Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted 'Extremists' From Social Media, TV, Events
from the police-state dept
Theresa May, the current UK Home Secretary, has announced that, if re-elected, her party (the Conservatives) will push for "extremist disruption orders" which would effectively ban people declared "extremist" (using a very broad definition) from using social media or appearing on TV.Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.The broad definitions here matter. Part of the plan is to make such rules cover a wide variety of groups and individuals, based on what the government "reasonably believes" they may be up to:
They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.
Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.Yes, if the government "reasonably believes" you engage in harassment at some point in the future, it can have you declared an extremist, bar you from TV and public events, and make sure that all your social media posts are pre-reviewed for approval. Supporters flat out admit that this would be done to get people who are currently doing things that are perfectly legal:
The new orders will be part of the Government’s “Prevent” strategy, which tackles the ideology behind the terrorist threat. So-called hate preachers, who currently stay just within terrorism legislation, will be one of the targets of banning orders and Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs).But, of course, things like that imply that it will only be used against "terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers. But, as the details make clear, this expands way beyond terrorism to those who may be involved in other offenses. Big Brother Watch details how environmental groups may be tied up by this:
The fact that these Extremist Disruption Orders won’t only apply to potential terrorists, but simply to those who present a threat to public disorder, clearly highlights that this policy is the thin end of the wedge.What's especially galling is the fact that May is claiming that this is being done in the name of "British values," which certainly suggests that freedom of speech and freedom to associate are, in fact, antithetical to British values. Also, all of this assumes that speech, alone, is somehow dangerous -- despite years of proof that speech by itself is rarely dangerous. However, the suppression of speech often creates more problems.
We were told that the National Extremist Database would contain details of those who posed a nations security, yet we know members of the public who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues are on the database.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, extremism disruption orders, extremists, free assocation, free press, free speech, theresa may, uk
Reader Comments
The First Word
“New term requred
I'm sure everyone here knows what a Godwin is. I'd like to suggest a similar term: an Orwell.An Orwell occurs when a politician or a demagogue or anyone else in a position of putative leadership, someone who should be defending democracy, free speech, civil liberties, etc., issues a statement in which they purport to do so while actually attempting to eviscerate them. This duplicitous strategy is usually premised on a combination of fear (e.g., the Four Horsemen of the Internet) and blind patriotism ("British values", indeed) with the occasional side nod to xenophobia, racism, bigotry or misogyny.
Ms. May has obligingly provided the example du jour, but no doubt others will come to our attention soon enough.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, the good news is that would certainly shut Theresa May up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imprimatur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But in all seriousness I agree with your comment. This is highly subjective and leaves too much room for interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extremism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just 'Murica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just 'Murica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't know how democracy functions
Funny, that. As soon as you are barring people from speaking -- no matter how unpleasant you find the speech -- you are a threat to "the functioning of democracy" yourself. The functioning of democracy requires the ability for people to speak freely, especially unpopular speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They don't know how democracy functions
This is what every person who comes into contact with Ms May should be telling her...and should be how we remember her political career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New term requred
An Orwell occurs when a politician or a demagogue or anyone else in a position of putative leadership, someone who should be defending democracy, free speech, civil liberties, etc., issues a statement in which they purport to do so while actually attempting to eviscerate them. This duplicitous strategy is usually premised on a combination of fear (e.g., the Four Horsemen of the Internet) and blind patriotism ("British values", indeed) with the occasional side nod to xenophobia, racism, bigotry or misogyny.
Ms. May has obligingly provided the example du jour, but no doubt others will come to our attention soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New term requred
Don't forget child porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New term requred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New term requred
It is long overdue to weep for your nation and rise up against the corruption of your lawmakers and leaders and those who blindly follow in their path.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New term requred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New term requred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New term requred
The militia must be called forth to protect the union.
Maybe this is what they meant by "The South will rise again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New term requred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New term requred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New term requred
Godwin's Law states a probability. It is not an event, a "gotcha" type of rhetorical trap, or a counterargument that applies some sort of penalty or disqualification to the opposing speaker. The law itself states:Mike Godwin himself later reworded the law changing "Usenet" to the more general term "online discussion". The purpose of the law[ibid] was to make people realize they were making comparison to the Nazis and Hitler not as a legitimate comparison, but because they had become a meme. People used the archetype of the bogeyman (or devil) as rhetorical hammer. The law was an experiment at making a counter-meme to try and make people see how they were riding the "bandwagon effect" and acting as a vector for bad and abusive methods of rhetoric.
Unfortunately, Godwin's Law itself has become everthing it set out to prevent. It is used to shoot down arguments without really addressing them, and it is used to end discussions. It has shifted into a cheap way of claiming reductio ad Hitlerium (an informal fallacy that is often merely guilt-by-association) without having to actually show why.
While I appreciate the motives in creating a simple way of describing Orwellian language, we should not sink to the levels of rhetoric that Mike Godwin was trying to prevent. Trivializing your opponent or making them into a slogan that can be repeated without thought are techniques used by tyrants to dehumanize their opponents. The fight against modern Orwellian abuses - by definition - must avoid these corruptions of language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New term requred
But if you're proposing an "Orwell's Law", wouldn't the law itself mean the opposite of what it purports to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, these ARE antithetical to British values. Otherwise they wouldn't have things like Speakers' Corners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers'_Corner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wanting to silence someone for their beliefs like this bitch wants puts you on their level, but silencing someone that is trying to silence others is a justice. For this one the devil is definitely in the details.
Kinda like killing someone before they kill you does not make you a murderer and would be the only situation people would approve of you killing someone!
So in short silencing someone trying to silence others is an act of self defense, because they would only come for you next anyways!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The devil certainly is in the detail - especially when you bear in mind that one of the nasty aspects of those whom Mrs May wishes to silence is that they would also silence opposing views, given the chance. You try going to the territory controlled by ISIS and preaching any religion, world view or philosophy other than (their particular brand of) Islam and see if you even survive.
Does that make Mrs May's plan " a justice"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservative
But then again... the terms liberal and conservative have traded hands a few times.
I might be a big conservative, but consider myself more of an original liberal that has not sullied myself with socialist nanny state bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservative
You're talking about Liberalism in the sense of the Radicals, whose descendants in England were the followers of Lloyd George.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strangely familiar
If memory serves, the last time the Brits did this sort of thing, people in Boston started getting crazy and throwin' tea around. Didn't end well, if I recall correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we're IN the end game, now, kampers...
um, hate to break the news, but we're IN one of those times, *now*, and WE DON'T (won't) see it...
*our* children's children will look back and say "how could those idiots NOT see what was happening ?"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we're IN the end game, now, kampers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCK OFF to the Conservatives on Planet Earth !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it's FUCK ON to the Preservatives on Planet Earth.
Hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
England Prevails!
Normally I'd say that anyone incapable of reading doesn't deserve to serve in public office, but in this case, I think we'd all be better off if those in charge didn't read so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This all worked out so well for Hitler!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all worked out so well for Hitler!
It's not 'next' if it's already happened.
Blatant Intimidation: Glenn Greenwald's Partner Detained At Heathrow Under Terrorism Law, All His Electronics Seized
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130818/23060424224/blatant-intimidation-glenn-greenwalds-p artner-detained-heathrow-under-terrorism-law-all-his-electronics-seized.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This all worked out so well for Hitler!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This all worked out so well for Hitler!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This all worked out so well for Hitler!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brits govt are facist nazi pigs
godwin it how you like its not devolving into hitler its BEING as much like him as they can be
that is not godwin's intent to stiffle bad and as the rss says an orwellian dictatorial evil path this will lead.
Pretty easy when its SOME OTHER NATION
but your own
the list grows and even the harper canada govt is trying to drag us into the fascism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brits govt are facist nazi pigs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for a history lesson
The reason the allied forces fought and conquered Germany was simply because Hitler had declared war on all of them. They had no choice. So they figured out what to hate about the Germans and fascism and went into war for it.
But by now, all that they are wary of any more is the swastika which is a bit abstract to focus one's hate on. Oh, and instead of the Jewish World Conspiracy we have Muslim Terrorists. Same skin color and also of Middle Eastern origin. And responsible for all evil.
So in no way Hitler is going to be portrayed as a saint anytime soon. Too many swastikas for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for a history lesson
for example,
1) everyone else in Europe was also insane
2) gotta hate before you retaliate
3) insane dictator might be portrayed as a saint if it weren't for all the hate
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, will Theresa May be banned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masking the voice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, Twitter and Facebook are in the United States, and are, therefore, not subject to British laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just when you think the US has gotten bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How unsurprising...
Laws be damned, anything which goes against some Eton boy's idea of how a good Christian should behave is a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the dead that fought for freedom are rolling over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship - again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not mark them, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kind of thing is why...
I'm also reminded of what Ruth-Anne Miller (the storekeeper on Northern Exposure) said to the visiting English noblewoman:
"We had a revolution to get rid of people like you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laughter is the best counter
How true! When I lived in Seattle, I forced myself to watch neo-Nazis on the city's public cable channel a few times. In addition to being disgusted, I learned something. For many of those involved, the very fact that countries in Europe (such as Germany) try to silence Nazi speech proves both that their movement is right and that Jews really do run the world. Those laws have the opposite effect to that intended.
Ridicule—intelligent and genuinely funny ridicule—would do the genuine extremists far more harm than anything the UK's unimaginative political class might do to silence them with a ban.
This video is a brilliant illustration of that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfR49AuUsW0
G. K. Chesterton offer the same advice. Deal those who want to frighten you, he said, by laughing at them.
--Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Fighting the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great plan: keep the jihadists, just get rid of the free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]