In another section, the report speaks of “recent research
on how violent video games are turning children,
mostly boy, into killing zombies.”
The footnote leads to a rambling screed by a disciple of the
infamous Lyndon LaRouch.
Not only is the report riddled with mistakes—its proposals are totalitarian.
It urges governments to use their powers to license only those internet providers and
search engines that “supervise” user content.
This is precisely what China does to censor its people online; except instead of subverting
the communist party, the crime would now be mocking a woman.
xx
In the US, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court routinely blocks government officials from censoring even highly offensive
speech.
The internet can be rough—and threats of violence or stalking and can be terrifying—but
these are crimes and they are legally actionable wherever they occur.
Beyond that, a more civil and mannerly internet should be a matter of private norms—and
many internet sites are promoting that.
Government supervision of conversation is the last thing that any of us, male or female,
need.
The UN cyberviolence report is a train-wreck.
Yet the New York Times, Time, Wired and countless other news sites reported on it without criticism.
Not a word about all the mistakes and outlandish proposals.
To her credit, a tech writer at the Washington Post did alert readers to its dangerous implications
for free expression.
It was left to a bloggers like Jaime Bravo and a columnist at British Breitbart – Milo
Yannapoulis.
Jaime Bravo went through every one of the 120 footnotes and found mistakes in 77 of
them.
In some cases, the links were broken or the source had nothing to do with the claim.
Some of the footnotes were left blank—in one instance the citation lead to a file in
the author’s hard drive.
Yannapoulis exposed the appalling authoritarianism of the report’s proposals.
Milo Yiannopoulos had to do the fact checking...
Yiannopoulos asked a good question, “Why is it left to me, a sarcastic gay satirist
and shitposter,” to fact check the UN?
After Bravo and Yiannopolous brought these egregious faults to light, journalists at
New York Magazine and Mother Jones, began to report the real story.
Is it out of the question for journalists at the New York Times or TIME to review a
report before writing about it and raise questions about obvious anomalies?
If it’s politically correct advocacy research on women’s victimization—the answer is
an emphatic yes.
Well let me know in the comments section what do you think of the UN report?
Do you favor more government policing and regulation of Twitter or Youtube?
And if you found this video useful, please show your support by subscribing to the series.
Likes on Facebook are much appreciated.
And please, follow me on Twitter.
Final message to the UN cyberviolence researchers: Check your facts and your privilege.