex from entering the United States. We
stand ready and willing to expand this list if
others do not reverse course.
Cloudflare defies Italy’s Piracy Shield, won’t block websites on 1.1.1.1 DNS ( arstechnica.com )
Italy fined Cloudflare 14.2 million euros for refusing to block access to pirate sites on its 1.1.1.1 DNS service, the country’s communications regulatory agency, AGCOM, announced yesterday. Cloudflare said it will fight the penalty and threatened to remove all of its servers from Italian cities.
La Liga gegen Cloudflare: Kampf gegen Piraterie oder digitale Zensur? ( tarnkappe.info )
You ban aid groups and press when you want no witnesses to your atrocities.
cross-posted from: https://zirk.us/users/JazzyKindaFella/statuses/115810402292543900 ...