Slashdot Mirror
'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police
An anonymous reader writes "A conference on electronic crime, taking place in London this week, has thrown up some interesting news. Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"
Do your research, the BBC is publicly funded but (as the recent debacle proves) is anything _but_ a "government organ."
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
The First Ammendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply internationally..
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Remember, the story refers to the UK, not the USA. Things are different there, government and law struture wise.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Um, you are all aware that Britain doesn't have free speech?
By tradition, speech isn't regulated, but the Government can and does often quash news stories it finds offensive.
Plus, the UK is protected by EU human rights laws, which expressly protect freedom of speech.
I guess the US media was too busy shouting "USA! USA! USA!" to broadcast that particular nugget.
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Which sounds to me like an endorsement of an internet free of censorship.
In practice, most countries violate at least one of these articles.
note also that the uk has the highest number of cctv (surveillance cameras) per capita of any country in in europe by a healthy margin.
add to that the fact that the british legal system seems to be based on the concept of writing broad, generalize laws and letting justice be sorted out by selective enforcement. there's a crime in the uk called "going equipped to commit arson" - carrying matches, basically. the theory is it will only be enforced against those who "deserve" p[ro\|er]securtion.
put 'em together and it looks like britain is dedicated less privacy, and broader criminilazation. not very happy.
2 1337 4 u!
Once upon a time that was true. However the Human Rights Act changed the ground rules and we now do. On the other hand a simple Act of Parliment can take it away again in an instance.
The UK government's final sanction against publication of a story is called a 'D Notice'. This threatens closure of a publication if it publishes the offending article. Note that this cannot prevent the article being published, it just threatens punishment if the notice is ignored.
And the UK government, whilst being comprised of lying sacks of shit, does not "often quash news stories it finds offensive". Please cite some examples if you disagree.
And if our dear Overlord... erm Home Secretary, has his way, then the government will have the right to suspend any law they choose, including the Human Rights Act. So it will only require an 'Act of the Home Secretary' to suspend freedom of speech.
See BBC News here, here, and here
I for one welcome our new Overlord, erm Home Secretary
Libel and Slander are civil torts in most cases. Criminal libel exists in less than half of the states, and is extremely rarely used: Reference . Just remember libel or slander cases and you'll always see "million dollar suits", but never "3 to 5 years".
Yelling in a crowded theater: That is not an actual law, but a Supreme Court decision. Read it, and you'll see that the Justices were extremely reluctant to apply any limits to freedom of speech. The only reason that one stands is because it can cause actual physical damage to someone (that also stands behind the "hate speech" exception).
I don't see how "gross" speech can physically harm someone. And you will agree that this can be the beginning of a slippery slope (remember the "bonsai kittens" thing. There are lots of people who will try and silence all kinds of speeck "for the children").
That's the human-originating form of mad cow disease. Kuru is Crueztfeldt-Jacob disease.
You're probably thinking of Prion based dieseases, which occur when you eat members of your own species. The most familiar prion diesease at the moment is Mad Cow diesease, which came around when farmers started adding ground up cow parts in the feed for their cows to increase their protein consumption.
I read the internet for the articles.
There's more to that than you might think. Cannibalism is a profoundly symbolic act. Warriors ate their enemies to gain the enemy's strength. The Wicked Witch wanted to eat Snow White's heart for the same reason.
Communion in the church is a vestigal remains of this archetypal human behavior; it is the symbolism cut loose from the act. Of course the RC church will say that the host and wine "truly are" the body and blood of Christ, but this doesn't mean they think that the communion wafer turns into meat or that the wine has plasma and red blood cells in it. Indeed they would find this idea revolting. Their position has to be understood in terms of the medieval philosophical doctrine of accidental and esstential properties, which in turn derives from platonic idealism. From a modern positivist standpoint these statements are meaningless. However from a psychological standpoint they are quite potent for the believer.
The act can also be cut loose from the symbolism: e.g. cannibalism in survival situations.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not just members of your own species, actually. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (aka mad cow disease) is thought to have been introduced via ground-up organs (including brains) from sheep infected with scrapie. Scrapie is a wasting disease in sheep that was first described several centuries ago but that has never been known to have been passed on to humans. Once the condition made the jump from sheep to cattle, it also became transmissible to people.
cotodoso
Quoting someone as stating that their problem started with an obsession with pornography is equally fallacious--why should we trust their self diagnosis? Should we not recognize this simply as when the individual first became aware of their problem? If we take into account the subconscious, the reasoning should become immediately clear.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Different culture different values. We have a very recent and narrow definition of freedom of expression - although historically UK law has tried to protect newspapers and the like from most things, and the BBC has generally been protected from government meddling by other bits of law (and mostly by culture and tradition)
...). Its very common for there to be films which are rated "12" in france and 18 in the UK, because they involve people with no clothes on. And unlike the USA there is no real change at the age 18, the state never says "fine you are an adult, nobody committed a crime making this movie, everyone is an adult, *you* decide if you want to watch it". The state always allegedly knows best.
OTOH we don't dump several hundred foreigners on offshore islands and deny them rights to trial (we only do it to a few of them and we let them "leave" back to their original country whenever they wish - which is magnanimous of us given some of them will probably be shot if they do that..)
Except in narrow ways the US doesn't have free speech either - "To copy this CD hold down the... " oops , DMCA can't tell you that.
When it comes to porn and violence on websites thats where they UK really does have its head up its (sorry we can't show that
Since the UK state a) believes it knows best and b) believes that extreme porn and violence sites cause real world problems to occur (which may or may not be true - I've not had occasion to read the literature), its then logical that they believe they should be banning/blocking such material just as they take it off people at customs or stop it in the post if they discover it.
Some people argue that the real test of free speech is your practical ability to say something extremely unpopular without retribution - I don't think the US or UK neccessarily score highly here.
I've heard that there are obscure rules in cannon law to prevent, say, a priest getting really drunk and wandering in front of a bakery and yelling out "THIS IS MY BODY!!!!" and that being a valid transubstantiative event. (Because then you'd have to send in an army of priests to eat all the God in the bakery, you can't just throw it away or anything... :)
2^5