Respectfully, the Online Safety Act does not protect children at all. Anyone who thinks that is foolish, and believes the propaganda.
Children are very clever. They know what VPNs are, and often, they know a workaround or two on almost every aspect of life.
This law is a massive invasion of private citizen's privacy, and has already been shown to have data breaches from many 3rd party "verification" platforms.
So, again, respectfully, please do more research, because this reads like Government propaganda.
Therein lies the problem. From what I've seen, it looks like people are waking up, and putting in the work to let them know who works for who. It's a long journey, but keep at it!
American attitudes toward freedom from government are a big part of why Silicon Valley has been allowed to run roughshod over everyone’s mental health, children’s development, all of our privacy, etc.
The rest of the world doesn’t have these same attitudes. Canada and the UK don’t have American-style freedom of speech laws; we generally believe that such freedoms may need to be diminished or abrogated to solve other pressing societal goals.
The US First Amendment, in my opinion, has become a suicide pact for your country (and unfortunately for the rest of us too) when it comes to what the unregulated, profit-driven internet is doing to individuals and society.
Edit: a specific example, the idea that it’s better that every single adolescent boy have unlimited access to incredibly depraved porn if it means adults don’t have to show ID to access it. Or that everyone should have the freedom to gamble away their family’s money on sports betting, seamlessly from their living room, because freedom, right?
Okay, so maybe you’re British or Canadian or German. If you are, your post here shows that your views are closer to the median American view and probably quite a bit closer toward “speech” on the speech-vs-safety tradeoff than the median in your own country.
We had a Reform Party here in Canada that represented such views. They rarely won elections. That party got merged into our federal Conservatives, and they still don’t win elections.
You’re not “wrong” in your views, there are no right or wrong answers here, just personal morals and beliefs. Just speaking on behalf of broad national averages.
It largely comes down to whether a person trusts Big Brother and the Nanny State. I don't. And even if a government was trustworthy and not self-serving, that says nothing about the next group that takes power.
My government isn’t Big Brother or the Nanny State, but maybe yours is! That might be why you’re a Radical Individualist where I believe in the power of the state to solve common problems, and generally trust my federal and provincial governments to do so.
Funny. I would have said that Canada is FAR more Big Brother, Nanny State totalitarian than the USA. You do understand that government control of education, healthcare, housing, communications, and retirement is totalitarian, don't you?
This isn't a speech vs safety argument, however, this is a privacy vs control debate.
With that framing, I would never opt to have a Government control any aspect of my life, unless it was actually required for actual safety.
In this case, and in Canada as well as Australia, this is a massive overstep by the Government, and it's actually shown that it's to the detriment to grown adults safety and privacy via the various data breaches that have already happened with third parties who are implementing the ID verification.
These are steps taken by a Government who don't truly understand the impact of what they are doing, but are virtue signalling in an effort to gain control of, censor, and intimidate the population.
It has zero effect on the safety of children, akin to how the Canadian Governments' Gun Ban/ Buy Back Plan does on crime. They're aiming at the wrong target, and not using the tools they already have. They choose to attempt to gain more control for other reasons.
When you push a populous into economic decline, and cause the average person to work more than one job in order to make ends meet, or have both parents working 1 or more jobs, that's the economy.
I think if you asked 2 parent families if one parent would stay home to raise their kids (whichever parent they choose), I also believe that they would choose to do that.
I don't think it's a matter of "won't", I think it's a matter of "can't", and again, that comes back to Government activity leading to societal and economic decline.
Also, family computers and devices. When parents work 80+ hours per week, they are tired, kids are a lot of work. It can be awesome, and it's definitely stressful, and I don't blame any parents who want a break.
Devices, for most parents, are a fact of life for mental health, and on the flip side of the coin, they shouldn't have to work as much as they do, so that they can put more quality time into their kids, but the fact remains that for more than 90% of families in Western economies don't have that option.
If it comes down to the difference of having an extra 30 mins to sleep, or gather your thoughts, most parents will take that, and in the long run, it sounds bad, but it's the right choice.
Just curious, are you a parent? Not judging, but just curious, based on your perspective.
“Canada and the UK don’t have American-style freedom of speech laws; we generally believe that such freedoms may need to be diminished or abrogated to solve other pressing societal goals.”
Despite the fact that this is the oldest and most debunked cliche against free speech ever made and completely untrue, I would posit any “pressing societal goal” which requires you to legally punish people for their speech and opinions is probably one not worth attaining.
Gerard, I hear your concerns especially knowing the strange "vibe" in the UK and I don't exclude that some badfaith actors may use children protection to obtain other goals, but the entire issue is that with the internet an artificial space was created where adults (weirdos included) from everywhere in the world and children are together and that is not ok in a civilized society. Big Tech are intentionally creating extreme polarization to ensure we don't stop this crazy idea that they decide, THEY, not parents/school/Government, what kids should be exposed to, what social interactions they should have, what experiences they should make at what age... THIS IS VERY WRONG. At least we can agree on that ?
In that order. Parents should be allowed to be present in their kids' lives, and in doing so, parents have a responsibility to their kids and protecting their mental health from things like social media.
The big tech groups are corporations. Fiduciaries, in fact, and their responsibility is to maximize value for shareholders. While they don't explicitly target children, there is no way for a child to access social media, if the parent is present, educational, and involved in their children's online behaviours and experiences.
Parents have the power and responsibility to be between social media and their children. Economic issues have driven that to a very difficult position.
Companies that have distributed all this hardcore pornography to teenage boys should be shut down and their executives imprisoned. They wrecked the culture. Insane.
I think an easier solution for enforcement would be to make website algorithms a licensing issue. If you, or your company use an algorithm to collect, analyze and distribute data online, you should have to apply for, qualify, and stay within specific guidelines to maintain that license, which could be revoked at any time if a Government deems that it's become harmful to their citizens.
Part of the issue is that Governments have turnover. These large tech companies will gladly lay low when needed, in order to wait for the next candidate who is friendly to get into power, or lobby the Government for concessions.
If citizens want change, I think a starting point might be to classify websites as algorithm enabled, and analog. Analog will hurt discoverability, and licensing around using an algorithm could help keep companies in line.
It could potentially, reduce revenue from larger platforms by taking away their ability to use targeted advertising, which is a massive revenue generator for them, while also encouraging users to stay within the guidelines, as they don't want to lose creator revenue.
It's definitely a problem on social media, with accounts being taken over with nefarious intent. I'd love to see better controls over that.
A referendum puts power to the people, which I like, but I'd also like to see the Government stay out of the conversation, and give the citizens a deadline to submit their pros and cons on specific actionable items before tying it to legislation. Unfortunately, it seems near impossible for that to happen on a level playing field.
I trust people to come up with appropriate and helpful solutions, but unfortunately I also trust Governments to mettle and grab power where they can, to the detriment of people who actually want to improve their country.
Yes, smart people who understand this stuff and act are appreciated. So many of us dummies and simple people were brutally abandoned to clever internet predators. There is a lot of elitism behind the blindness that allowed these problems to proliferate for decades to mild rebuke or enthusiastic applause.
But the great enraged and degenerate masses are lurching towards violence now. Common sense should have told us not to raise boys this way.
Meanwhile, the experts are bewildered at all the angry dysfunctional young men.
Legislating the internet is very difficult, and every smart alec and their cousin has lined up to take a pop at the OSA. The worst of them, with an agenda to pursue, claim that it’s about control and censorship.
No, I don’t make a habit of reading primary legislation, it’s about as comprehendable as machine code. And I’m surprised that as a real estate entrepreneur and dad you have the time and the ability to do that. Where did you gain your legal skills?
It's a responsibility that I have to the people who work for me, in addition to being a present parent.
I take it seriously, as people's income and well being rely on it, and so, it's an important part of my role as a brokerage owner to protect the industry against invasive legislation, and engage PACs and lobbyists with pertinent information.
I've been doing that for nearly 15 years.
When things matter, you find time to get the work done.
Seems like the UK could of saved a lot of time, money, and liberty by passing a 1-page bill that said: “Hey, parents. Don’t buy your kid(s) a fucking smart phone!” and all of us would be better off.
Lol, I'm not against it. I think we all could use a break.
I'm old enough to remember a time when we "had to go to the internet" rather than having it with us all the time.
The dynamic was different, and I didn't hate it. Priorities changed around what you wanted to do online, and coincidentally, a lot of us did stuff like this.
Fair, yet how many use it in practice? VPN searches surged 18x after the law passed, but that’s likely on a very small base of users.
The goal of many (most?) public policies is to increase or decrease friction for certain behaviours, not to prevent it outright (nearly always impossible). There is a big difference between a 12 year old being able to simply search for porn on a whim, and having to go through the multi-step process of setting up a VPN.
I think you're overestimating the difficulty of using a VPN, most, once setup, start automatically by default on reboot.
It's hard to track usage, because VPNs don't have to report usage to Government bodies.
With that being said, there are laws and procedures in place to protect children online that are effective when used. These Governments are choosing not to use them.
Tristan, I don't know who you are, or what your background is, but VPNs are dead simple, and if I played dumb and asked most kids to connect it for me, they would have no trouble. Most are single button clicks, so, personally, I don't feel like your explanation checks out.
I also don't think kids think or care about whether the software they use is trustworthy. It's a means to an end for them.
The alternative policy is that the Government enforces existing legislation, as noted multiple times above. The fact that they don't, when the guidelines and tools exist, further demonstrates that this new legislation is about control and censorship.
Again, I think you'd be surprised what kids know. And also again, that doesn't make kids safe.
The Online Safety Act, and the Online Harms Act (in Canada) is so incredibly filled with holes, that it expressly demonstrates that this is specifically a censorship and control piece of legislation.
The UK Government specifically has also shown that it doesn't have the appetite to pursue crimes against children.
There are already many tools in place to protect children, and pursue those who pursue children, and unfortunately, the countries who have these tools are choosing not to use them.
These new laws are about control and censorship, plain and simple.
FFS she wasn’t tweeting about grooming gangs, she was inciting a mob to burn people alive. And the 30 a day FSU figure is mainly threatening violence to their neighbours
And there hangs a strong lesson about angry tweeting, as was intended - don’t urge people on to murder.
Let’s recap: you claimed that people could be jailed for tweeting anything about grooming gangs, and we’ve established that’s nonsense. You quoted the ridiculous FSU figure about 30 people a day arrested for exercising free speech online, and that appears to be nonsense too.
Be very wary of any backdoor into Digital ID. When you substitute governmental for parental authority, don't be surprised when they take your kids (this has actually happened over trans issues). There are plenty of software apps that block content for minors and that can be easily installed on your kids' phones
“Nonetheless, the Act did not pass without controversy. Some argued that the age assurance measures violate adult free speech rights”
It’s unfortunate you all but brushed away the many problems with this legislation as it currently stands. This legislation is “novel” in large part because it is used to silence descent, inconvenient speech, levy fines, and even put people in jail in a country that used to pride itself on free speech. How long do you think until it’s turned on people with whom you identify politically? As for protecting children, how is creating an Orwellian nightmare good for children??
Honestly, I can’t believe that @Jon Haidt recommended this article. You should know better. Poor form.
I’m seriously considered unsubscribing as well. @Jon Haidt is someone I generally respect (which is why I subscribed in the first place), but anyone who believes that this Orwellian legislation is good for society (or for children) should have their head examined. It seems he’s so focused on “The Children” that he’s willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (NPI).
And then to be celebrating the fact that these draconian laws are being exported to other countries…… I’ll stick with @Greg Lukianoff, @theFIREorg & the Free Speech Union.
I’m all for “protecting children” … but part of protecting children means making sure that they inherit a free, democratic society.
it's sad that you actually have to say that you are in favor of "PROTECTING CHILDREN" even if you find what THEY do appaling.
there is so much history about bad things done while claiming "For the Greater Good!"
we in germany had "Zensursula" who was invonved in something similar 20 years ago and after being told that it technically impossible claimed that those people were P themselves or totally incompetent.
"To be clear, the OSA does not give the government the direct power to remove illegal content, nor does it offer the tech companies any general power to curtail speech; indeed, the Act carefully defines harmful content and its categories. While it is reasonable to be concerned that, in practice, tech companies may choose to comply with the OSA by using a “bypass strategy” in which a company removes more content than required to mitigate the risk of legal sanctions, this is not the intention and is not required by the Act. It is a deflection to blame the OSA for such an overzealous approach."
This paragraph is laughable in its simplicity. I really expect better from you guys. Come on Jon. I honestly can't believe you sanctioned this garbage. Far from deflection, critiquing the OSA highlights its structural flaws in balancing safety with speech—flaws that demand reform, not denial.
While the OSA grants no direct "delete button," [which no one argues it does] its fines up to 10% of global revenue for failing to mitigate illegal content compel platforms to act as censors, shifting decisions from courts to corporate risk assessments and driving overzealous moderation. Blaming the OSA for corporate overcompliance isn't deflection—it's recognizing the Act's high-stakes penalties and vague thresholds predictably cause overreach, despite any claimed narrow intent. Compliance costs burden firms with non-recoverable audits and legal defenses, while even First Amendment-protected US platforms face extraterritorial enforcement—Ofcom has fined 4chan for procedural lapses, risking UK access blocks and exporting restrictive standards globally, chilling American speech via unified policies. "Illegal content" definitions, rooted in subjective UK laws like "grossly offensive" communications, invite political influence through judicial and Ofcom interpretation. Though direct fines for legal but "problematic" speech are still emerging, overcompliance already restricts legal news, forums, and music via algorithmic flags, with child safety probes pressuring removal of edge-case content to avoid penalties.
Another example of how this blog’s comment section is dominated by American libertarian and anti-woke views. The rest of the world’s Overton window on this tradeoff (safety vs speech) is quite different than in the United States.
In my opinion, many of the US freedoms have become a suicide pact. Under the goal of freedom of speech, you’re allowing predatory tech companies to basically ruin society and everyone’s mental health.
You may find those of us in the rest of the Anglosphere pathetic in our willingness to submit to government, but like, for me as a Canadian, I kind of just … trust the government? It’s a very different tradition from the United States. Neither one is “right” per se, just different.
"Another example of how this blog’s comment section is dominated by American libertarian and anti-woke views. "
You say this like it's a bad thing.
"In my opinion, many of the US freedoms have become a suicide pact. Under the goal of freedom of speech, you’re allowing predatory tech companies to basically ruin society and everyone’s mental health."
Said every censor in human history....just swap in a different topic and "the greater good" has been used to stifle speech for centuries. Case in point: Hitler himself used exactly the same argument....as did Stalin.
"You may find those of us in the rest of the Anglosphere pathetic in our willingness to submit to government, but like, for me as a Canadian, I kind of just … trust the government? "
You'll trust the government as long as it's the government YOU agree with. Now imagine someone you despise and completely disagree with comes into office and now uses these controls against you. It's just a matter of time.
"Neither one is “right” per se, just different."
My point above is why the US (with its 1st Amendment traditions and strong speech protections) is right and everyone else who does not have those protections is wrong [assuming one's goal is a well informed democracy].
Other more authoritarian countries - like those you mentioned - have quite literally sacrificed their rights and their democracies on the alter of "safety" and they will live to regret it. It's just a matter of time.
I don’t think we will live to regret it! And frankly I think my quality of life is better in my authoritarian hellhole of Canada than in the Land of the Free. But we’re clearly going to have to agree to disagree here.
I don’t even harbour any ill-will against Americans for their views, the world is a better place having a nation that bends more toward libertarianism and individual freedom than most others.
It’s certainly led to a vibrant private sector in the US and lots of scientific discoveries etc. that benefit the world.
I just find it funny when Americans think that they’re better than everyone else. Like, there are real political debates in other places, too, and in many of these places, society has decided to come down on a different balance of freedom vs collectivism. They are still healthy democracies!
And this article reflects a perfectly normal median viewpoint in the UK or many other places. It’s only Americans that are so annoyed at this article being published that they’re threatening to unsubscribe.
If you'd like to study more about why even this level of censorship will likely ultimately backfire (and to see why giving up speech rights today will come back to bite later), I strongly suggest you google the "Weimar fallacy."
"I don’t think we will live to regret it! And frankly I think my quality of life is better in my authoritarian hellhole of Canada than in the Land of the Free. "
Canada is a great place to visit sure, but given the amount of time I spend in both countries, I'll have to disagree with you there.
But, back to the point. I never said "Americans are better than everyone else" ... I said our 1st Amendment jurisprudence is superior - bar none - vs. the rest of the world. Bar none.
" in many of these places, society has decided to come down on a different balance of freedom vs collectivism. They are still healthy democracies!"
I'd argue that's an illusion and they are living on borrowed time. Again, censorship of your political enemies works great (and as you say, you're quite happy about it) ... as long as you are in charge. Once that changes, you see how quickly your tools of oppression can be turned on you.
You simply can't have a "healthy democracy" - not in the long term - without free speech. The two go hand-in-hand - by definition.
"And this article reflects a perfectly normal median viewpoint in the UK or many other places. It’s only Americans that are so annoyed at this article being published that they’re threatening to unsubscribe."
I think you overestimate the acceptance people have of censorship. Case in point: the only other person who mentioned unsubscribing in this whole thread is from Germany..who said "Instant unsubscribe" .... I'm also not sure sure it's as "median" as you suggest, otherwise the article itself wouldn't go out of its way to defend this draconian law. Perhaps you're buying the illusion?
As I've noticed as well. On the Continent too. It amazes me that in the free world people need to use VPN's to see content. I was in Europe a few weeks ago for a meeting and even basic news sites were disallowed. It's like working with my colleagues in China or the Middle East who need to use a VPN to even have a meeting (let alone, visit a collaboration site). And by doing so, they risk getting caught. Just wait until European governments start targeting VPN users as well. It's just a matter of time. These are clearly some scary times! I just can't believe the subset who are willing to go along with it "for the greater good."
Of course history shows that these censorship regimes just don't work and they ultimately backfire. Just google the "Weimar fallacy" for more info.
Why does it seem that your urge to promote awareness of negative impacts of tech, especially for kids, has twisted you off on an authoritarian detour? Have you checked your moral foundations and how these apply?
Unfortunately, with such large penalties imposed on companies failing to uphold the law, social media companies being over-cautious in censoring is a feature, not a bug, of the bill.
For example, without a VPN, UK citizens can no longer access certain websites like Imgur and legitimate posts are censored out of fear of penalties.
What is the objective standard for “hate?” What is the objective standard for “stigma?” What are the political incentives for governments to abuse this censorship/punishment power? The third question is already being illuminated. The first two can never be answered.
Uh no. She may have started with a sensible good intent but a monster was created instead, to the extent that “free speech” is virtually non-existent in the UK today, up to and including imprisonment for “wrong speak”, even “wrong think”.
Letting the camel’s nose under the tent of freedom of speech, association, the press, etc. has turned the UK into a veritable dystopian regime.
The quest to make life "safe" above all else, aka safetism, is a paranoid, stifling world view. And when forced by government, is another kind of totalitarianism.
If you think the internet, and more generally free speech, is not safe for your kids--or for you--then please stay away.
Gotta disagree with you. I don't think Americans and OSA opponents misunderstand the Online Safety Act and its free speech implications at all. In fact, I think OSA opponents understand the threat the Online Safety Act presents to free speech even better than you.
I'm open to being corrected on this. Perhaps you'd care to explain why the first thing the UK did when OSA powers went live was to threaten U.S. citizens with jail time for exercising their First Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights?
The Online Safety Act only relates to content available to UK users. All governments will want to retain control of their sovereignty in terms of their own citizens, even the USA, as losing that would create an online world operating entirely outside the rule of law. Even in the US, there are a some constitututional limits on free speech e.g. Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton allows age verification for adult content. So foreign operators have the option to block access to UK users, and not be subject to UK laws, or continue to serve the UK market but do so legally. Ofcom's powers against those who remain non-compliant and accessible to the UK are to require payment services and other critical business support services to withdraw from supporting such sites, which will not require any involvement of the US courts.
Incidentally, Section 22 of the OSA creates a duty on user-to-user services to protect freedom of expresssion - the UK's new digital First Amendment. And the Act seeks to protect children from content that tells them how to kill, harm or starve themselves, but in no way censors this for adults.
The Online Safety Act purports to have the power to dictate to Americans how Americans configure U.S. servers on U.S. soil, which is protected speech and conduct under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Section 22 of the OSA is nothing like the First Amendment, and comparing it to the First Amendment is a slur on the First Amendment. The First Amendment means the government doesn't call balls and strikes on content. It definitely means that the government doesn't get to threaten people with arrest for not confessing how they do or don't comply with content mandates.
Section 22 OSA is a license for the government to interfere when companies are "over-moderating" in a manner that makes the government look bad. I would suggest taking a basic remedial course in constitutional law.
Thanks also for this very helpful veiled threat to target Americans with business disruption orders. As you represent the UK's age verification industry trade group, I'll be clipping this reply and forwarding it directly to Congress so I can illustrate to our elected representatives exactly what we're up against.
Congress should consider carefully the precedents it wishes to set. Does the US government want to give carte blanche to overseas websites to behave outside the rule of US law when engaging with US citizens in the USA?
The UK's democratically elected Parliament has passed laws that reflect the wishes of its people, just as the US Congress and Constitution reflect the wishes of the Amercian people. Democracies should have mutual respect for one another's choices about how to regulate their own society. The UK is not seeking to control the access of American children to information on suicide and self-harm - only to UK minors. Congress remains in control of what US kids see online and seem likely to take further action of their own.
Fortunately, Congress answers to the American people, and not to UK trade bodies whose members' financial interests depend on getting the world to censor the Internet.
The UK is free to do what it wants on its island. The UK is not free to control Americans, particularly where the exercise of that control would infringe rights secured by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution - a document which not even our own government is permitted to violate on our soil without consequence. That is, at the moment, what the UK is attempting to do.
The UK has threatened Americans with ruinous fines, arrest, and imprisonment for engaging in activity that is not only lawful, but explicitly constitutionally protected in the United States.
Moreover, the UK's enforcement tempo established very early on that it was not content that was "harmful to children" but political speech that was in the OSA's crosshairs, as evidenced by the fact that 4chan - one of the most popular websites in the world, which operates perfectly lawfully in America and complies with federal child protection law and law enforcement data requests - was the Act's first major social media target.
At the end of the day, the UK will not be able to enforce the OSA in the United States without the cooperation of U.S. courts - cooperation it will never receive, due to our constitutional doctrines. The important conversation in this matter is happening not in London, but in Washington, D.C., and the one question that needs answering is for how much longer the United States and its government will tolerate America's closest ally attempting to destroy the U.S. Constitution and violate Americans' civil rights.
I get suspicious when people talk about banning 'hate speech'. As a gender-critical feminist I was locked out of old Twitter for saying that men couldn't be lesbians. Yet look at the abuse directed at JK Rowling. Is that not hate? 'Hate' is too subjective to be a proper subject for legislation.
Respectfully, the Online Safety Act does not protect children at all. Anyone who thinks that is foolish, and believes the propaganda.
Children are very clever. They know what VPNs are, and often, they know a workaround or two on almost every aspect of life.
This law is a massive invasion of private citizen's privacy, and has already been shown to have data breaches from many 3rd party "verification" platforms.
So, again, respectfully, please do more research, because this reads like Government propaganda.
Pre-implementation: “it’s for the children”
Post-implementation: every adult who complains online about grooming gangs gets arrested
The UK Government has more work to do to regain the trust of it's constituents.
But the UK government thinks it has more work to do to regain control of its subjects (not citizens).
Therein lies the problem. From what I've seen, it looks like people are waking up, and putting in the work to let them know who works for who. It's a long journey, but keep at it!
Exactly. Or, those who express their love of bacon, or wave the King George flag.
American attitudes toward freedom from government are a big part of why Silicon Valley has been allowed to run roughshod over everyone’s mental health, children’s development, all of our privacy, etc.
The rest of the world doesn’t have these same attitudes. Canada and the UK don’t have American-style freedom of speech laws; we generally believe that such freedoms may need to be diminished or abrogated to solve other pressing societal goals.
The US First Amendment, in my opinion, has become a suicide pact for your country (and unfortunately for the rest of us too) when it comes to what the unregulated, profit-driven internet is doing to individuals and society.
Edit: a specific example, the idea that it’s better that every single adolescent boy have unlimited access to incredibly depraved porn if it means adults don’t have to show ID to access it. Or that everyone should have the freedom to gamble away their family’s money on sports betting, seamlessly from their living room, because freedom, right?
1) I'm not American, but thank you for assuming
2) Parents play a role in this, and should, more than Government.
Okay, so maybe you’re British or Canadian or German. If you are, your post here shows that your views are closer to the median American view and probably quite a bit closer toward “speech” on the speech-vs-safety tradeoff than the median in your own country.
We had a Reform Party here in Canada that represented such views. They rarely won elections. That party got merged into our federal Conservatives, and they still don’t win elections.
You’re not “wrong” in your views, there are no right or wrong answers here, just personal morals and beliefs. Just speaking on behalf of broad national averages.
It largely comes down to whether a person trusts Big Brother and the Nanny State. I don't. And even if a government was trustworthy and not self-serving, that says nothing about the next group that takes power.
My government isn’t Big Brother or the Nanny State, but maybe yours is! That might be why you’re a Radical Individualist where I believe in the power of the state to solve common problems, and generally trust my federal and provincial governments to do so.
Funny. I would have said that Canada is FAR more Big Brother, Nanny State totalitarian than the USA. You do understand that government control of education, healthcare, housing, communications, and retirement is totalitarian, don't you?
I'm not real fond of our own federal government.
Throwing the term "Radical" around without gaining the proper context of the individual is both irresponsible, and immature.
I'm sorry, but because a person doesn't agree with you fully, does not make them radical.
This isn't a speech vs safety argument, however, this is a privacy vs control debate.
With that framing, I would never opt to have a Government control any aspect of my life, unless it was actually required for actual safety.
In this case, and in Canada as well as Australia, this is a massive overstep by the Government, and it's actually shown that it's to the detriment to grown adults safety and privacy via the various data breaches that have already happened with third parties who are implementing the ID verification.
These are steps taken by a Government who don't truly understand the impact of what they are doing, but are virtue signalling in an effort to gain control of, censor, and intimidate the population.
It has zero effect on the safety of children, akin to how the Canadian Governments' Gun Ban/ Buy Back Plan does on crime. They're aiming at the wrong target, and not using the tools they already have. They choose to attempt to gain more control for other reasons.
The government is stepping in because parents won’t step up.
Won't, or can't? That's a very serious question.
When you push a populous into economic decline, and cause the average person to work more than one job in order to make ends meet, or have both parents working 1 or more jobs, that's the economy.
I think if you asked 2 parent families if one parent would stay home to raise their kids (whichever parent they choose), I also believe that they would choose to do that.
I don't think it's a matter of "won't", I think it's a matter of "can't", and again, that comes back to Government activity leading to societal and economic decline.
Won’t. Parents are one hundred percent the problem here. Who pays the phone bill? Parents.
Also, family computers and devices. When parents work 80+ hours per week, they are tired, kids are a lot of work. It can be awesome, and it's definitely stressful, and I don't blame any parents who want a break.
Devices, for most parents, are a fact of life for mental health, and on the flip side of the coin, they shouldn't have to work as much as they do, so that they can put more quality time into their kids, but the fact remains that for more than 90% of families in Western economies don't have that option.
If it comes down to the difference of having an extra 30 mins to sleep, or gather your thoughts, most parents will take that, and in the long run, it sounds bad, but it's the right choice.
Just curious, are you a parent? Not judging, but just curious, based on your perspective.
It takes a village?
Are you a parent? If so, are you happy to give your kids over to the state?
“Canada and the UK don’t have American-style freedom of speech laws; we generally believe that such freedoms may need to be diminished or abrogated to solve other pressing societal goals.”
Despite the fact that this is the oldest and most debunked cliche against free speech ever made and completely untrue, I would posit any “pressing societal goal” which requires you to legally punish people for their speech and opinions is probably one not worth attaining.
💯
Sure. The collective is more important than the individual.
Where have I heard that before, comrade?
I know, right?
It reads like propaganda because that's exactly what it is.
That's what I think, too.
Precisely!
I know, right? It's a cautionary tale for America, NOT a role model!
This is a pretext for a digital ID. I can’t believe I used to subscribe to this Substack.
Jonathan Haidt is a Bilderberger and has been making the rounds on alt-right media pushing online child safety lately.
Gerard, I hear your concerns especially knowing the strange "vibe" in the UK and I don't exclude that some badfaith actors may use children protection to obtain other goals, but the entire issue is that with the internet an artificial space was created where adults (weirdos included) from everywhere in the world and children are together and that is not ok in a civilized society. Big Tech are intentionally creating extreme polarization to ensure we don't stop this crazy idea that they decide, THEY, not parents/school/Government, what kids should be exposed to, what social interactions they should have, what experiences they should make at what age... THIS IS VERY WRONG. At least we can agree on that ?
Here's the problem with your argument.
Social Media | Parents | Kids
In that order. Parents should be allowed to be present in their kids' lives, and in doing so, parents have a responsibility to their kids and protecting their mental health from things like social media.
The big tech groups are corporations. Fiduciaries, in fact, and their responsibility is to maximize value for shareholders. While they don't explicitly target children, there is no way for a child to access social media, if the parent is present, educational, and involved in their children's online behaviours and experiences.
Parents have the power and responsibility to be between social media and their children. Economic issues have driven that to a very difficult position.
Companies that have distributed all this hardcore pornography to teenage boys should be shut down and their executives imprisoned. They wrecked the culture. Insane.
I think an easier solution for enforcement would be to make website algorithms a licensing issue. If you, or your company use an algorithm to collect, analyze and distribute data online, you should have to apply for, qualify, and stay within specific guidelines to maintain that license, which could be revoked at any time if a Government deems that it's become harmful to their citizens.
Part of the issue is that Governments have turnover. These large tech companies will gladly lay low when needed, in order to wait for the next candidate who is friendly to get into power, or lobby the Government for concessions.
If citizens want change, I think a starting point might be to classify websites as algorithm enabled, and analog. Analog will hurt discoverability, and licensing around using an algorithm could help keep companies in line.
It could potentially, reduce revenue from larger platforms by taking away their ability to use targeted advertising, which is a massive revenue generator for them, while also encouraging users to stay within the guidelines, as they don't want to lose creator revenue.
We could also have a referendum on banning modern internet porn. Like, it’s not on Youtube, so it’s obviously doable with a few lines of code.
It's definitely a problem on social media, with accounts being taken over with nefarious intent. I'd love to see better controls over that.
A referendum puts power to the people, which I like, but I'd also like to see the Government stay out of the conversation, and give the citizens a deadline to submit their pros and cons on specific actionable items before tying it to legislation. Unfortunately, it seems near impossible for that to happen on a level playing field.
I trust people to come up with appropriate and helpful solutions, but unfortunately I also trust Governments to mettle and grab power where they can, to the detriment of people who actually want to improve their country.
Yes, smart people who understand this stuff and act are appreciated. So many of us dummies and simple people were brutally abandoned to clever internet predators. There is a lot of elitism behind the blindness that allowed these problems to proliferate for decades to mild rebuke or enthusiastic applause.
But the great enraged and degenerate masses are lurching towards violence now. Common sense should have told us not to raise boys this way.
Meanwhile, the experts are bewildered at all the angry dysfunctional young men.
Legislating the internet is very difficult, and every smart alec and their cousin has lined up to take a pop at the OSA. The worst of them, with an agenda to pursue, claim that it’s about control and censorship.
Have you actually read the article above.
I have. And, I've read the legislation, and followed it through Parliament.
Have you?
No, I don’t make a habit of reading primary legislation, it’s about as comprehendable as machine code. And I’m surprised that as a real estate entrepreneur and dad you have the time and the ability to do that. Where did you gain your legal skills?
It's a responsibility that I have to the people who work for me, in addition to being a present parent.
I take it seriously, as people's income and well being rely on it, and so, it's an important part of my role as a brokerage owner to protect the industry against invasive legislation, and engage PACs and lobbyists with pertinent information.
I've been doing that for nearly 15 years.
When things matter, you find time to get the work done.
Seems like the UK could of saved a lot of time, money, and liberty by passing a 1-page bill that said: “Hey, parents. Don’t buy your kid(s) a fucking smart phone!” and all of us would be better off.
Lol, I'm not against it. I think we all could use a break.
I'm old enough to remember a time when we "had to go to the internet" rather than having it with us all the time.
The dynamic was different, and I didn't hate it. Priorities changed around what you wanted to do online, and coincidentally, a lot of us did stuff like this.
Conversations, debates, message boards.
Times were good.
By the same logic, locks on doors are completely ineffective, because one can simply buy a lock picking set.
You don't need to buy a VPN, so no, it would be a different logic.
Fair, yet how many use it in practice? VPN searches surged 18x after the law passed, but that’s likely on a very small base of users.
The goal of many (most?) public policies is to increase or decrease friction for certain behaviours, not to prevent it outright (nearly always impossible). There is a big difference between a 12 year old being able to simply search for porn on a whim, and having to go through the multi-step process of setting up a VPN.
I think you're overestimating the difficulty of using a VPN, most, once setup, start automatically by default on reboot.
It's hard to track usage, because VPNs don't have to report usage to Government bodies.
With that being said, there are laws and procedures in place to protect children online that are effective when used. These Governments are choosing not to use them.
This legislation is about control.
My experience with VPNs is I couldn’t get one to work, I didn’t know about free ones, and I’d be wary of trusting them. One data point.
In any case, I’d be curious to hear about the alternative policy solutions.
Tristan, I don't know who you are, or what your background is, but VPNs are dead simple, and if I played dumb and asked most kids to connect it for me, they would have no trouble. Most are single button clicks, so, personally, I don't feel like your explanation checks out.
I also don't think kids think or care about whether the software they use is trustworthy. It's a means to an end for them.
The alternative policy is that the Government enforces existing legislation, as noted multiple times above. The fact that they don't, when the guidelines and tools exist, further demonstrates that this new legislation is about control and censorship.
Most children *do not* know what a VPN is, nor how to install and use one. Your assertion shows and undermines your agenda.
For the purposes of the legislation in place, children are people under the age of 18. As a parent, I will tell you, yes they do.
If you talk to kids, you may find yourself surprised.
If it only protects those who can’t suss a VPN, and that includes almost everyone up to the age of 14, that will be a massive achievement
Again, I think you'd be surprised what kids know. And also again, that doesn't make kids safe.
The Online Safety Act, and the Online Harms Act (in Canada) is so incredibly filled with holes, that it expressly demonstrates that this is specifically a censorship and control piece of legislation.
The UK Government specifically has also shown that it doesn't have the appetite to pursue crimes against children.
There are already many tools in place to protect children, and pursue those who pursue children, and unfortunately, the countries who have these tools are choosing not to use them.
These new laws are about control and censorship, plain and simple.
I just wish UK would protect children in the streets
Respectfully, the "get arrested for tweeting about groomer gangs" bill is not where you want to place your bet on policy.
Yes, just think about all those people who have been arrested for tweeting about grooming gangs. Name one?
Lucy Connolly was the first example that came to mind
https://freespeechunion.org/conservative-politicians-wife-to-appeal-sentence-for-online-incitement-to-racial-hatred/?v=7885444af42e
They use "inciting racial hatred" as the specific claim
Arresting 30 people per day right now, few who are willing to go public
FFS she wasn’t tweeting about grooming gangs, she was inciting a mob to burn people alive. And the 30 a day FSU figure is mainly threatening violence to their neighbours
, they’re not free speech heroes.
"insighting a mob" by angry tweeting after 3 girls were stabbed
And there hangs a strong lesson about angry tweeting, as was intended - don’t urge people on to murder.
Let’s recap: you claimed that people could be jailed for tweeting anything about grooming gangs, and we’ve established that’s nonsense. You quoted the ridiculous FSU figure about 30 people a day arrested for exercising free speech online, and that appears to be nonsense too.
Where would you like to go from here?
I gave an example off the top of my head and you said that person did deserve jail for her angry tweets, actually. So I know where you stand
Get out of your echo chamber and just google.
Be very wary of any backdoor into Digital ID. When you substitute governmental for parental authority, don't be surprised when they take your kids (this has actually happened over trans issues). There are plenty of software apps that block content for minors and that can be easily installed on your kids' phones
💯
“Nonetheless, the Act did not pass without controversy. Some argued that the age assurance measures violate adult free speech rights”
It’s unfortunate you all but brushed away the many problems with this legislation as it currently stands. This legislation is “novel” in large part because it is used to silence descent, inconvenient speech, levy fines, and even put people in jail in a country that used to pride itself on free speech. How long do you think until it’s turned on people with whom you identify politically? As for protecting children, how is creating an Orwellian nightmare good for children??
Honestly, I can’t believe that @Jon Haidt recommended this article. You should know better. Poor form.
seriously?
instant unsubscribe.
I’m seriously considered unsubscribing as well. @Jon Haidt is someone I generally respect (which is why I subscribed in the first place), but anyone who believes that this Orwellian legislation is good for society (or for children) should have their head examined. It seems he’s so focused on “The Children” that he’s willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater (NPI).
And then to be celebrating the fact that these draconian laws are being exported to other countries…… I’ll stick with @Greg Lukianoff, @theFIREorg & the Free Speech Union.
I’m all for “protecting children” … but part of protecting children means making sure that they inherit a free, democratic society.
it's sad that you actually have to say that you are in favor of "PROTECTING CHILDREN" even if you find what THEY do appaling.
there is so much history about bad things done while claiming "For the Greater Good!"
we in germany had "Zensursula" who was invonved in something similar 20 years ago and after being told that it technically impossible claimed that those people were P themselves or totally incompetent.
Amen 💯
"To be clear, the OSA does not give the government the direct power to remove illegal content, nor does it offer the tech companies any general power to curtail speech; indeed, the Act carefully defines harmful content and its categories. While it is reasonable to be concerned that, in practice, tech companies may choose to comply with the OSA by using a “bypass strategy” in which a company removes more content than required to mitigate the risk of legal sanctions, this is not the intention and is not required by the Act. It is a deflection to blame the OSA for such an overzealous approach."
This paragraph is laughable in its simplicity. I really expect better from you guys. Come on Jon. I honestly can't believe you sanctioned this garbage. Far from deflection, critiquing the OSA highlights its structural flaws in balancing safety with speech—flaws that demand reform, not denial.
While the OSA grants no direct "delete button," [which no one argues it does] its fines up to 10% of global revenue for failing to mitigate illegal content compel platforms to act as censors, shifting decisions from courts to corporate risk assessments and driving overzealous moderation. Blaming the OSA for corporate overcompliance isn't deflection—it's recognizing the Act's high-stakes penalties and vague thresholds predictably cause overreach, despite any claimed narrow intent. Compliance costs burden firms with non-recoverable audits and legal defenses, while even First Amendment-protected US platforms face extraterritorial enforcement—Ofcom has fined 4chan for procedural lapses, risking UK access blocks and exporting restrictive standards globally, chilling American speech via unified policies. "Illegal content" definitions, rooted in subjective UK laws like "grossly offensive" communications, invite political influence through judicial and Ofcom interpretation. Though direct fines for legal but "problematic" speech are still emerging, overcompliance already restricts legal news, forums, and music via algorithmic flags, with child safety probes pressuring removal of edge-case content to avoid penalties.
Another example of how this blog’s comment section is dominated by American libertarian and anti-woke views. The rest of the world’s Overton window on this tradeoff (safety vs speech) is quite different than in the United States.
In my opinion, many of the US freedoms have become a suicide pact. Under the goal of freedom of speech, you’re allowing predatory tech companies to basically ruin society and everyone’s mental health.
You may find those of us in the rest of the Anglosphere pathetic in our willingness to submit to government, but like, for me as a Canadian, I kind of just … trust the government? It’s a very different tradition from the United States. Neither one is “right” per se, just different.
"Another example of how this blog’s comment section is dominated by American libertarian and anti-woke views. "
You say this like it's a bad thing.
"In my opinion, many of the US freedoms have become a suicide pact. Under the goal of freedom of speech, you’re allowing predatory tech companies to basically ruin society and everyone’s mental health."
Said every censor in human history....just swap in a different topic and "the greater good" has been used to stifle speech for centuries. Case in point: Hitler himself used exactly the same argument....as did Stalin.
"You may find those of us in the rest of the Anglosphere pathetic in our willingness to submit to government, but like, for me as a Canadian, I kind of just … trust the government? "
You'll trust the government as long as it's the government YOU agree with. Now imagine someone you despise and completely disagree with comes into office and now uses these controls against you. It's just a matter of time.
"Neither one is “right” per se, just different."
My point above is why the US (with its 1st Amendment traditions and strong speech protections) is right and everyone else who does not have those protections is wrong [assuming one's goal is a well informed democracy].
Other more authoritarian countries - like those you mentioned - have quite literally sacrificed their rights and their democracies on the alter of "safety" and they will live to regret it. It's just a matter of time.
I don’t think we will live to regret it! And frankly I think my quality of life is better in my authoritarian hellhole of Canada than in the Land of the Free. But we’re clearly going to have to agree to disagree here.
I don’t even harbour any ill-will against Americans for their views, the world is a better place having a nation that bends more toward libertarianism and individual freedom than most others.
It’s certainly led to a vibrant private sector in the US and lots of scientific discoveries etc. that benefit the world.
I just find it funny when Americans think that they’re better than everyone else. Like, there are real political debates in other places, too, and in many of these places, society has decided to come down on a different balance of freedom vs collectivism. They are still healthy democracies!
And this article reflects a perfectly normal median viewpoint in the UK or many other places. It’s only Americans that are so annoyed at this article being published that they’re threatening to unsubscribe.
If you'd like to study more about why even this level of censorship will likely ultimately backfire (and to see why giving up speech rights today will come back to bite later), I strongly suggest you google the "Weimar fallacy."
Here's an entire discussion on the topic:
https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would-censorship-have-stopped-rise-nazis-part-16-answers
"I don’t think we will live to regret it! And frankly I think my quality of life is better in my authoritarian hellhole of Canada than in the Land of the Free. "
Canada is a great place to visit sure, but given the amount of time I spend in both countries, I'll have to disagree with you there.
But, back to the point. I never said "Americans are better than everyone else" ... I said our 1st Amendment jurisprudence is superior - bar none - vs. the rest of the world. Bar none.
" in many of these places, society has decided to come down on a different balance of freedom vs collectivism. They are still healthy democracies!"
I'd argue that's an illusion and they are living on borrowed time. Again, censorship of your political enemies works great (and as you say, you're quite happy about it) ... as long as you are in charge. Once that changes, you see how quickly your tools of oppression can be turned on you.
You simply can't have a "healthy democracy" - not in the long term - without free speech. The two go hand-in-hand - by definition.
"And this article reflects a perfectly normal median viewpoint in the UK or many other places. It’s only Americans that are so annoyed at this article being published that they’re threatening to unsubscribe."
I think you overestimate the acceptance people have of censorship. Case in point: the only other person who mentioned unsubscribing in this whole thread is from Germany..who said "Instant unsubscribe" .... I'm also not sure sure it's as "median" as you suggest, otherwise the article itself wouldn't go out of its way to defend this draconian law. Perhaps you're buying the illusion?
Got no other argument that insult anyone who disagrees with you? it’s incredibly unpopular here in the UK, and VPN usage has exploded.
Ofcom statistics indicate VPN usage doubled from 750,000 daily user to 1.5m, but this has now fallen back to 1m. So an increase of 250,000.
As I've noticed as well. On the Continent too. It amazes me that in the free world people need to use VPN's to see content. I was in Europe a few weeks ago for a meeting and even basic news sites were disallowed. It's like working with my colleagues in China or the Middle East who need to use a VPN to even have a meeting (let alone, visit a collaboration site). And by doing so, they risk getting caught. Just wait until European governments start targeting VPN users as well. It's just a matter of time. These are clearly some scary times! I just can't believe the subset who are willing to go along with it "for the greater good."
Of course history shows that these censorship regimes just don't work and they ultimately backfire. Just google the "Weimar fallacy" for more info.
Thank you. My thoughts exactly too, from the 🇬🇧
Dear Jonathan:
Why does it seem that your urge to promote awareness of negative impacts of tech, especially for kids, has twisted you off on an authoritarian detour? Have you checked your moral foundations and how these apply?
Sincerely, a long term fan who now has doubts
Because God forbid the parents…. you know, actually parent.
Unfortunately, with such large penalties imposed on companies failing to uphold the law, social media companies being over-cautious in censoring is a feature, not a bug, of the bill.
For example, without a VPN, UK citizens can no longer access certain websites like Imgur and legitimate posts are censored out of fear of penalties.
What is the objective standard for “hate?” What is the objective standard for “stigma?” What are the political incentives for governments to abuse this censorship/punishment power? The third question is already being illuminated. The first two can never be answered.
Uh no. She may have started with a sensible good intent but a monster was created instead, to the extent that “free speech” is virtually non-existent in the UK today, up to and including imprisonment for “wrong speak”, even “wrong think”.
Letting the camel’s nose under the tent of freedom of speech, association, the press, etc. has turned the UK into a veritable dystopian regime.
what kind of citizens permit their woke gov to impose and force Digital ID on them?
No thanks.
The quest to make life "safe" above all else, aka safetism, is a paranoid, stifling world view. And when forced by government, is another kind of totalitarianism.
If you think the internet, and more generally free speech, is not safe for your kids--or for you--then please stay away.
Gotta disagree with you. I don't think Americans and OSA opponents misunderstand the Online Safety Act and its free speech implications at all. In fact, I think OSA opponents understand the threat the Online Safety Act presents to free speech even better than you.
I'm open to being corrected on this. Perhaps you'd care to explain why the first thing the UK did when OSA powers went live was to threaten U.S. citizens with jail time for exercising their First Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights?
Docs are here, if you're interested:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-176508278
The Online Safety Act only relates to content available to UK users. All governments will want to retain control of their sovereignty in terms of their own citizens, even the USA, as losing that would create an online world operating entirely outside the rule of law. Even in the US, there are a some constitututional limits on free speech e.g. Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton allows age verification for adult content. So foreign operators have the option to block access to UK users, and not be subject to UK laws, or continue to serve the UK market but do so legally. Ofcom's powers against those who remain non-compliant and accessible to the UK are to require payment services and other critical business support services to withdraw from supporting such sites, which will not require any involvement of the US courts.
Incidentally, Section 22 of the OSA creates a duty on user-to-user services to protect freedom of expresssion - the UK's new digital First Amendment. And the Act seeks to protect children from content that tells them how to kill, harm or starve themselves, but in no way censors this for adults.
The Online Safety Act purports to have the power to dictate to Americans how Americans configure U.S. servers on U.S. soil, which is protected speech and conduct under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Section 22 of the OSA is nothing like the First Amendment, and comparing it to the First Amendment is a slur on the First Amendment. The First Amendment means the government doesn't call balls and strikes on content. It definitely means that the government doesn't get to threaten people with arrest for not confessing how they do or don't comply with content mandates.
Section 22 OSA is a license for the government to interfere when companies are "over-moderating" in a manner that makes the government look bad. I would suggest taking a basic remedial course in constitutional law.
Thanks also for this very helpful veiled threat to target Americans with business disruption orders. As you represent the UK's age verification industry trade group, I'll be clipping this reply and forwarding it directly to Congress so I can illustrate to our elected representatives exactly what we're up against.
Congress should consider carefully the precedents it wishes to set. Does the US government want to give carte blanche to overseas websites to behave outside the rule of US law when engaging with US citizens in the USA?
The UK's democratically elected Parliament has passed laws that reflect the wishes of its people, just as the US Congress and Constitution reflect the wishes of the Amercian people. Democracies should have mutual respect for one another's choices about how to regulate their own society. The UK is not seeking to control the access of American children to information on suicide and self-harm - only to UK minors. Congress remains in control of what US kids see online and seem likely to take further action of their own.
Fortunately, Congress answers to the American people, and not to UK trade bodies whose members' financial interests depend on getting the world to censor the Internet.
The UK is free to do what it wants on its island. The UK is not free to control Americans, particularly where the exercise of that control would infringe rights secured by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution - a document which not even our own government is permitted to violate on our soil without consequence. That is, at the moment, what the UK is attempting to do.
The UK has threatened Americans with ruinous fines, arrest, and imprisonment for engaging in activity that is not only lawful, but explicitly constitutionally protected in the United States.
Moreover, the UK's enforcement tempo established very early on that it was not content that was "harmful to children" but political speech that was in the OSA's crosshairs, as evidenced by the fact that 4chan - one of the most popular websites in the world, which operates perfectly lawfully in America and complies with federal child protection law and law enforcement data requests - was the Act's first major social media target.
At the end of the day, the UK will not be able to enforce the OSA in the United States without the cooperation of U.S. courts - cooperation it will never receive, due to our constitutional doctrines. The important conversation in this matter is happening not in London, but in Washington, D.C., and the one question that needs answering is for how much longer the United States and its government will tolerate America's closest ally attempting to destroy the U.S. Constitution and violate Americans' civil rights.
I get suspicious when people talk about banning 'hate speech'. As a gender-critical feminist I was locked out of old Twitter for saying that men couldn't be lesbians. Yet look at the abuse directed at JK Rowling. Is that not hate? 'Hate' is too subjective to be a proper subject for legislation.