Slashdot Mirror

In the West jailing people for criticising the government would be unpopular, so they find more subtle but equally effective ways to do it. These silence not just bloggers, but journalists too: The easiest of these is libel laws. US Citizens are lucky that their Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but citizens in other supposedly liberal democracies have no such protection.

Libel Law: "In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

The UK defamation bill will do little to stop corporations suing individuals and should include a public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-get-right-defamation-bill

UK Libel reform campaigners demand better public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-campaigners-public-interest-defence

It doesn't affect only bloggers: Even journalists are restricted by what they can say:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

Explanation of UK Libel Law
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

The Australian Journalist's Defamation Checklist: Can you run this story?
http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/defamkit/

And if they report something embarassing to the Government, then it is jail time:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act
http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide4.htm

The government redacted 90% of the recent proposal to snoop on Internet Usage. You would think the public have a right to know, but it's National Security if they say it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

Actually, it's along the lines of "you can take photos in public places, except for some places which we won't tell you about, and if we think you're up to no good" - guidance here. But the courts and MPs have been eroding this power over the last couple of years such that the savvy journo should be able to argue rings around any jobsworth copper trying to lean on them for taking photos.

Unfortunately the rule in the UK seems to be, it's okay for the authorities to monitor us everywhere in public ("no right to privacy in a public place!" they cry), yet should you dare take a photo or video of a policeman, then they'll be demanding you delete it. (I've experienced this myself, for merely taking a photo after the police had decided to detain everyone at Cambridge station for the purpose of drug searching everyone, despite having no cause for suspicion.)

Imagine if a private citizen released one of these drones - I bet they'd be arrested in a moment.

This means, you can be forced to do self-incrimination. What's next? Do we remove the right to remain silent? In dubio contra reo?

This is the UK. They already have removed the right to remain silent in the Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

I'm I the only one who at first misread the second 9 for an 8?

This means, you can be forced to do self-incrimination. What's next? Do we remove the right to remain silent? In dubio contra reo?

This is the UK. They already have removed the right to remain silent in the Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

And here in the UK, we have people blocks, where people are held up just so the police can go on a random fishing expedition with their dog-sniffers. Even though there's clearly not even the argument of the dangers of drink-driving.

In my experience of Cambridge's Strawberry Fair, these resources would predominantly have involved the police doing a fishing expedition in order to catch people with cannabis on them (I experienced this first hand when travelling through Cambridge Train Station that day - even though I wasn't going to the fair, every single person getting off the train that day was detained for about 30 minutes for stop and search for drugs).

Oh man, talk about violations of your 4th amendment rights!!! If the ACLU hears ab.... oh, Cambridge, UK?? Gee, that's too bad what happened there. *shrugs*

Do you have reliable sources that show that raves caused more disturbance than other more publically acceptable forms of entertainment, such as pubs playing loud repetitive beats where people get shit-faced on alcohol? Or are you just reporting the tabloid scaremongering of the time, which was having a moral panic about drugs?

Both have rights but they can't both excersise them fully without restricting the other.

This issue had already long been handled with the correct balance, with laws that cover noise disturbances.

Want to protest that? Then don't say "it shouldn't be illegal". You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it didn't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did. Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good (gets the most people to vote for you).

Um, they did. Thousands of people protested. Perhaps their voice wasn't heard by you, because the tabloids weren't willing to give them a say?

- a neighbour who wants a quiet night, who thinks this law is mad.

How are the good folks in the UK not in the streets about all this?

They did - in 1994, thousands of people protested (one source claims 40,000). Sadly protests don't stop laws (as millions marching against the Iraq War showed) - though I still think it's worth doing out of principle, and for raising awareness.

Although I can't help thinking, thousands protesting laws like this as happened in the 90s seems much bigger than anything that's done now against the various restrictions that Labour have brought in, as you mention. I'd have hoped that the Internet would make organising activism like this easier. OTOH, perhaps the long term effect of laws like this is that it breaks up people's ability and will to organise and protest.

It became illegal about 15 years ago - from TFA, it states Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This basically criminalised raves (which at the time were being demonised from hysteria and moral panicing from the tabloids and the politicians), even if they are held on legal ground.

AFAICT, it criminalises any gathering of over 100 people in a public place where music is played (defined infamously as "sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats"), unless they have obtained the appropriate entertainment licence, but furthermore, any it allows the police to disperse any gathering of 2 or more people if the police think they're preparing a rave, or 10 or more people if the police think they're waiting for a rave.

No evidence, no courts, no right to appeal.

Of course, the police deserve criticism for applying the law in a case that was clearly not in its original spirit, but let's not remember the law they used to do it is broad and draconian. The worrying thing is that the police haven't backed down and acknowledged it as a mistake - they still believe that anything advertised on the Internet as an "all-night party" should be illegal. What is this, a curfew? Telling us when bed time is? Talk about nanny-state - it's like the strict rules my college used to have about parties, where you needed permission, and parties had to be over by midnight.

From TFA, the polic: "far more resources would have been used to police the event". In my experience of Cambridge's Strawberry Fair, these resources would predominantly have involved the police doing a fishing expedition in order to catch people with cannabis on them (I experienced this first hand when travelling through Cambridge Train Station that day - even though I wasn't going to the fair, every single person getting off the train that day was detained for about 30 minutes for stop and search for drugs).

Indeed. It's worse than that - they've also taken to doing random drug searches at places of public transport, where everyone getting off a train that day is detained to be sniffed by a dog. I guess their logic is that because it's only a dog sniff, that doesn't in itself count as an official search (unless the dog barks, in which case you get pulled aside for a proper search). But the problem is that nonetheless people are forcibly detained, and I would be curious to see it tested in court.

I experienced this the other weekend in Cambridge - despite the ridiculous over the top scale of it (I honestly thought there'd been a murder or bombscare, what with police and police tents all over the place, but oh no, it was fishing for drugs), they only had one dog, meaning a 30 minute delay in a queue before I was let out. My experience was similar to this write up of one in 2008. No explanation was given, nor any indication of what law we were being detained under.

The Guardian reports that this sort of thing is becoming common at underground stations too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/31/internationalcrime

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/09/drugsandalcohol

Afterwards I took a photo, only to have an undercover police officer suddenly reveal himself to me, claiming I wasn't allowed to take pictures of him without permission. So to get slightly back on topic, apparently in Britain we have no right to privacy in a public place (whether it's blogging, or indeed CCTV, or indeed getting off of public transport), but for some reason that doesn't apply to the police...

The 1990s - well, as long as you didn't mind that the Criminal Justic Act (1994) came into being. This made it legal for the police powers to stop and search, without any reason, any vehicle or person, and keep DNA from anybody arrested. No right to public demonstrations any more. No right to public gatherings above ten people if the police suspect they are going to go to a party. No right for more than two people to gather together if the police suspect they might organise a party.

Don't forget the Community Charge aka the Poll Tax either.

The 1990s - well, as long as you didn't mind that the Criminal Justic Act (1994) came into being. This made it legal for the police powers to stop and search, without any reason, any vehicle or person, and keep DNA from anybody arrested. No right to public demonstrations any more. No right to public gatherings above ten people if the police suspect they are going to go to a party. No right for more than two people to gather together if the police suspect they might organise a party.

Don't forget the Community Charge aka the Poll Tax either.

Really? Even in the UK?

Not directly, but the police stopped it for him (so that if he fell he wouldn't be killed).

These guys definitely stop traffic though. You'll notice that although the police tend to break up the event, people don't get arrested and people certainly aren't arrested before that've started to protest.

Bob

Ah, I should've said; I'm from the UK. I have the right to a court hearing even for a speeding ticket.

our entire legal system is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and that burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.

Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:

September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

I love (meaning deplore) it when common knowledge is an 'offical secret'. Example, the BT Tower, a 175m tall structure in London was an offical secret until 1994, so it didn't actually exist (Reference)... This is, of course, extremely stupid because it gives an opening for people to be prosecuted over the taking a photo of it if the government of the time happens to have a grudge against that person.

Does no-one remember the Millenium bridge across the Thames? http://www.urban75.org/london/millennium.html
It was opened, closed within two days, then patched.

It's because of the U.K.'s libel laws, which are so restrictive that it's basically illegal to allege (or, apparently, even sell anything alleging) anything negative about a person or organization unless you can prove it in court. We are not legally prohibited from selling it there; that is, I don't think any British censorship board has declared the book to be illegal. But we have been sued for making it available. And people call the U.S. litigious...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/02/amazon_pay s_libel_damages_again (I don't work for Amazon)
http://www.indexonline.org/indexindex/20021219_bri tain.shtml
http://www.urban75.org/archive/news013.html

any suggestions of how I can get a good laptop in the New York area when I am only there for 4 days?

Yeah, it's called Canal Street

Green lights in Japan are more cyan. Certainly not the same green as anywhere I've been in Europe, I don't remember what color they were in US, but I'm pretty sure it was more green than in Japan. The Japanese word for green (midori) just covers a narrower range of green than the English word in my expreience.

The web site and forum are now being used by the community to organise protests and petitions for his return to the force, after he was suspended after allegations of allowing a boyfriend (yes, just to make the story even more juicy for the Press, he was openly gay) to smoke cannabis. He has proved very popular with the populace (a figure quoted on the website is 83% approval), and they are campaigning for his return to the police force.

Read more at the website.

On the humour site, you might want to see the Punch a Celebrity page: although most of them are British, so the non-British may be bemused by these "celebrities"...!

PS Brixton is an area of London (England) in case you didn't know.

The web site and forum are now being used by the community to organise protests and petitions for his return to the force, after he was suspended after allegations of allowing a boyfriend (yes, just to make the story even more juicy for the Press, he was openly gay) to smoke cannabis. He has proved very popular with the populace (a figure quoted on the website is 83% approval), and they are campaigning for his return to the police force.

Read more at the website.

On the humour site, you might want to see the Punch a Celebrity page: although most of them are British, so the non-British may be bemused by these "celebrities"...!

PS Brixton is an area of London (England) in case you didn't know.