Silencing Black Lives Matter: Priti Patel’s anti-protest law

I would never say black lives do not matter, because they do. They matter just as much as anyone else. We should all be fighting for ALM instead of concentrating on only BLM is what I mean.

Lol. Seriously?
And what bias is this exactly? You seem to be getting very personal for some odd reason on a supreme lack of a base for it. I have made no comment on it yet other than the observation that you're talking claptrap half of the time. Well, most of the time given these assumptions you seem intent on making for no reason.

I would list the err 'problems' with you but you've done a good job of it yourself already. Aside from a mild insult though was there a point to be made here?

I suggest you crack open your dictionary and reacquaint yourself with the definition of 'buzzword' if you think i used one as opposed to an apt description. Unless you are under the amusing belief that thought policing is but an expression of liberty.
Again, you parade your self described aptitude for history, as well as nominally in politics, yet you havent actually said where it comes from? However, given you seem to have based this tirade on some very strange extrapolations from a supreme lack of evidence i would seriously question any claim on your part to having a solid academic grounding in either topic. Never mind your repeated misuse of words from genocide to fascist and 'gaslighting'.
Better question though, again, what makes you think i support your government? You seem to be under the quaint illusion you know a thing about the views i hold yet you havent made a single correct observation. As any more established member of this site can happily attest, i rarely speak in polite terms of the government. That might fly in the face of your amusing opinion on the matter but hey ho.

This is why the bill was introduced: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54038591
I fully support it.

Shouldn't Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire be stalled for the good of society?

No, freedom of the press should not be done away with "for the greater good".

No, freedom of the press should not be done away with "for the greater good".

The Tories don't even support free press.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/03/political-journalists-boycott-no-10-briefing-after-reporter-ban

Plus. Guido, Telegraph, Express, Daily Mail, Sun, Talk Radio, Spectator are no more than propaganda distributors for the state and Tories are trying their best to use this as peer-pressure against the BBC in order to also transform it into a state propaganda distributor.

I wouldn't quite call them state sponsored media but they are leaning that way.

It's not being done away. There's no state implication to say remove press/media credentials. It's merely individual members of a society disrupting what is quite literally state propaganda. That's not freedom of press that's supremacy of state misinformation against a greater utility of good. We've hyper-normalised propaganda in this country and this is a dangerous place to be. If it's not corrected in any way say via way of a: 'Leavson Two' then we're just going to overtime similar to something like Hungary where the state control and dictate the press/media therefore public perception to a large extent when it comes to influencing elections or again diving/conquering. If you don't believe me look into the history of press/media landscapes in it, Poland, India and Brazil. Similar to Hungary which sate now practically owns the Supreme Courts Tories have been going round calling Supreme Court Judges: 'Lefty do-gooders.' In addition to outright showing contempt for checks n' balances altogether with unlawful prorogation of Parliament as well as silencing people working within Civil Servants.

Boris Johnson threatened to remove Chanel 4's press credentials for hosting a climate debate with him choosing voluntarily to not be there and hamulating his think skin placing a ice statue in his stead.

Well as you point out the lines are getting increasingly blurred and we certainly shouldn't wait to find out cause that's how countries succumb to hyper-normalisation. Also we've gone systemically backwards a lot if a crime bill written by a woman can't even mention women once throughout all of its 163 pages. This is just a tenant of fascism. Fascists view femininity and along with feminists movements as a weakness therefore the strength and power of the state can only be protected via a masculine approach to society which potentially would fall under these points by Umberto Eco.

1. "The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”

10. "Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

12. "Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”

Freedom of the press is not conditional on whether some members of the public think that they are producing distorted nonsense, just as the right to freedom of speech is not conditional on the accuracy of one's views. I think in both cases, freedom is a good heuristic for achieving maximum "utility of good" as you put it. Of course, extreme authoritarians believe that they can maximise utility without freedom - after all, if people are free, they will sometimes make the wrong choices. You seem to be objecting to the idea of whichever political party is currently in power influencing public perception through the press - but isn't this simply what campaigning is? Mayoral candidates write columns for mainstream newspapers, political advocacy groups run their own newsletters/papers etc. A working democracy depends upon the free flow of argument and information.

This is such an appallingly weak argument. The fact that fascists are anti-feminists does not mean that anti-feminists are fascists. The three tenets you have mentioned above apply to a wide range of right-wing ideologies.

Nor is the press free when it's clearly capitulating and or working in tandem as a state disinformation organ. Again if you want to see the history of how press and media were eventually hollowed into Government mouthpieces look at the media/press history of India, Hungary, Poland along with Brazil. You can deny it all you want but this is precisely how through a process of hyper-normalisation propaganda ends up becoming and treated in equivalent to that of useful information. The problem here is you can't seem to acknowledge that as long as the media and press capitulate to the state due to administered pressure from the working government it's a stretch to say you even live in a functioning democracy anymore. Why do you think I use other examples where this same exact process overtime has occurred? As countless contemporary European studies have shown the UK media and press is on record being one of the lowest in modern history. This never bodes well for the health of the democracy.

The idea that newspapers like The Times and The Guardian publish "state disinformation" is utterly ridiculous. If you have a range of political viewpoints expressed in the press, you can expect some to side with the government and some to side against it.

Explain why it's a: 'appallingly weak argument' instead of just erecting a deontological response that by itself you think equally constitutes a contention. Also yes that's the point Fascism historically and presently is a inherently incoherent idiosyncratic in that as a political force of non-stop religious inconsistency will draw from any or all political movements in order to establish itself as a dominant power against any or all opposition against it. Fascism is the political power of incoherence, exploitation of fears and the hatred of outgroups.

First, please stop using the word "deontological" incorrectly.
Second, you asked for it:

You say "Also we've gone systemically backwards a lot if a crime bill written by a woman can't even mention women once throughout all of its 163 pages. This is just a tenant of fascism."
The implication is that the mere fact that a crime bill doesn't mention women (i.e. is anti-feminists in some sense) indicates that the government is fascist. You back this up by providing three criteria for fascism: traditionalism, elitism, and disdain for women and nonstandard sexual habits.

My argument is that each of those criteria are also met by reactionary ideologies. Reactionaries are very traditional, want to maintain social hierarchies, and are socially conservative. Yet, reactionaries and fascists are violently opposed. Fascists are militantly anti-establishment (populist) and want violent revolution leading to national rebirth. Reactionaries are avowedly pro-establishment. The fact that reactionaries are one of the main opponents of fascism can be seen in the anthem of Mosley's Fascists, which include the words:

'gainst vested powers, Red Front, and massed ranks of reaction,
we lead the fight for freedom and for bread.

Vested powers = owners of capital (heavily implies Jews in particular)
Massed ranks of reaction = Reactionaries
Red Front = Communists

Traditionalism, elitism, and social conservatism are components of a wide range of right-wing and conservative ideologies. (American Conservatism, High Toryism, One-nation Conservatism...)
The idea that opposing feminism in any way indicates fascism is simply ludicrous.

Again Fascism has no consistent ideology it's idiosyncratic and historically has always defined itself as a force as anything that's deemed: 'politically expedient.'