Minister for Digitalism Krzysztof Gawkowski said about the adoption of the Act on blocking illegal content online. The bill is intended to cover 27 prohibited acts. Among the different that seem apparent are those that can be considered at least controversial, i.e. those that will supply an chance for abuse, thanks to any interpretation, tailored to the needs of individual who considers that the content should be blocked. On the another hand, it will be possible to block content that is not consistent with both the political line on home and abroad policy. In a word – only criticism will be allowed, within the framework appointed by the political salon. specified rules will again be adopted in the next adjustment process. This time we are talking about the EU Digital Services Act (DSA).
Smuggling Issues
Rhetorically Gawkowski tries to prove that the bill is intended to supply “security in the network”. He talks about disinformation and illegal content on the Internet. Both concepts are very broad and may have thousands of meanings, which would be an chance to justify it in any convenient situation. Oversee and punish that in this place we mention to Michel Foucault's well-known book, they have 3 different institutions. In most cases it is to be the president of the Office for Electronic Communications. Additionally, there is the National Broadcasting Council and the president of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection. The law besides legalises to order them to block specified content. There are good demands here, which are besides made in the real planet and usually punished. It may be natural to want to block what is actually harmful. In this case, there are criminal threats, accusations to commit suicide, to approve of pedophile behaviour, to accept a man's execution order, to recruit for trafficking in human beings, or to place a photograph of a bare individual without his consent. However, along with these legitimate demands, those who can already supply an chance to abuse the rules are smuggled in.
It's easy to become a fascist or a Communist
In this case, there are at least 3 issues that can be utilized to close the mouth and block the content to those who will not apply the current rhetoric narrative. Invoking hatred can be the first reason to block any critical content, even in the face of countries as heavy protected by mainstream as Israel or Ukraine. All criticisms of Israel frequently affect allegations of anti-Semitism, and recalling that flagism is promoted in Ukraine besides means often, many say, that it calls for hatred against Ukrainians. All right criticism can so be qualified as this prohibited act, now commonly known as "the hive". Another issue that can be utilized as an excuse to censor content is the promotion of totalitarian ideology. Here, too, we see a wide scope of different subjects that could be considered undesirable. After all, just writing about the affirmative pages of the Polish People's Republic, praising for the heroism of the Red Army or justifying peculiar Military Operations in Ukraine can be considered fit to block due to this allegation. If Janusz Korwin-Mikke caused a immense hysteria by saying celebrated words about the fact that “Hitler may not have known about the Holocaust”, what was considered anti-Semitism, why should not we besides block specified content, as glorifying the totalitarian system? There is besides an insult against national, ethnic, racial or spiritual differences. This includes hatred speech, which can besides be combined with hatred speech.
Nations better and worse
The musical band Proletaryat has a song that includes words: “Which planet does God know more about suffering, which more worthy creatures?”. This reflects the essence of the final issue due to the fact that the net is full of content, in which it calls for war with Russia, defames Russians with primitive content, and thanks to the war with Ukraine, wishes to die both Russians and Ukrainians. In addition to zoological rusophobia, which in fact frequently affects all Russian nations, there is much polonaphobic or anti-Catholic content. The question, then, is whether the legislator will guarantee that polonaphobia and rusophobia are prosecuted online, or whether the request for an order to block content online by individuals, police, prosecutors, KAS, Border Guards will be limited to what is usually done. The “hejt” is frequently pursued against the Ukrainians or “anti-Semitism”, understood very narrowly, frequently involving Jews, and the Palestinians, who are besides Semitic people, are murdered in Gaza.
Priority problem
Gawkowski himself pointed out why this law would primarily serve, as he pointed out that "we request weapons to fight Russian trolls, as strong as the conventional army." He so stated that new law will be useful for this heroic fight. The paradox is that, erstwhile asked how the state was fighting Russian disinformation, after Russian drones violated the airspace, Gawkowski replied that after Russia's provocation, the platforms showed large work in removing content. In this case, you can see the precedence of combating "illegal content". These contents will be considered specified if they are considered Russian misinformation. This will perpetuate the conviction of many Polish citizens that there is no disinformation another than Polish. Secondly, it is besides to be established to see the planet that there are no net trolls another than Russian trolls. But thirdly, the Polish side rejected the Russian proposal, which wanted to talk about drones that flew into Poland, and against which it warned the ally of Russia – Belarus, as confirmed by both Radosław Sikorski and General Kukuła. Speaking of disinformation, Minister Gawkowski may himself be trapped in disinformation if he accuses Russia of something he may not be guilty of. All this absurd situation points to this bill by smuggling certain records, is to legalize censorship in cases that have the interests of the ruling party, but besides to guarantee that no 1 interferes with it in a broader geopolitical context, i.e. in maintaining war rhetoric throughout the region.
Bartłomiej Doborzyński
